CANTERBURY RUNS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 410, 3 February 1877, Page 3

CANTERBURY RUNS.

It is argued that if the Canterbury runs were to, be valued by independent as sessqrs appointed by the Waste Laud Board, the runholders, although given a pre-emption, would at any rate have io pay as much as the runs were worth tor pastoral purposes, and therefore there would be no loss-to- t.'je State. This is, however, very open to question. The bargain is too ouersided. If .the licensees think the assessors have ivrade a mistake, and put on too low a value, they secure the advantage. If tbey choose to think.-.the value,to low, they repudiate the license, and leave the Board to do-what it can". If'the freehold of land is to : be offered for sale, the right of every one to compete is undisputed. A perpetual leasehold: — or, more strictly, an annual license' in perpetuity, if such.a thing is to be [ should undoubtedly be only granted under.similar conditions, in. no-case can a true rent charge be arrived at, except by competition. Jn the case ! of the Canterburylicenses, the claim 'to a license in perpetuity has been a gradual growth. The first takers up of the runs never dreamt of it. It only was originated eolaterally with the borrowing on a large-scale, supposed jo be necessary to keep off the freehold-seek-ing public. The arguments advanced by the Canterbury members against a reletting, at a rent "to be fixed by public auction, are not easily grappled with, because they are not readily apparent. The burden of their argument has two sides, both of which contradict one another. In the first place, a gi-oss ■ injustice, they say, would be perpetrated aganst the present licensees ; in the second, by the same men we are told that the rents would be less, and that therefore the State would lose. If so, the present holders, one would think, would glviii.. We hardly fiud any other argument against fixing the rents by competition, unless it is one put forward ,as:tbe strongest of all, that, out of fourteen constituencies in the Province of Canterbury, twelve xJtumed members who were in favor of assessment. This statement was contradicted; but, .adjoiittiu:* its' truth, it means little. The electors of the Canterbury constituencies would not be much exercised by a probable mode of dealing with the-runs three years in .jLdvatoee' of the contingency ; besides 'whiqh, a great portion of the Canterbury*? electors or consider themselves, a body ibf vassals, looking with loyal admiration and devotion to their liege pastoral landlords. However little nubile opinion there may be in other parti of the Colony,, it is certain that hitherto there has' been none in Canterbury, as a Province. A more curious fact than the twelve constituen-cies'-approval of the assessment proposed is ? . that "the twelve members to a man voted on all Government questions with the Government, who had premised to incorporate their views on thatone point in its Waste Lands Bill. When a vote was'really needed by the Government whips, the faithful twelve appear to have been alwrys ready to ajrree with the view taken by those who *vent into the Government lobby. The probability of auctiou being preferred to, assessment was anticipated by the Waste Lands Regulations of Canterbury. The clause fixing the rent until ISSO is as follows : —-" The rent of any run determined under the provisions of this Ad, whether by assessment or by auction, shall not be

altered until' th£ first da'y* of -May, 1880.". It is clear that the clause pointed, to ,a "determination of tenure, by leaving it open to fix the rents, after 1880,. exactly as.the Government] saw fit.

Mr. Eeid's proposal, to give another ten years, would-merely strengthen the claim already made to perpetuity of license. Under Mr*. Eeid's proposal the rent could not be altered until 1800. Then, as in 1880, it could be varied. It is true Mr. Jieid proposed to declare the licenses should then cease and determine ; but, so far as that goes, the words would not be permanently bind--iug. ■ The fact would remain, that in IBao the pastoral tenants claimed perpetuily of license ; that they obtained another ten years,-in recognition of the validity of their claim ; and that, therefore, there claim in 1890 was stronger than ever. There is no finality in the woi'ds of New Zealand -Acts of Parliament. The clause, with its safeguard, if unpalatable, would be brushed away as waste paper, and the only result of the attempted compromise would be, that the runhoiders' claim would be stronger than ever. TlV.at claim, as put by the member for Selwyh', iS that " The runs were held under licensee to, occupy, and they were held in perpe* tuity, provided the rent was paid in .**uvance, but not otherwise. Wbat measure is meted out to the Canterbury run boklersuext session will certainly..be.claimed by their brethren south of the Waiiaki. It wouldappear that in the debates last session some few members so far misunderstood the nature of the Opposition as to openly intimate, if allowed to have their way, they in turn would help the Otago men to go and do likewise. There would be more injustice in the case of Otigo than in Canterbury, for the Otago runs have been bringing in a very heavy revenue annually. A division, giving a majority of only two, caunot be relied on i'or auother year, and it is almost certain the. slrqngJy-'represjnlcd. interest will succeed, in protecting itself. The members look upon the releasing of their run's by "assessment as one of the fruits they saw in the o'is!ance-.when ihey assisted to destroy Provincialism. The Canterbury Council would never have sanctioned such an abuse of pubdie liberty. It was- therefore time to gef rid of it, and .worship at a less responsible, and, we are sorry to add, more unscrupulous shrine.