The Lyttelton Times. Wednesday, April 30.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 364, 30 April 1856, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. Wednesday, April 30.

The Lnnd of this Province seems; likely to be an estate somewhat difficult and troublesome to manage. The collective wisdom of the country last year, during a very laborious session, compiled a Siiy^estive Bill which was intended to fix: the" price and tenures of tin: Waste Lands. The fiiil became law. This year, immediately upon an nllempt being made to put that/law in motion, it is discovered to be singularly defective in its api^ication to the qiu'sifon of preempuve rights This certainly is a very astonishing discovery, considering the fnct that, no Ifgislative power was resident in the body from whence the bill emanated adequate to dealing with such a matter.. The preemptive rights have already proved* to be a great hindrance \o those sales of land which had been reckoned on as a source'of revenue. Peihrtps sound pnbiie policy would stiggv^t a removal of th >se iii.itlraiJCcs? But the quesliun ;iiisHs as to whether the fair price of effoctiuir such a removal would not be to balance lac ad van-

tage gained. A glance at the map at the Land Office at once shews that a very great proportion of all the really useful land, not yet purchased, is covered with preemptive rights. A strict adherence to the contract entered into between the original land purchasers and the Canterbury Association would have the effect of excepting all lands covered with preemptive rights from the operation of the new regulations; and would leave them subject to precisely the same price reserved by the terms of that arrangement. This would practically defeat the intention of the new regulations. The public cannot afford for some years to come to pay £3 or even £2 an acre for land other than that immediately available for agriculture, or possessed of some great local recommendation. As we have before stated, nearly all such land is covered with preemptive rights, which are alleged with great reason to be inviolable ; consequently these lands, in fact nearly all the best land, is closed against the public. Tims in reality we are for all practical purposes in the same condition as we wei'e before the enactment of the new regulations. There are certainly methods by which the holders of the pre-emptive rights may derive the advantage of the reduced price, in purchasing the land so covered. '• But," says the preemptioner,'' I do not want to purchase yet;" I contemplated an advantage in my bargain which I intend to maintain : to be sure the Government has chosen to make an arrangement which has accidentally effected an improvement of my position, yet I do not feel disposed to relinquish my hold on these lands until I have received'all the value of my property in them: my convenience suggests retention of the land until its value may have risen to £3 per acre, and then I will (should I be compelled by the application of some other party) purchase: in the mean time I will turn over and improve my capital. No alteration or amendment of the new regulations will prejudice his rights/- The holder of the preemptive rights, we maintain, stands in a better position now that 'the new regulations are passed than previously; no legislation of the council can touch or modify it,, and legislation in this case is useless'and unnecessary, for unless public opinion sanctions a proposal to commute the claims of the holders of preemption, nothing short of an act of the Imperial Parliament can impure the value of preemptive rights, and even in thatcase compensation would be given. If public policy should require an extinction of these rights, the only process is commutation. Admitting the existence of a valuable property in the preemptive rights, even public policy should not be urged as a reason for seeking to compel an abandonment of such properly without a just compensation. The only question then' is, does the public policy require an extinction of the~right of preemption as acquired by contract with the Canterbury Association or the Crown i;i pursuance of the Association Yj " Terms of Purchase." If so, the wisest and best plan would be to merely insert a clause in tiie regulations, offering a fixed rate of compensation to all holders of pre-emptive rights, who shall, within a certain time, .surrender them into fhe bauds of the Provincial Government, a form of such surrender beingr given in a schedule attached. The compensation may be in land or otherwise. If such a scheme s'lould be thought uncalled for, what then remains ? Why, |. o let the matter stand where it is. And, if the public don't want to buy these lands at £2 per acre, no harm is done. As for the holder of the preemptive right. !k; can at anytime voluntarily surrender and extinguish hi.s own right of preemption over land he may choose to purchase, and simultaneously make application for it at £2 per acre. What better position could he

desire ? By his contract with the Association fstill validj he has rights »vhich have been lately very materially improved by the new regulations. He can hold his land under the protection of the old £3 system, as against the public, while, as we have shown, he may at any time make the low price available to himself, should it suit his convenience. But if this state of facts is by the public considered as inconvenient and calculated to hinder the advancement of the Province ; if it is desirable to clear away these incumbrances, justice to individuals should not be overlooked, and some compensation should he offered !o those pioneers of the settlement who, by virtue of a fair bargain, wish to retain their right of pre-emption.