Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 371, 24 May 1856, Page 7

To the Editor of the " Lytteltnn Times." Sir, —The question of pre-emptive rights is certainly getting a great (leal of ventilation. I hope we shall soon see the sound grain separated from the chaff. The real ground for consideration now, seems to me to be this, viz.—" Is the Provincial j Government legally or equitably bound to continue pasturage licenses upon the same terms as were granted by the Association ?" It has not, I think, been sufficiently kept in mind, that the pre-emptive right was given to the holders of pasturage licenses, and not, be it observed, to the land purchaser. It is true tliat none but the purchaser of a fifty-acre section could have v license with pre-emption, but this

is merely a class distinction and not a ground of right. Had tbe pre-emption been given with the land, and not with the license, then there might have been some ground for asking compensation ; but, as it was given with a yearly license, the right expired with that license, and. could only be renewed by taking out another license for another year. (Query: Have the lessors the power of refusal ?) With respect to the transfer of licenses. As none but an original purchaser could have a transferable license with pre-emptive right, that transfer could only be for the use of the pasturage ; tbe license and not the right was transferable. It is also possible that the words " renewable by such purchaser" (judged by the letter) may confine the power of renewal to one individual, that is, the original holder of the license.

On these grounds, it appears to me that the pre-emptive right could not be given in perpetuity, as it did not accompany the fee-simple of the land bought by the land purchaser, but was merely an appendage to a yearly license. And it was probably on similar grounds that Mr. Sewell made the remark he did (and it is worth something, coming from tbe confidential agent of the Association), that these rights had not that value that many thought them to possess. All that the holders of these pasturage licenses can ask is a continuation of their privileges,—whether on the ground of equity or legality, is a question for the law to decide ; and I have no doubt that the Provincial Council will get the fullest information on these points, from unprejudiced sources, before taking any steps whatever. Many of the strongest advocates of tbe legality of the pre-emptive right admit that the Association never intended them to continue but for a limited period ; yet if it should happen (though this I think is not likely) that the terms of; purchase, unintentionally on the part of the Association, do give in the eye of the law the right of pre-emption for a longer period than the existence of that body ; then of course, if they claim it, they must have " their bond," but no compensation, not one drop of the heart's blvod of the country. However, I think the Provincial Council will hardly incur the odium of giving up the only source of revenue, at a time too when that revenue is at so low an ebb. Even if they are legally bound to continue granting licenses for pasturage with pre-emptive right, they will be content with giving them simply their right of purchase. They do not stand in the place of the Association, but have received their power to deal with tbe waste lands from the General Assembly, and are therefore bound to consider other rights besides those of the original land purchasers. I would advise the holders of pasturage licenses not to go too far with their demauds, or they may get "•justice more than they desire." Let them consider their test-book again and judge it by its whole tenor, rather than in detached portions. If thej wholly ignore the intentions of the Association aud abide by the letter of the law, let them do so ; but it would hardly be worthy in those who boast that they are the pioneers of England's church in this southern wilderness.

Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this— That in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation. In conclusion, I would besr members of Council to consider the position they would be placed in if they gave compensation for a right that may have no existence in law, nor, possibly, even in equity. Yours, &c, LyUelton, 19th May. N.E.O.