THE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 37, 7 October 1871, Page 2

THE LAND QUESTION.

[lndependent,] Resuming the consideration of the land question we proceed to notice other evils resulting from provincial land legislation and administration. Y\e have already adverted to the case of those provinces in which, no security of tenure being 'given to the pastoral tenants of the Crown, they were compelled to purchase the freehold of their runs. We have shown how such a short-sighted policy has greatly hindered colonisation. The Otago Waste Lands Bill now before the Assembly suggests the consideration of evils in a different direction. That bill is professedly brought in to settle a long standing agitation. Now, this very agitation is the next evil we propose to consider. How it arose, by whom it has been fostered, and what have been its effects, are questions possessing at the present time peculiar interest and importance. Every member of Assembly should understand them if he would give an intelligent vote on the bill ; for happily it has passed a second reading, and will come up for further discussion. In order to answer these questions fully and fairly, it will be necessary to go back to the Waste Lands Act, 1866. The crucial division on that bill was on its second reading. The following Otago members voted for it:—Messrs Bradshaw, Campbell, Cargill, Dick, Haughton, Reid, Reynolds, Richardson. The following against Mr Macandrew and Mr Yogel (tellers.) The two latter foresaw difficulties likely to arise from its administration, and by a curious turn of events they were charged with its administration, the former as Superintendent, and the latter as Provincial Treasurer. Mr Dick, the previous Superintendent, had, however, taken action in his tenure of office, which led to most, if not all, of the subsequent imbroglio. That action is briefly stated in a minnte of the Executive, dated 97th February, 1867: — <£ Resolved to recommend the Waste Lands Board to grant leases over all runs, excluding Buch land as will be required for agricultural leases within gold fields, and also blocks which the Government may require the consent of the licensee to sell, without declaring them into hundreds Mr. Dick thus made an arrangement which provided what he deemed sufficient land for settlement or sale without imposing on the Government the expense of compensation on the one hand, or inflicting on the runholder the injury of the liability to have his run, or undetermined parts of it, at any time taken away for a hundred. This arrangement was embodied in a covenant in the leases issued in lieu of the old licenses. It is worthy of note in passing that the runholders, terrified at the prospect of Mr. Macandrew being elected Superintendent, all, with a few exceptions, came in under the Act before the six months’ term allowed by law for surrendering their old licenses, preferring to pay the increased rent of 7d. a sheep and 3s. 6d. a head for cattle, instead of the small sum they formerly paid, on the faith that these covenants, and the increased rent paid, gave them a securer tenure. The last lease so granted is reported to have been granted in Mr. Dick’s private house late in the evening, before Mr. Macandrew took office. The Provincial Secretary then was Mr. Mouat, and the Provincial Solicitor, Mr. Maddock. So much at present for “ the covenants.” The Act of 1866 provided in section 35, that lands within any hundred might, with the sanction of the Government and the Provincial Council, be sold by auction at the upset price of 10s. per acre, after having remained open for selection and sale seven years. A motion in the early part of the session of the Provincial Council in 1868 to give this sanction was negatived, but on the 9th of June, the Superintendent sent the following message to the Council—- “ Referring to the resolution submitted to the Provincial Council during the early part of the session, to the effeet that an address be presented to his Honor the Superintendent, recommending that the lands remaining unsold within the hundreds, during the year 1861, be placed in the market in terms of the 3oth section of the Otago Waste Lands Act, 1866, so soon as such lands shall have been open for sale for the prescribed term of seven years, which

