Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 367, 10 May 1856, Page 6

To the Editoi- of the Lyttelton Times.

Sra, —The '* Pre-emptive right" is a legacy of the Association. As a remnant of our connection with that body, let it be dealt with leniently and with justice. It may be tempting to most of us to sweep them away, as it would have been the claims of the Association. But I hope, Sir, that a feeling of gratitude may still influence all the decisions of the Province in regard to its first formation. Do not let us be led away by any outcry raised by a party who have eminently failed in 2:uidin<? the progress of Canterbury.

The question to be decided is, Have the holders of pre-emptive right an equitable title to the compensation claimed for them ? The lands they hold !are necessary to our advancement. Do they hold them legally or do they not ? Or does the compact they made with the Association give them a moral claim upon the Province r These questions the Provincial Council will have to discuss—possibly the adjustment must be left to the highest power in the Empire, if extreme measures be pressed on either side. But why not prepare ourselves for an amicable arrangement r An equitable settlement of these claims may not give so great eclat to our rulers as the settlement of the Canterbury Association's claims, did: the English papers ma}? not have to write up another Euthanasia*: still we, the settlers, are bound to do justice, even to our neighbours. We are neither above nor below

this.

It will be in the recollection of most of your readers that the present Government recognised during- the discussion on the Waste Lands' bill, the justice of these claims, even against Mr. Sewell's statement that they were not worth the paper the licenses were drawn out upon. What is their reason for now declining to negotiate the final releasement of these lands, Admitting, as they did, the legal right of the holders ? One reason has been alluded to. We have not sold enough land ; we are, in consequence, without funds to carry on the public works; the Government is bankrupt in funds, and very low in reputation. Will a ruse, enveloping confiscation in its shadow, raise their reputation ? I think not. The Province can better afford to be generous, than unjust. We have a character in England for'settling any claims there may be on the Province. Let us not lose it. Let the present question be approached with the calm dignity of men who can afford to do riyht : at" the same time that they are determined to clear th<? lands of an incutnbrance.

The -; Standard," the Government Gazelte. ha, Uilar.i up the views of the Govenimer.r ou this question as it d:d on that of the iraihWiiV, v/illt about us much hope of ieadir.u the province as it did then. This time His Honor the Superintendent's personal <)]>i:. :on is puhlidy l-eierred to, as in favour of vonfiscu'cion. ' H e holds preemptive 2-isrhi.s, no doubt. And it would appear to !>..: yomething hicrh-iniuded and noble to (iyc;ar»i against a commutation of these rights. But is His Honor the Superintendent ]iV.'p'Ji--:-c\ to give up his claim to these Jauds to flu* Pnniucer Will he resign them williout. ooriipe^-iaion ? 'J'hese fere practical qu^tions. ihe Government

of the Province wants money—people with money want the lands. But they virtually cannot purchase, because the best portions of the lands are covered with these preemptive rights. Several persons are now leaving-the Province for other parts, because they cannot buy land. Let those holders of pre-emptive rights who object to compensation, come forward and by deed deliver up their claims. Till they do this, the Province will have a right to doubt the purity of their motives in declaring against commutation. Yours, &.c, Not a Land-Pituciiaser.