WASTE LAND BOARD.

Bruce Herald, Volume VI, Issue 402, 24 January 1872, Page 3

WASTE LAND BOARD.

.A meeting- of the Waste Lands Board., was held on Monday the 15th.. Janu•ary, l§72::y Present, the. Chief Commissioner, of \yaste Lands, Messrs Duncan, Hughes, •and. Raid. , . Messrs Connell and Moodie made application on behalf of Joseph Clarke, to have the plans and specifications of 402 d; containing 45,500 acres of land, approved and the sale •confirmed.- ' , Objections against the sale being confirmed: "were lodged by Messrs Fitzgeruld, Beighton, Cormick" Ormbiid, Norton, Kimpster and "Woodhouse.: Mr Mackay also appeared as a deputy c ap pointed at a large public meeting held to consider the sale, and Mr Stout' appeared in'support of 'the objectors. The objections were— first, that the land iwas not open for the sale. v .. 2nd. That the rimholder's consent had not been obtained for the sale.

3rd. That the land in question is within ;goldtields. and therefore the Board has not the power to sell it. . 4th. That the sale would be prejudicial to •the public interests. ''- Mr Connell, of the firm of Conhell and Moodie made application to have Mr Clarke •declared the purchaser, he having, in accordance with instructions of the Board, had

maps and surveys made which were subifiic+ed for inspection* and ; approval. With regard to the school reserve, Mr Hislop was •of opinion that such reserve 'should be made, •and Mr.Larhach, on Mr Clarke's behalf, was prepared to give effect to that intimation and ' "to agree to it. Another objection had been made by Mr Nichols on behalf of a, client; but ■lie was 'prepared to lay a letter before the Board withdrawing that objection. Mr Stoat was instructed to appear on behalf of ■; several inhabitants of the district ;

;and Mr Mackay, one of the residents, was present. On their behalf he had placed on record several objections, any one of which he considered sufficient to induce tlu Board

to refuse the application. (Mr Stout read the objections ) He submitted that such a ■sale as was asked to be confirmed was against -the letter and spirit of the Waste Lands Act, iand the sale would be most prejudicial to the public interests. He believed the case to be ■entirely unique in the history of the Waste Lands sales of Otago. Never before had so large a block attempted to be sold in the •Province, nor did he believe that sale would .have been contemplated by the Board had so^there been a resolution of the Provincial

Council, founded upon a private arrangement made between Mr Turnbull and the manager

•of the Bank of New Zealand. The resolution, however,, was cautioiisJy worded, and re 'quired that careful enquiry should be made beforehaud in order that nothing might be •done prejudicial to the public interests. Mr Connell objected on a point of order 4o Mr Stoat advising the Board with regard ■to their powers, or the policy of the Govern:ment. ' ' ,»• Mr >' tout considered it was not for Mr •Connell to object if he was out of order, but

for the Pommissioner. Mr Connell said the Waste Lands Board •had its own legal adviser, and Mr Stout was •discussing a point of public policy, with •which the Board had nothing to do. Mr Stout could show that the Board had a /light to show its concurrence with public "policy. . He was not saying his view of the law was right. That was for the Board to ""consider. ---.■■■...■<■ The Board decided to hear Mr Stout. Mr Stout, as he understood from the application itself, considered it was based on the 83rd section of the Waste Lands Act, 1866. The Commissioner:: You' take that for I do not concur in that view entirely. ■ Mr Stout-: If the Board did not act under $hat section, -certainly the application could !not be granted, as he was not aware of any •other section of the Waste lands Act giving •the semblance of authority ,to grant it. ■

; Mr Conuell might refer to the 123 rd. "Mr Stout -would first show that the 83rd =aection did not .give the Board the right to

•deal with theland atall. " The 83rd section showed rfeat if the terms and conditions of

