The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 681, 18 May 1859, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, May 18. The subject on which 'New-Chum' addressed us last week is so interesting- that we can have no objection to discussing the question. As our readers may have observed 1 New-Chum' has been a somewhat lengthy correspondent on various subjects; and we have been always glad to find room for his letters, which generally contain a good deal of original matter. But it is rather hard that c New-Chum' should expect no contradiction ; and he really ought not to be both prolix and testy at the same time. As for ourselves, although we cannot promise that our articles shall be for the future based upon, his reasoning; and although we do not pretend to be so well worth arguing with as the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the other members of the British ministry,• yet we are so far like them that we have given an attentive reading to ' New-Chum's' arguments. But to come to the point at issue. That the land in this province is worth £2 is no reason that it is not a high price as compared with that charged in other colonies for waste land. It is only in a comparative sense that the words " high price " can be used in speaking of the value of waste lands, and this is why we used the expression "the (so called) high price." Forgetfulness of this, and the fancy that the price ordinarily charged is the real value of waste lands, are the; causes of much fallacy of reasoning. How is the value of land to be determined? Is it pretended that the price of £2 has hit the exact value of land in this province? You cannot determine the value of the land; you must therefore fix ■ the price upon other groxinds than its intrinsic, •value. And we cannot conceive a more reasonable price to fix than one which is sufficient to make roads and bring in population proportionate to the amount of land sold. Without such a provision the land would not be so speedily brought into profitable occupation. We are not prepared to maintain that under all circumstances this system would hold good; but we are • satisfied that the principle ■is a sound one. •■•'• ■ ■■■■■'■'■■'

What is the 10s. price adopted in the other settlements but the price deemed "sufficient" for the purpose we have mentioned. : If' NewChum' were consistent he would claim free grants of land for the farmer, and trust to providence or to neighbourly association for road making 1 and immigration; When he charges us with adopting an exploded and destructive, theory, he has tumbled into the old blunder of confusing1' revenue raised by taxes. with that arising from waste lands. This is a very common but a very strange mistake. The price of the waste lands does not come out of " the people's" pockets, as .' New-Chum' curiously enough supposes ;, it comes from the pockets of individuals and goes into the people's pockets. This is a very differeut thing. The Crown has handed over a very valuable estate ta us in trust; not to divide amongst ourselves, but ,to populate and to bring into profitable occupation. The system in vogue when the Wakefield theory was first promulgated was to give the waste lands away: the settlers who got grants of land depended on penal establishments both for labour and public works; but free .settlements were to be founded and must be otherwise provided for. What a funny idea of taxation ' NewChum' must have! To give away the waste lands to individuals, and to leave it to the public to make their own road?, would be his idea of a good waste land policy. We shall be perhaps told that our deduction is calculated to misrepresent our correspondent's argument: our readers must judge for themselves as to wJiether it is logical or not! We do hot wish to go over the same ground as we went over last week, but we really must appeal to the success ot the system in this province as the besfc proof of its wisdom. /New-Chum' argues rather in a circle. The Canterbury land is not dear because it is worth the high price; aud 3 ret the farmer is half-ruined by the price paid in the' first. instance. We want to get hold of one-of these ruined farmers to put him in a glass case. • The last' ruined farmer we have met valued at £20 to £30 per acre the land he gave £'3 per acre fora few years ago. Into whose hands does the agricultural land fall in the Amuri District, which is by nature a portion of this Province, but which is undor the Nelson cheap-land regulations ? Is it into the hands of the agriculturist ? What is the guarantee for non-taxation there ? Why, it is notorious that the whole district is falling' into the hands of a few capitalists, and that but little revenue in comparison accrues to the public therefrom ! According to 'NewChum'; these capitalists are the people —the happy untaxed. people, He ought to be gl«« ithat.there is wisdom beyond our boundaries. It will be long before he persuades' the Canterbury -farmer or the Canterbury labourers to vote for the reduction of a price which saves the waste; lands of the province from the wholesale grasp of capitalists and speculators,