The Lyttelton Times. Saturday, April 11, 1855.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 255, 11 April 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. Saturday, April 11, 1855.

Last Wednesday we considered what we conceive to be the equitable claim ot the stockowners of this Province to a readjustment of the rent which they are called upon to pay for their runs under the piesent temporary regulations, which arose out of a compromise between.the terms lai down by the Association in England, an those pointed out by .the interests ot tn settlement. No legislat;on can be ot permanent benefit to the Province which bear hardly upon, any class of the community, more especially when thai class.is one upo which the' prosperity of a' young colony

chiefly depends. Whether the present regulations impose an undue tax upon the pastoral interest or not, is a question which should be carefully considered ; it certainly is not one which can be dealt with* by mere vague and sweeping denunciations of individuals. We presume that this is a question which the Council will enquire into very carefully. As far as prima facie evidence goes it is certainly on the side of the stockowners. They are unanimous in stating distinctly that they cannot make failprofits under existing circumstances at the present rent; and the public ought to have some very strong proofs to shew of their knowledge to the contrary before they discredit the deliberate statement of so large a number of the most respectable settlers in the Province. It is very true that men are prone to be somewhat blinded by selfinterest, but we are not to suppose that all those who understand the question practically should agree to deceive the public. They have made their statement; they have a right to ask, if that statement is doubted, for proofs of its inaccuracy. As yet we have not seen any advanced, We have only seen an unwarrantable assertion that the proposed Government regulations were framed under the influence of personal interest. The only "fact that the (public is aware of is this—that the stockowners %vithin the Canterbury f block are paying ntarly three times as much rent for their runs as SCOCKUWuera iv «juyr uCiTv* "_■«*» «v* I New Zealand.

Now let us turn to the probable effect that the proposed change would have upon the Revenues of the Province. And in doing so we will lay aside altogether the consideration of the effect^ exercised indirectly upon the public Purse by the pros-, perous or unprosperous condition of the wool-growing interest. The Canterbury Standard [estimates — : if so vague a guess can be called an estimate—that the directloss to Government will amount to €3000 or £4000 per annum. On what data this decrease in the Revenue is calculated we are at a loss to conjecture. As far as we can learn, the gross Revenue arising from Pasturage rents for the] ensuing year would amount to about £4000. Out of this sum must first be deducted the-New Zealand Company's fourth. Now granting that the proportionate share of the expenses of the Land-Office incurred on - account of the Pasturage of the Waste Lands will jbe the same as that at present incurred, there will be but £3000 left to divide between the General and Provincial Governments. So that according to the present terms the probable revenue available to the Province would be about £1500,; whereas the Standard estimates the mere loss at.about £3000 or £4000. This vagueness is jnot to be wondered at when we fiud the Standard stating elsewhere that the Government proposition is one which deprives the colony of half its income. The public must have been startled to hear of its extreme poverty.

If we take the probable direct loss to the Provincial i chest by the new regulations at about one half of the present revenue, it would amount therefore to from £700 to £800. Of course, the exact amount of the pasturage rents for the ensuing year cannot be accurately fixed, but the rJbove calculation is as near as we can get at it. It will serve at any rate to shew that vague statements in round numbers ought to. be taken with extreme caution.

It must be remembered that as much as is lost to-the Provincial chest is taken from the General chest, and put into the pockets of Industrious settlers of our own province, and.that this sum will be thus spent more directly to the advantage of this settlement than it wouldbe by falling into the hands of the general government,.'"who will, as it

is, reeeiye by far too large a proportion of our Wastis Lands r Revenue. A further sum will be taken from the amount payable on account of the unjust claim of the New Zealand Company, and will- be retained in this Province. When we consider that by the reduction of the rent we shall be doing justice to-a most important class in our community, the producers of our Staple export, and taking a burden off their shoulders which was unavoidably and/re-luctantly-imposed, we shall find that we shall be gaiqers instead of losers by the proposed Pasturage Regulations;

We felt bound; on Wednesday last to take notice of the -remarks made upon the subject of thela!nd question by the ■ Canter, bury r »S?awc^r<^77lt is to be regretted that a Journal so respectably conducted should have thought fit to charge-honourable men with so odious /an imputation as that of jobbingin their public eapacity/irierely on the grounds of its/differing iriOpinionfrom them. Therei is a very 7 wide difference between attacking/the public conduct of an officer, arid his privaite character^ unlessi there are ve^;strong7gi-oiinds for believing that the former is influenced by the latter. Our contemporary will scarcely be prepared to say 7 that this is the. case in the present instance.f ThaA i^e StamidrdwlAi often differ from us; on public/ questions iscertain; We hope however that the Journals of this Province may argue questions of public interestTvyithT^ut being led into the ; acnrnonious^t^^~_. rings which have too: often disgraced the columns of our Colonial Press; 7 7: v