•the lease were complied with the land should not' be liable to be sold without the consent •of the holder. It was wholly under that

that the Board pretended to proceed ■with the application before them ; but he •apprehended the Waste- Lands Act never •contemplated such a case. The section pro vided that, under certain conditions, the land Bhqiild be sold as if declared into a Hundred ; but it was never intended that a runholder should make a private arrangement and then come forward to the Board sfor its ratification. There had been, no consent as •required . by the Act to^sell- jt at all. If consent had been given a.t all'it was merely .-consent to a private arrangement to sell to a . particular individual. It would bind the Board to a course which, if adopted, would £orm a terribly bad precedent. The .whole policy of -the Act was based upon th« intention that there should be no undue advantage given to one settler over another. For that, reason the sale ought to have been advertised and the land put up' to auction, and "for that reason the minutes of the Board wjere open to the public at any time. If the pre•cedent of the present application were granted, it would' be a most dangerous precede nt He would not say that the Board might not •be actuated by the be<*t motives, but in manycountries freeer than Otago— even in America . — private arrangements were made adverse ■to public interests. If the Board sanctioned a runholder in saying, " I allow you to sell &. - certain block of land to a certain- individual ■only, he did not say the B;;ard mipht do anything prejudicial to the public interests, but an Executive might be. appointed ' that was

careless on that point, and who might refer 7 back to" that transaction, and under its au- - j thority pick out the eye 3of the country; by i- > selling it.s choicest lands to; friends and neighbors. But not only was such a c >urse illegal, •but there was a special Act of the Province s making for preventing private arrangements 'being made to prevent land realisiugifcs full value. 1 - It was specially passed to prevent arrangements being made by which one might

say- to ' aubther, • ' If you let me buy that block for so much, I will not bid for such a 3" block that' you want to buy." But if there y- was no auction sale, there was nothing to

prevent an arrangement between J. Clark; ;. ,and V^Tiiliatn Clarke. He therefore asked ' '^he Board^nofc to go in the face- of the Waste '■ ' Iknd ' Ad;, and the Act : to -which he alluded. ' •-'^•lf-'-he had nothing /more. to urge he had said j .enough to.iriduce them: to; refuse the appJica-.-itionjat once. : There was only another point ?he had to deal with before .referring to jthe "objections formafly alleged.. "'lt might be said ; by JVj v Clarke that'- the Board ; had gonej too and that -to 'refuse the applic^iion ■would vl bella^breach of ifaith ;nojb :;to -completejthe '.jiJJSrapgejnent ; thai he had consented to I ten. , i.acres-. being reseryied for, a school out j ;of ';7^^o,^that^ deposit money' hadbeen paid, ■ > 'i l iaa 'ttiat l it was too late for the : e^, >: -^ioKc „ ;;.v>. ■-„ vn :.::■,;. ( • ■.-.