resolution was then negatived, the Superintendent recommends that the Council will reconsider the matter. The Superintendent would observe that the estimates of expenditure for the current financial year have been based upon the assumption that the Provincial Council would concur in the resolution above referred to, and he desires to point out that if this concurrence is refused the votes of the Council, to a large extent, for roads and works, cannot be carried into effect, a contingency which he feels assured the Council will deplore as much as he will do.—James Macandrew, Superintendent.” A motion, rescinding the one referred to by the Superintendent, was tabled the same day, and carried by 15 to 12, the following members, now in the Assembly, voting against it: Reid, Shepherd, Brown, and Thomson. So much for the sales of land in hundreds. These covenants, and this authorisation to sell the land within the hundreds at ten shillings an acre, fell to be put into force by Mr Macandrew the new Superintendent, and Mr Yogel the new Provincial Secretary. Then began a great agitation. Both were denounced as traitors to the public interest, and leagued with the squatters. A squatter in the opinion of these land agitators is the incarnation of all that is hateful. They cannot even pronounce the word without an emphasis of bitterness. A (grain) farmer is a man to be praised and aided out of public funds and to receive special rights of pasturage—a sheep farmer, on the other haud, is a man to be denounced and thwarted and robbed of his pasturage rights with impunity. By a curious process of reasoning impossible to explain, a friend of squatters is in the popular mind a more dreadful character than even a squatter himself. On Mr Macandrew and Mr Vogel, therefore, in the new character of squatter’s friend, were poured out the vials of popular indignation. The former in closing the session of Council above referred to remarked “ I have to assure you that it is my desire fully to keep pace with the requirements of agricultural settlement, and I shall be glad if, during the re cess, arrangements can be y made by means of the money vote "which you have placed at my disposal, for extinguishing pastoral tenures, and acquiring additional land for settlement. I am led to make these remarks in consequence of the unfounded and reckless assertions with which it has been sought to prejudice the public mind, to the effect that I am adverse to the settlement of the country by men and women. I can safely aver that if there be one thing more than another which I have aimed at during the past twenty years, it has been the colonising of this province ; and I deem it due to myself most emphatically to disclaim the charge of seeking to faVor one particular class at the expense of another—a charge which will not bear the shadow of truthful investigation. I may add, that while I did my best to prevent the passing of the present land act, it is my duty now to deal with the law as it stands, fairly and impartially.” The agitation at last took the form of the famous petition of the Clutha settlers, got up, it has been frequently stated (and never contradicted), by the present member for the Clutha (Mr Thomson). That petition was presented by the member for the Taieri—Mr Reid. Being referred to the Waste Lands Committee, that committee reported that a commission should be appointed to investigate its allegations. Messrs Domett, Strode, and Reynolds were appointed Commissioners. With respect to the demand for hundreds being proclaimed in runs held under the leases granted by Mr Dick, with the covenants explained above, they reported :—“ The good faith of the province, and therefore of the colony, because the province has acted under laws of the general Legislature, has been pledged to there runholders. It matters not whether there is a legal obligation or not to respect the runs The question is, is there such a moral or equitable obligation as, if it rested on an individual and not on the public or a body representing them, would be such as an honest or honorable man would not think himself justified in breaking. Public morality and private are, at all events in matters involving good faith, one and the same. It would be the lowest kind of so-

called statesmen only who would recognise or act upon a difference. It appears to the Commissioners that the arrangements between the Government and the runholders in th ; s matter, as already described, is such an one as, between honourable private individuals, would be held as binding and obligatory as if it had been accompanied by all the formal and technical circumstances of a liberal and legal contract.” Mr. Reid, in his examination on oath before the Commissioners, stated, “ As a question of good faith, it would be most unfair to the runholder to take a block of the best land out of his run under cover of these agreements (the covenants) without compensation, and afterwards to exercise the power to proclaim the remainder into hundreds.” The evidence of Mr. Maddock, who drew out the leases, is absolutely conclusive. The “deeds of covenant ” made between the Superintendent and the runholders all ended with this clause, “ Provided always, and it is hereby further declared and agreed by and between the said parties hereto, that these presents shall in no wise be held or construed to abridge, limit, or interfere with the rights and powers of the said James Macandrew as such Superintendent as aforesaid, his successors in office, and assigns, under and by virtue of the said c Goldfields Act, 1866,’ or of the said * Waste Lands Act, 1866,’ or of any law for the time being in force in the said colony, unless such rights and powers shall be contrary thereto .” The Commissioners asked him “ What right or power was there possessed by the Superintendent before the covenant was made, the exercise of which was supposed or implied to be contrary to the covenant,” as the words “ contrary thereto ” implied. He answered, “ The right to declare into hundreds—if the runholder consented to give up the quantity of land particularly specified in the covenant—for the words quoted necessarily involve that such was the intention, or the covenant could mean nothing.” The cry, therefore, for hun dreds being declared in these runs, was a most unrighteous cry. Those who raised and abetted it were plainly guilty of a breach of good faith. The sequel of this land agitation we must hold over.

