The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 551, 13 February 1858, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, February 13, The Waste Lands Regulations Amendment Bill was read a third time on Thursday night, and the clause relating to pre-emptive rights on pasturage runs stands as amended during the previous debate. The history of this bill is a very extraordinary one. It was brought io at

the instance and by the advice of the Waste Lands Board, chiefly to get rid ot a condition which was found to operate preiudicially to the public in the case of pre-emptive rights. By the working,of the Regulations, the so-called pre-emptive ritrht holder was enabled to exercise a power far beyond that of pre-emption j— j he had a power of obstructing the bonafide purchaser in a manner which could never have been contemplated in the conferring of a pre-emptive right. Most of ■our readers are too well aware of the power of pre-emptive right holders to hold a considerable extent of country by the purchase from time to time of 20 acres. Well, the Provincial Government fully agreed with the Waste Lands Commissioners, and the bill was drafted by the Provincial Solicitor and submitted to the Board, who approved of it as it then stood, as stated by the Provincial Secretary in the Council. The clause relating to pre-emptive rights purported to be a clause rather to interpret the intention of the law than to frame a new one. All on a sudden, a change was proposed in the bill and assented to by the Government in the Council, totally altering the principle of the measure. We cdn scarcely believe that the Provincial Secretary was aware of the importance of' the alteration, the more so when we find that he assented to it without the knowledge of the President of the Executive Council, who we understand has resigned in consequence of his holding a different opinion from the •Government upon this subject. This resignation is the more important as Mr. Tancred is himself a stockowner; he evidently sees the importance of what was so easily surrendered by the Government. There is another member of the Government who, as yet, can know nothing of the change. When the Provincial Solicitor drafted the bill, he could scarely have contemplated this; and yet his opinion is of the utmost importance. Has the Waste Lands Board been consulted ? Considering the manner in which the bill was originated and prepared, would not this have been a right course ? As to the amendment itself we expressed an opinion on Wednesday. It certainly seems monstrous that, when a bill is brought in to remove doubts as to the interpretation of pre-emptive rights, one set of these rights should be specially excepted. For the fact that the bill was brought in for the purpose aforesaid we have only to refer to the Superintendent's opening address. His Honor says :—

It has been found necessary that certain doubts as t to the interpretation of particular clauses in the Waste Lands Regulations should be at once removed ; to which end I shall submit to you a short bill having for its object a more effective declaration of the principles that are intended by the spirit of the Regulations to govern the administration of the Waste Lands ; a vagueness in that clause which relates to the exercise of- the pre-emptive rights having led to inconveniences almost amounting to injustice in individual cases that have come within my observation. A signal instance has been given by the Council of the power of a majority. The manner in 'which hon. members attacked Mr. Bowen for attempting to re- | open the subject looked like a fear of free discussion. Certainly the amendment is not calculated to bear daylight. Never j was a discussion more wanted. The question is a complicated one, and one of which members who had not carefully considered the subject were not likely at once to see the bearings. As we said before we are far from being averse to the pre-emptive right of stockowners over their homesteads and improvements. On the contrary, we should be glad to see them have a pre-emptive right over a larger portion of their runs than they have by the present law. To this they are entitled. But let it be a right of pre-emption as it is generally understood; not a nondescript right over the soil which has sprung up accidentally from the wording of the regulations, and which is certain to lead to trouble hereafter. It is a generally understood principle that the holder of country under pasturage license should not obstruct the purchase. He should have the option of purchasing a portion of his run to cover all improvements, but if he does not choose to buy he must let it go. We regret the present measure and the manner in which it has been passed, the more as it is not likely to benefit the bona fide stockowner, who would never have dreamt of such a demand; but it will prove an obstruction to purchasers in the neighbourhood of towns, who will look hereafter with an evil eye upon runs near thetft whose holders will be able to put

them off the purchase of land without paying for it themselves. • , ■ . We have still one hope left, and that is that the Superintendent will disallow this bill as it now stands. Under the circumstances, it is not impossible that His Honor may at least consider that a fuller discussion of an important principle would be satisfactory both to the Government and the public.