Hoard to slop. But the *46 th clause of the Waste Lands Act provided that, if the Board deemed it would be prejudicial-to.the^public interests either as to, the whole or part of the land, the money, deposited for survey and on account of the""land might .be returned. There was also another clause to the same eflect, so" that the Board had full power to refuse to ratify the application. The laud might have proved auriferous, or the application iriiglit have been made -previous to a public meeting to consider the . question; or the land might have, been found.to,cpn,tain a copper mine, or that it was of sach a character as to benefit the district, and that the "sale "would" 'lnjure ; therdistrict' or "Province considerably. In either of those cases the Board would not have had the slightest hesitation in refusing the application. On this point he might say there was not the slightest pretension that Mr. Clarke did ; not know of this section. Therefore "it was not beyond the Dower of the Board, under the 45.th sec-, tion, to refuse granting the application; on the law of the case. On'the testimony of the inhabitants of the district, oiv the testimony of his Honor the Superintendent, pi MiReid, and of Mr Bradahaw in their evidence given before the select committee in; Wellington, he rested his case, that the sale would be prejudicial to the public interests. In that evidence they had ; showri -that about 3,000 acres were peculiarly adapted for public settlement, and that the interests of the public had'not been sufficiently guarded, as a strip of land was included in the sale which the Executive had determined should be withheld from sale. He apprehended that the Waste Land Board : would not set itself in opposition to the Executive Government of Otago. Mr Bradshavy. the Provincial Treasurer, said there was a' special 'arrangement that a certain portion without a red line marked on the plan,. should not, be sold the Executive deeming it would be prejudicial to the public interests. -to include it in the sale. Mr Bradshaw also statod he believed the land to be auriferous. (Mr Bradshaw : Remotely, auriferous.) He apprehended the Board ivould not . be guided by the maps, which showed more mountains than another professing to be map 3of the district. Mr Smith submitted that no evidence given in Wellington was evidence before the Board. Mr <tout intended to su£f<rest the Board should appoint a Commissioner to take cvi dence on ths character of the land. Mr Smith had no status in the matter, as Mr Connell had already been allowed to appear as agent for Mr Clarke, He might be pardoned alluding to the peculiar position in which the people of the district were pi-iced by the sale. So far back as 1865, there was a block of land called the Shingle Block, which was opene I up for sale in the district, and if that necessity existed seven years ago, it could not be said" to have ceased. The rfhingle Block was said to be perfectly unfit for settlement, and in consequence the block called the Jsland Block «ms declared open for sale. He did not say that, there was any blame for the manner in which it was disposed of attributable to the persons then in powei*. They were cleared from it by a select committee of the Provincial Council ; but by the efforts of Mr Clarke's agent he was enabled to purchase the whole of that block. It might have been through cowardice on the part of the inhabitants. In consa quence of this there was another block open for sale, and, according to the statement, of the Chief Commissioner, the lease was cancelled under tne 16th clause of the Gold fields Act, 1868, and a proclarnati .n issued on the 14th November, 1870. Two thousand acres were surveyed under the fifty-acre section. Of these 420 i) acres are attempted to be included in this application.. This was divided into sections, but the maps presented did not show that survey.

Mr Cjnnell said Mr Stout had made certain remarks attempting to throw discredit on Mr Clarke's survey. They were vow the official maps of the Government, and not private plans The Chief • Commissioner said, a3 Chief Surveyor he considered the plans very correct . ' ' ■ Mr Stout thought then that the people of the district were very anxious to get possession of the tops of the mountains Tiie Provincial Government considered that 4200 acres absolutely necessary for settlement: Thej r cancelled the lease, had it surveyed into fifty acre sections and then that expense of survey was to be thrown aside, and the 4200 acres given to Mr Clarke. All these proceedings showed that to ratify that sale would be prejudicial to the public interest. The district had been especially illtreated. The' inhabitants when the Shingle Block was thrown open, were asked to cultivate a bed of shiiigle. The Island Block had been sold instead of leased, and now on Moa Flat 4200 acres were taken away, an d included in that survey for Mr Clarke. He thought the Board would agree that the dis trict had been timst unhandsomely treated. The inhabitants of the P-ovince complained when their land was sold at ten shillings an acre ; but how. much greater right had they to complain that not only the tops of the mountains but 4200 acres, 'which Mr Connell said was level land ? ;

, Mr Conuell denied saying it was level. : It was 2000 feet above the level of the sea On the ma,,B, it was marked "agricultural land.

