The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 550, 10 February 1858, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

r j Wednesday, February 10. On Tuesday, the 2nd instant, the Provincial Council went into committee and considered the amendments proposed in the Waste Lands Regulations. We wish to draw attention particularly to one of the amended clauses which has been altered in committee, and which we hope will be again carefully considered before it is passed into law. On the previous Thursday, the proposed new clause was considered, which provided tliat all land which was applied for within a "pre-emptive right" should either be purchased by the holder of that right or should become waste land. This is but just, as the challenger is obliged to deposit ten per cent of the purchase money of the land which he applies for as a guarantee of his good faith j which deposit he forfeits if he is not prepared to complete the purchase when called on: and it was never intended that land should be held on lease as against a hon&Jide purchaser. Mr. Hall took exception to the new clause on the ground that it inflicted a wrong upon runhoiders in respect of the pre-emptive rights granted over their improvements. Mr. Ollivier in reply argued that, as no application could be received in such a case except for the whole block (according to clause 63 of the Waste Lands Regulations), it followed that the runliolder was safe from any smaller purchase, even after exercising his right of pre-emption over a smaller portion than the whole block. We cannot agree with Mr. Ollivier in this solution of the question, and we do not wonder that Mr. Hall, with his view of the rights of the runhoiders, was not satisfied with it. In our opinion the new clause would place the runliolder in the

same position as the holder of any other pre-emptive right. Let the public judge whether that is not a sufficiently advantageous one. On Tuesday Mr. Ollivier held to Ins opinion that the runholders would notbe afrectedby the proposed alteration Mr. Thomson pressed the Government to except the pre-emptive rights on runs <hs-tinctly,--and Mr. Ollivier assented. We regret "this extremely, as we were under the impression that the clause had been intended to meet the case of all pre-emp-tive rights. Surely it is protection enough to the runholder to hold 250 acres under a pre-emptive right which cannot be challenged except in one block. But to claim the right of buying it up in driblets of 20 acres, whenever it may be challenged, is almost equivalent to asking for a free grant of the land. Who would go on challenging the whole block on such conditions ? It would take thirteen challenges to cause the purchase of the whole; a deposit of fifty pounds being paid for each challenge. It must be remembered too that the preemptive rights which the intending purchasers would be likely to challenge are those laid down in agricultural districts. Do the runholders pay an equivalent lor such an enormous right ?

We have always been friendly to the stockowners; they contribute more than any other class to the prosperity of the country. We know that the greater number of them do not set up such large claims as are often set up for them by injudicious friends. Let them by all means have a liberal pre-emptive right over their homesteads, but not such a one as to convert it almost, into a freehold acquired without payment. Fortunate indeed will be the possessors of pre-emptive rights on runs within easy reach of Christchurch, it the clause as it at present stands becomes law. There is yet time to reconsider it.