AGRICULTURAL LEASE EXTENSION.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 341, 17 September 1875, Page 3

AGRICULTURAL LEASE EXTENSION.

[silJ. ME'BVIN'S SPEECH, COKI >KiSBEJ> ] ■ GoLUFraLDS- Bill INO. 1. Mr. Merryu, in moving- the second reading of the 13111. explained that its objftc.t was of a twofold nature : liffu, to extend the quantity of land whirh might he taken up under the rigri-- ul-tural-Jeasing system, from 200 to 320 acres; and secondly, to define the maximum amount of compensation, which might be paid to pastoral tenant 3 for land required for settlement under the agricultural-leasing svatem on tho Goldfkids. "When the system of agricultural leasing was first "jnitinted upon the GoMiislds of Ofcaa'o, it was-intended to bo a .purely tentative measure. A largo population was then suddenly introduced into the Provinces from tho adjacent eolonv of' Victoria, and the provincialauthorities 1 had great difficulties to contend with. In the first place, they did not know i what was payablo auriferous land.; and also there was a certain amount of j suspicion entertained by what- had since*-been characterised as tho "Old Identity." They were not thoroughly satisfied na -regarded the class population which was -then pouring into tho country. In fact, they were very doubti'nl as to whether it was desirable or not that the people who came from the other colonies should be allowed to settle in the colony, For these reasons a. system was devised by which those people might be, as it were, placed upon their "trial, and allowed to take up ten acres of land under the agricultural leasing system—not. however, before the Government were forced to thj-t decision by the imperative necessities of- the "case. Owing to the imperative necessity of the ease, the Legis attirr- in 1802 was pleased to enable intending agriculturists on the Gold fields to take up ten acres of land each for the purpose of supplying themselves with some of the necessaries of life. Subsequent experience, he thought, must have satisfied the Old Identity that the mining population, which was thrown suddenly into the heart of the Province of Otago were not such very dangerous e haracter'a as they were led to believe. Tho consequence was that in 1865 tho Legislature' was asked to extend the area ofland which might bo taken up by intending agriculturists from ten to fifty acres. But there . were other causes! which induced the Legislature at that ! period to take the action they did. First, there were a great number of j miners who had made large sums of money in the South, and they were desirous, from their experience of this colony, to settle here. Consequently, they brought pressure to bear from tim e to time on the Provincial authorities j of the Province of Otago, and as a result they were enabled to take up fifty acres of land in 1565 for settlement. But after the Bill of 1865 was passed, the Provincial authorities saw fit to enable intending agriculturists on the GoldS olds to take up 200 acres ofland under four generate applications; and this continued to be the law until 1.869, when this House and the ■ other branch of the Legislature were pleasedin consequence of a Bill which he brought in in that year, to make that law as it remains at present —namely, thai every agriculturist- on the Goldfields could take up 200 acres of land in one block. There were two great difficulties to contend with on the Gold fields of Otago—first, the small amount of the land -thrown open for settlement • and, second, the delerrni- j nation of pastoral tenants to prevent ; settlement wherever they could. Every person acquainted with agricul- j tural pursuits must be aware that if a j succession of crop?, were- taken frorni ono piece of land, any return j being made, the land must become i comparatively valueless ; it was there- i foro necessary to combine the keeping of stock with the raising of crops. ' That was perfectly clear ; but auotherC reason was that the greater portion of toe land remaining open for sections was of poor quality, the best of it having been taken up loug ago. The third reason lie had to urge in favour of tho Bill was, that the settler at the present time was brought into unfair competition, with the pastoral tenant. The agricultural leaseholder had to fence in his land, at a cost of from £1 to 30s. per acre, and had to compete with those who occupied similar land at 2d. per acre; and it would therefore be at once perceived that the settlers were placed at an immense disadvantage. Another reason he would urge in favor of the extension of the area to 820 acres was that the • eettlera were debarred from the privilege enjoyed by the early settlers of depasturing their cattle outside their own holding. There was no doubt that much of the prosperity of the early settlers of Otago was attributable to the fact of their having free pasturage over the lands adjoining their ow r u holdings. The success of many men who now occupied the colony was owing to the existence of the Bystem. The second part of the Bill defined the maximum amount of compensation to be given to pastoral tenants, when any part of tho laud held by them under lease way cancelled. It "declared that 2s. 6d. should be the maximum, with a valuation allowance for fence?.. In this respect the Bill was aasimilated to the Otugo Waste Lands Act of 1872. The necessity for the provision contained in the- sth and 6th sections had been pressed upon his attention by what, had transpired during the past twelve mouths.' The Otago Provincial authorities decided to set aside in the locality in which he j resided 2..5U0'-»» Tea of laud uuder the l'Jth eeitioaof ilio 'Joldiielda Act,. 1-800,

but flie lessees demanded £L per acre i'i.'i- Any laud that might bo t-iksr. mi»; them. To his mind it was utterly .cbsurd to place the pastoral tenants ir: pufli a position that they rouid de-rn-.ni whatever they liked. as corn pen\V''ln the land they o cupieu was required for settlement. There were two objections to their possessuj:j such a privilege. Iu the first place they would always ..demand the utmost compensation they could; and, secondly, there was a disposition on the part of all Governments to te-in-povise as ranch as possible, whenever they became involved in a disagreeable question. The consequence was that, when land was required for settleraeutv the cry iva? immediately raised by the Government, "We caanot comply with you? demands. How can we afford to give t$Q pastoral lessees £1 per acre for land they occupy ?" i'Diit, ho maintained, was not a position m which the \ House should place people who were v anxious to settle 00 the lands of the colony The amount of compensation to be given should be by law. The Government'.whether it he the General or the Provincial Government, should have power to eay, " the land you hold ia required for settlemeufc. By law wo are empowered to take it, and, the eompeiisatioTi being Used also by law, you must accept' it." He could understand that if the pastoral tenants were paying a fair rental for the country —that was to say, taking the market value of the land, and assuming that money was worth on an average of years 7# per cent., if they were pay- j ing per rent, on the value of the laud—then they would have a fair and equitable claim to come to the House and say, "Wg are being unjustly t'cer.ted, if you do not consider the terms on which we hold our leases." But seeing that they held their leases at a mere bagatelle—something like onesixth or one-ninth its annual value to let —then he contended they held -the land on tho distinct : understanding that they should give way when tho country was required for. settlement. That was ail he contended for. He said, " Conserve the pastoral interests as much as you like, hut when the country is required for settlement let ua have it for the purpose."