Mr Stout could refer to history to show that land was considered almost useless for agriculture at one time became exceedingly valuable. Tn Cromwell's time the Bedford Level was thought to be so worthless as to be only fit for gifts to King Charles's friends ; yet ie is now considered the most valuable agricultural land in England. But supposing tne-'iand in question not to be agricultural land, he apprehended, the not throwing open the land to the public still prejudicial to the public interest, for by sanctioning the application it would lead to this: there was a block of land taken up by the set lers, and across the land in question there ; was a road to Mount Benger commonage, and if they had no right to proceed between Mi" Clarke's property and the river, the consequence must be they must quit their ,hordii)gs. : It was simply telling the /poor people of the district they must leave that; part of the Province, for Mr Clarke could drive them out. In regard to the policy of the sale, he apprehended the. Board had wholly to deal with policy of the sale. . The Executive, Government, the Provincial Government, and the Goyemorrhad given them power to deal with the policy.- ; Uncler the 46th section of the otagoWa3te ; Lands Act the Board 'had to deal wholly withythe policy of the sale; It ii required by that ' clause 1 that : carefiil; 'enquiry should be made, an<J to grant or^refuse theapplication if prejiidicial t.o the 'public interest ;'" so .that thY Board, wds , not a "mere lowly machine', to, carry ~o^t Ihe; provisions of the Land _ ActT-r-the'y ,were,not intera regis-. trars of .the. s,al3s^ pf/#i auctioneerfl!; they had .to consider, not.oniy for ,the district in whiohrthevland waSiiSituatedjCibut, the^efifect-! upon : the provinces ?afc large of .'sanctioning

■such a large, sale as 'that. -He need not tell the Board the opinions, of political economists respecting such large sales.: They objected to thq sale, of such .large blocks, even on mountains. Every writer on political economy coh'demried such large aggregations , of land. Spencer ;and .Stuart Mill, v i l Mr Connell thought it was put of place on the part of Mr Stout to- attempt to instruct the Board on political econony. Mr Stout had no doubt political ' economy did not .suit Mr Clarke, and on that ground the objection was 'made. ' He apprehended, hqvtev.erj that by the 46th section the Board was "bound — and the resolution of the Provincial Council bound "them — to look at. the application in a political economic point of view. What was political economy? Tt was simply a record of opinions, on p > i*io •! and r social science. It was a record, of the ; opinions ; of i'the soiindest thinkers, tellir.g people, what was and what was not prejudicial to their interest. He apprehended,, therefore, that the Board had wholly to deal" with the. political economy of tlie case ; nor did he think the Board would set itself tobe above all treatises on political economy. They Would not set themselves against the spirit of the age — an age of thinking in every country. In prance .large' property iin land wps. discountenanced, and Von Stein in Prussia condemned itv There was also a moveri ment against it in England 5 and if there, was only that single objection against the application,'he apprehended t^e Board would tii lce cognisance of it. He need not point 1 out that if they allowed a spirit of feudalism to take root in the Province, they laid the foundation of a diniculty that could not be got rid of. It was strange that, notwithstanding the increase <>f wealth at homiffefsik was getting into fewer hands. .Notwithstanding that the law of primogeniture was practically nearly abolished, land in England had got into the hands of some 34,000 or 35,000 psrsons, and a similar process had been going on in Scotland. Such a system was, however, acknowledged to be prejudicial to the public interests, and to sanction the application was a step in that direction. Referring to the objections placed on record : —First, the consent of the runholder had not been obtained. Tt was simply an offer of the runholder to ratify a private arrangement made between Mr Clarke and his father. And if there had been no consent, there could be no sale. The sale had not been advertised. There had been no opportunity of competition. Mr Clarke simply came to the Board and asked it to ratify that private arrangement. The land, therefore, could not be said to be opened at all. It might be replied — Suppose the consent of the runholder was nut withheld, then the land, if sold, must be sold as if included in a Hundred. Was there any record of such a thing being attempted to be done ? There had not been a single indication that the rnnh ildei hud consented to its being oponed up for sale ; and he therefore concluded it had not been open for sale under the Act of 18G6. Secondly, the land' Was within a gold field, and under the Goldfields Act the Board had n > power to sell the land. Tiiat was plain enough. It would be monstrous, in fact, if it had that power ; for then there might be another Mr Clarke coming aud buying a mountain containing gold. He contended there had been no cancellation of the pastoral license. Only part of it had been cancelled over a 5000 acre block. There was neither cancellation nor suspension of the pastoral license over 45,000 acres, and. therefore the B >ard could not deal with it. Again, the 83rd section did not refer to land within goldfields, and if the Board said it did refer to such land, then no consent had been given. The 83rd section could only refer to land not within goldtields, and if the 123 rd section was the only section that applied to land within goldfields, its provisions did not apply to the present case. The strongest logal ground that could be urged against the sale, was that the pastoral license had not been cancelled, nor had the runholder consented to the sale of the land. He thought he had shewn sufficient under the four grounds to prove that the sale would De prejudicial to the public interest, and tv make the Board refuse to grant the application. In conclusion, he must say the Board had been placed in a difficulty by the resolution of the Provincial Council, for had it not been for that, they would not have entertained such an application. He sympathised with the Council, as their action was taken in consequence of the letter addressed by the manager of the Bank of New Zealand. Sympa'hy might also be expressed because of the state of the funds of the Province. not being in a flourishing state, through the passing of the Hundreds Regulation Act. By it he apprehended a grievous wrong had been done to the Province, but he trusted the Board would not stoop to do a greater, folly than the Hundreds Regulation Act contemplated, .by alienating so much land fit for settlement. He rested mainly on legal grounds^ and that the sale was prejudicial to the public interest. He had only to state that if l\lr Smith would like to receive evidence. Mr Mackay had been deputed by a large public meeting to attend, and was prepared to give the opinions of the public, if there was the slightest doubt of the injury that would accrue to the inhabitants of the district.

