The Tuapeka Times. THURSDAY, MAY 71, 1871. "Measures, not Men."

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 170, 11 May 1871, Page 5

The Tuapeka Times. THURSDAY, MAY 71, 1871. " Measures, not Men."

Lsr a recent issue we expressed our fears that, from the numerous instances iv which highly auriferous land has been leased and afterwards sold, some danger would ainse that the rninei"S would come to regard the whole agricultural system with suspicion and dislike. We • suggested some modifications which, in our opinion, would tend to prevent the alienation of auriferous land in future, and give the miners greater facilities than they at present possess for prospecting land held under lease. We purpose now to advert to objections, which the settlers themselves have to the agricultural system. These objections are directed; not so much to the larvv establishing the system ?xs to the regulations under which ithas been administered by the successive Provincial Governments. The measure itself, in its essential principles, is remarkably liberal. indeed, it would be difficult to devise one giving greater facilities for bona Jide •settlement, unless, indeed, the Victorian Land Law — payment in instalments extending over a long series of yeais — were introduced. That would, undoubtedly, be preferable; but the leases, which the squatters hold over nine-tenths of the waste lands, render this, we fear, at present impossible. The Waste Lands Act of 1866, and the series of supplementary Acts, passed since, have invested them with such rights, or rather privileges, as enable them to prevent any .radical change in the land laws, save at an expense entirely out of the question in the present financial position of the province. For a land law as liberal as that of Victoria, we must wait till some of the lea.ses granted to the pastoral tenants expire. The result of an agitation for free selection and payment by instalments, we would regard as extremely doubtful ; but if the settlers on the goldfiYlds would set themselves to JSff^'e the Provincial Government lor a redress of the grievances to which they are at piesent subject, we would not have the slightest fear of the issue. These grievances may all be summed up in the one word — expense. This is the burden of all the complaints which now reach us. Formerly the limitation of the area granted to an applicant to fifty acres, and the delay which occurred in survey and in obtaining possession were frequently complained of. The exteusion of the maximum area to 200 acres is now, in most cases, considered sufficient, while applicants — at all events in this district — are subjected to no unavoidable delay. The expense, both from preliminary charges and from the annual rent, is heavy enough to justify the complaints. A.n applicant for a leasehold has, on making application, to make a deposit, if the land he wants is, as in most cases it is, unsurveyed. In addition, he has to advertise the same at his own cost, twice in the local papers. If his application is granted, he has to make immediate payment of 2s. 6d. per acre, onehalf of which, however, goes towards rent, the other moiety going to cover '•' charges in respect of granting" the land, but not including costs of survey. What the charges referred to are, the regulations do not state, nor are we told what further charges are made for survey. These will probably differ in different localities; but two years ago a uniform charge of Is. per acre was made in all cases. For aught we know, the charge may still be the same. If to this, be added the expense the unfortunate applicant incurs by attendance on three different occasions at the Warden's Court, ifc will be seen that his complaints of expense are not altogether unjustifiable. Contrast the case of an applicant for land anywhere outside the goldfields. If the land is surveyed, he is put to no expense but the purchase money. If unsurveyed, he has, in the first case, to bear the cost of survey ; but he receives, for every pound he thus advances, value in land. Why should one law obtain in the • goldfields and another in the rest of the province? jbere is no trouble or expense nTvolved in the granting of a leasehold more than in granting a free- j hold to justify the much heavier charge made in the one than in the other ; .there is none that we know which a ■ merely . nominal charge

would not cover, save the advertising, which the interest of the public requires, and this, as we have seen, is defrayed by the applicant. The higher charges are altogether arbitrary, and of a piece with the other arbitrary burdens imposed on the residents of the goldfields — as arbitrary as the gold export duty, or as the £5 license, which a shoemaker or a carpenter must procure before he is allowed to prosecute his trade. It is high time that such invidious burdens should be abolished. The rent of 2s. 6d. an acre, equivalent to 12| per cent, on the purchase money, is altogether too much — more particularly when it is recollected that it is chargeable, from the granting of the lease, while two years must elapse ere the settler can have any return from his land. Altogether, the charges cannot be justified on the ground of expediency or justice. Now, what we particularly wish to be noticed is, that none of these obnoxious charges are fixed by the Act under which the leases are granted ; it simply determines the extent of the area to be granted, and the time for which the leases shall run. The costs, whether preliminary or for rent, are left entirely to the regulation of the Provincial Government. It first fixed them, and alone has the power to. alter them. We have, during some time back, been accustomed to hear on all occasions that our Provincial Council and Executive were eager to introduce more liberal land laws, but that they were constantly thwarted by the Colonial Legislature. While fully appreciating the efforts they made, we must confess that we should have no less confidence in their zeal and sincerity, had the}' at the same time shown an equal eagerness to administer the laws we already have in a more generous manner. We cannot say that we have any great amount of confidence in the present Executive ; but if they alter the Agricultural Leasing Regulations so as to place the applicant for a leasehold on the same footing, as regards expense, with the applicant for unsurveyed land in hundreds — if they reduce the rent from 2s. 6d. to Is. per acre, equal to 5 per cent, on the purchase money — we shall admit that they have done more to forward settlement on the goldfields than any Government we have yet had.