We have seen that the Provincial Solicitor of Otago who drew up the covenants with the runhclders gave it as his opinion on oath that these covenants either meant nothiug, or they meant that no hundreds could be proclaimed by the Superintendent on runs held under them. We have seen that Mr Donald Reid himself stated on oath that, as a question of good faith it would be most unfair to declare hundreds on runs where, under these covenants, blocks of land had been taken without compensation. The action of the bucolic party in Otago was therefore, in the words of their leader, as a question of good faith most unfair. Mr Reid, by the way, is reported to have attempted to show that the term “ bucolic” is inappropriate as applied to those who share his views. A little reflection will, however, suffice at once to show its applicability, and the injustice and selfishness of the class to which it has been applied. Bucolic is the English for the Greek word boukolikos, an adjective formed from bouholos, a word translated in the Greek Lexicon as “ a grazier, a keeper of cattle.” The derivation is obvious ; the first part of the word means cattle, the second food. The action of the Provincial Council, the bucolic party being in the ascendant, is thus described by Captain MTvenzie, a member of the Provincial Council, and an unhappy runholder. ‘ £ Our case is a very hard one,” he states on oath before the Commissioners, “ as the Provincial Council appears bent upon procuring land out of the runs for commonage for cattle-holders .” Mr Murray, now member for Bruce, when asked this question—“ Do you think the land on these runs about to be surveyed and sold will fall into the hands of persons who will cultivate much of it, or into the hands of intending sheep-farmers ?” answered “ I think it will chiefly be bought by persons who will keep sheep and cattle ( boukolikoi ,) and cultivate more or less according to prospect of profit therefrom.” The Commissioners were not long in discovering that the cry for land was not a cry for agricultural settlement, which above all things should be encouraged, but, to use their own

words “ the demand is made by persons who undoubtedly desire, as their principal object, to become stockoicners (boukolikoi) rather than agriculturists .” It is most important that there should be no misunderstanding on this point, as it has a very close bearing on the question of the legality of the covenants. Mr Reid, in the Provincial Council, as we learn from Hansard, page 24, calls these “ illegal covenants.” The Commissioners put the question very fairly. The question is thus stated in the margin, “ Had the Superintendent power to enter into such covenants?”; and they answer it thus, “ Provided that the transaction had for its object to carry out the law in its spirit, and according to its intention, the answer, it appears to the Commissioners, must be in the affirmative. But if the object were, or the effect would be, to defeat the law, or injuriously cramp its operation, the answer would be as clearly in the negative. If then proper provision was intended to be made by the covenants to secure the object the law had in view—that of finding sufficient land, or as nearly so as the law allowed for agricultural settlement, they may be considered legal; if not, illegal. That the “ bucolic ” party, true to their name, are chiefly clamorous for “food for cattle,” will be further seen by reference to the remarkable evidence given by the gentleman who now holds the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives. That evidence, reprinted in the Appendix to the Journals of 1869, as well as the Commissioners’ Report, is well worthy of perusal at the present time. Mr. Bell says, “ I have offered them to give up any land they may find jit for agriculture!' Mr. Stafford too, in the House, made lately a declaration to the same effect. It is evident, therefore, that they are anxious for bucolic rather than agricultural settlement. They wish to take land already let to large runholders, and to give it to small runholders. For sheep farming, on a scale large enough to pay, they wish to substitute sheep and cattle grazing, on a scale certain to be unprofitable.

That this was not the intention of the hundred system they boast so much about is evident from the resolution quoted by Mr Gillies in the Provincial Hansard, page 51, which was moved by Mr Cutten in 1855. That resolution was to the effect that purchasers of land should have grazing rights “ for a sufficient number of great cattle to enable them to cultivate such land.” Such a principle seems a very fair one, but it is totally different from that now contended for—the right to graze an indefinite number of both sheep and cattle. In another sense the term “ bucolic” is fitly applied to this “ liberal party,” as they modestly prefer to be called. The cognate verb “ boukoleo” is used by Lucian very aptly to denote deceiving with fair words, and in this sense, too, this party is eminently ‘'bucolic.” They talked loudly about the iniquity of handing over (by a temporary lease easily determinable) the land to the squatters —they have now given 50,000 acres in perpetual possession to the largest squatter in the world ! They professed to be the “ poor man’s friends,” while they opposed Mr Vogel selling land that had been open seven years at ten shillings an acre, and so carrying on roads and public works in which for labor alone over £IOO,OOO was spent by him in one year ! They have always proclaimed their dread of sales in large quantities—have refused recently to allow a settler in the province to buy 800 acres of land at a pound an acre, which he would have employed a considerable amount of labor in improving, and they have now sold to a non-resident squatter of another colony 50,000 acres on credit for a sum which, if ever paid, and that is doubtful enough, will not average fifteen shillings an acre ! A correspondent in the “ Otago Daily Times” thus describes the conduct of this bucolic Executive that have deceived with fair words the long-suffer-ing people of Otago. Deferring to this sale he remarks: — “ The practice has been, first to proclaim a Hundred, and then to name a day on which applications would be received. This in order that the public should have the opportunity of acquiring any land opened for sale. Hot only so, but under Mr. Cutten’s administration as Chief Commissioner, the applications on the first day were carefully watched, lest ary hated runholder or capitalists should

