The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 273, 13 June 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, June 13. RxraoTrßs are afloat that the land regulations as they have come out of the ordeal of Committee, willu'ndergo great alterations on re-committal. There is one question connected with the pasturage' regulations which we hope will above all others be reconsidered ; it -is one of the most vital importance, but which was nevertheless passed

over in a comparatively cursory manner. We do not mean to say that there was no talk about it; for the loquacity of the Council bids fair to become .proverbial;— but it was not considered 5n J-he very serious light in which it reall^ptands. We allude to the right of pre-emiffton given to i run-holders over portions of tftjeir runs. The Provincial Council agreed to a proposition giving the run-holder a pre-emptive right over 800 acres in 50 acre blocks, on a run of 20,000 acres or upwards, and rejected am amendment making these t blocks 100 acres each. Now there is no donbt but that the stockowner should be protected against the chance of his homestead being bought up oveivhis head without getting a chance of purchasing it himself, it would be extremely advisable that-he should have every facility allowed him of holding a farm out of the land around his improvements when he has lost the whole run. This is what the more reasonable of the stockowners ask for, j not for the power which some who are put forward as their representatives claim for them, which virtually amounts to a power of looking up the whole country at a very small expense to themselves. We have been always inclined to look with a very favourable eye upon the fair request of the squatters to be relieved from burdens which they were not entitled to bear; and when the proposition was first made that the pre- I empiive right accorded to them should be split'up into blocks-of 100 acres each in, extent, we were prepared to acquiesce rather "than see the stockowners deprived of any advantages which might arise from their improvement. Many of the run-holders I considered this a most liberal proposition. j But when"we: see""sbmV'ofI'thißm'''grasp''at' I stilljmorejthan this, — r in fact,jwhen they seem to wish to seize all they v can' get, we confess to being alarmed as much for their own sakes as for that of the public. A reaction must .always" follow upon an ~ advantage pushed too far. So far from objecting to thY grant of a preemptive right to the' stockowners, we should be content that it extended over the whole ,run, provided that i- they should be obliged to purchase- in one, two, or three blocks, around the homestead, ' and'the woolshed or other buildings which are at a "distance from-the home station. In fact, that they should be obliged to make a lona Jide purchase of all they intended to occupy. But what does this - resolution 1 give ? A resolution which must have been i pushed through the Council when most of I our senators were asleep. It gives a power , of picking in sixteen different places out of a run of 20,000 acrea every spot which could make that land available for occupation. Wood, timber, choice agricultural land all would go, and 20,000 acres would be locked up at the,cost of the price of 800 acres. Indeed the probability is, and in this lies the great danger of such a law,1 that the lona Jide purchaser would be kept out of the land without any expense to the runholder. The former would very naturally say, ,? Oh! there is no use in going to such and such a piece of- country. / Those who have been occupying the land for the last 10 years will know how to pick little pieces all ! t over it so as to make it'useless, I can't waste my time for the chance of his leaving |me a few pickings .when his right of pre--1 emption lapses." And so the purchaser j goes away, and the stockowner laughs at I him. This state of things becoming known abroad will prevent the rapid increase of immigration into the country. We are quite sure that the majority of the stockowners would not ask [Tor any such privilege as ha» been aßked"for for them. We hope that before the recommittal of the Regulations the Council will take I into serious consideration the dangerous [ step they have been led into, and endeavour i to retrieve it,

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Time*. ' ■ Mr. Editob—Allow me to remonstrate with , you. Not one piece of local intelligence, Vbarring the advertisements) in your last Saturday's paper! Nothing but extracts from -English papers! Not but that I value English news, and greatly' admire your modesty, "and even thank you for substituting the leader of the London Time* for your own leader,' but still there are some local matters people like to hear of. Small things are great to us. What, for instance, has our Provincial Council been at? Have they done nothing worthy of record P ' I for one, at any rate, should like to lefcw the reasons advanced by these?' amateur squauSrs," Messrs. Bealey and Hall, for their modest demand that they should be allowed to exercise pre-emptive right, the one in acre, the other in fifty acre, blocks. It might be useful to publish these reasons as we outsiders should, be either instructed and\ reconciled, or a| least amused. Again,,what of the estimatWT';lf tliere be one thing that an enlightened constituency takes interest in more than another it is in watching what their representatives do with the public funds ; why they vote this," and why they refuse that. But of this we can learn nothing either from your pages, or from the pages of your contemporary the Standard. This is too bad. It is doing justice neither to us, nor to' our representatives. How cau we judge them rightly, if we do not know how, and why they have spent thejmoney ? You forget that on the way in which our members vote the estimates, depends greatly our estimate of them, for the root of all Public Virtue is Finance. Pray excuse, but listen to this complaint. > I am, Sir, , Your obedient servant, A Subscriber.