put in a large application, to the exclusion of those poor men and small settlers of whom the present Executive talce the credit to themselves of being the especial guardians , and a Land Office clerk was sometimes employed to duplicate applications in order to ensure the land going by auction. And now what do we see ? At a meeting of the Land Board, the application of Mr J. Clarke for 45,500 acres within his runs Nos. 215 and 212 b was received and passed without comment, and in a manner which suggests that the whole matter had been previously arranged. It is further said that the application covers a good deal of land believed to be auriferous.

The whole appears to me to be a maladministration of the land laws by the Provincial Government. Its being an illegal act, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, is probably regarded as of little consequence by the party now dominant in our provincial politics, who have already shown by their assumed use, under the delegated powers, of the 16th clause of the Goldfields Act, how they can drive a coach and six through an act when it suits their high purpose to. do so. But if such further proof were needed, it must now become quite apparent to every impartial person, that our Provincial Government and Waste Land Board are quite unfitted for the discretional powers which have hitherto been held by them, and that any alterations now to be made in the land law should take the direction of rendering it more absolute aud selfacting, and placing an administration in the hands of persons who are capable of performing their duty impartially, without favor to friends, personal or political.” We cordially agree with the conclusion here arrived at. The Dunedin “ Evening Star ” justly draws attention to the same subject, and uses the following language with regard to it:—■

“ During past years no such extensive sales have been made to individuals as have been sanctioned by the Eeid Governments. They sanctioned the sale of the Island Block to W. J T. Clarke, although there were many applicants for portions of it: and, moreover, there is every reason to believe that it overlies valuable deposits of gold. They gave to the runholders the option of purchasing each six hundred and forty acres of land instead of eighty. They sold to Mr M'Kellar some sixteen thousand ores, more or less, in one block, and now they have agreed to sell forty-five thousand five hundred acres to one man—a non-resident. For our own part we make no comment upon the transactions themselves, excepting on that log-rolling sale of the Island Block, which we denounced at the time, and have no reason to retract our opinion. What we really wish to bring under notice is the value of the services of men who profess one thing and act contrarily to that profession. Had there been one spark of sincerity in those men, they would have found means to bring plenty of land into the market for choice by persons desirous of settling upon it; and moreover, they would have received twenty shillings an acre for it, or more, if offered for sale by auction. Eumor says those 45,500 acres will realise about 15s 6d an acre! Some day, perhaps, the people of Otago will learn to distrust the claptrap of land agitators. If there had been honest straightforwardness, in the conduct of the Government for the past two years, there would have been no necessity to force a sale.”

A correspondent in the same paper in the next issue writes:— “By last night’s issue of your paper, I observe, with natural amazement, that the poor man's Government has, in an evil hour, sealed its own doom, in the eyes of every consistent man, by granting Clarke’s application for 45,000 acres, at actually 15s 6d per acre. Talk not to me henceforth of consistency; for, as Emerson’s says, “it is a fool’s word.” Declaim no more to me about settling the country with an industrious peasantry — “ their country’s pride”; for, such phrases in the mouths of such men as now misgovern Otago, are the emptiest declamation. It is insult added to injury, in so far as the working man is concerned.”

Any member of Assembly who may have been misled by the eloquent utterances of a Shepherd, the pompous platitudes of a Bathgate, or the miserable sneering of a Keid, can now judge for himself whether the term bucolic does not fitly denote at once their selfish preference for cattle-holders, and their deliberate and toosuceessful efforts ft?dtemwe with fair ivords. These worthies may, nay they must, make large professions if only 1 9 keep themselves in countenance, for it is evident that the public suspicion both here and in Otago is being aroused by their daring conduct; but Mr Bathgate, the Provincial Solicitor, even after the most eloquent of harangues, must admit in confidence to his newly-found chief (Mr Stafford) I a wear it’s all right in my speeches an’ messiges, But ther’s idee3 afloat, ez there is about sessiges, An* the thought more an’ more thru the public mind orosses That the Treshry hez gut ’mos too many dead bosses. And even Mr lieid must, after his most truculent of orations, confess to his faithful henchmen Brown, and Bradshaw, Its ness’ry to take a good confident tone With the public : but here, jest amongst us I own, Things looks blaeber’n thunder. Ther’ ’s no use denyin’ We’re clean out o’ money, an* most out o’ lyin’.