Mr Mack ay said he believed that when the 5000 acres survey was made it was promised r to Mr Brown it should not be sold under any conditions, and therefore to sell it would be a breach of faith with the residents of the district. One of the effects of the sale would be that the position of those residents who took up the 2,000 acres on Moa Flat would be untenable. They had each taken 50 or 100 acres, and were prepared to take some 50 or 100 acres in addition when it was surveyed. They took their lots on those conditions, and if they were bibarred of a road between the mountains and the river they would becompelled to sell out. The settlers o a that 2,000 acres would be driven off. The question was simply between the sum 0£L35,000 and the destruction of the whole district.

Mr Jtleid, referring to one remark, thought it unfortunate to have to answer an alleged promise made in another place. He could not have made such a reply to Mr Brown, for he had come to the conclusion that 1200 acres would have to be sold to Mr Clarke in order to give him his sheep yards and the •buildings he had put up there. He had arrived at that conclusion from. Mr McKerrow's report. 1

Mr Mackay examined by Mr Conneli. Yob are a resideht'settler up there ? - I am.

You know the position of the 5,000 4 cre block? I do. : !

t With the exception of the portion referred* to by Mr Reid, on which Mr Clarke, has laid out some thousand pounds In erecting a wool shedphow'much of the balance of that block, can. -you, as an. honest rhan,^sayis agricultural land?-. Cam you say ten acres is ?< : ." ■ ■

7Mr -Reid i; I; do: riot;thirik\ Mr McKecrow 'inade~ any. reference to agricultural land! I

think he said that persons took- up land for the purpose. of addingto it. - Mr Mackay : Half of it is very good agricultural land, probably more. • ' .. That is to say between Mr^Clarlce's fence and the back country to the top of Mount Benger ? Exactly. Mr Connell apprehended the Board would allovv Mr. James, SmithKjto {answer the; legal points raised by Mr Stout ; but statements had been' made which, he desired to contra diet. He had no intention to discuss matters ofjpolicyi:: Mr' Stout .should hive ' stood for the Provincial Council if he went into them. With regards to 'the 46th' clause, those whom he represented read it the same as Mr Stout. , In regard to the sale being preju-dicial-tol public interests, it was- not trite,Tt was not true that there was in the land applied for a large quantity of agricultural land: The agricultural land" in the whole block, was about 25. )0' acres, 1 or less" ths,n 5 per cent. Mr Stout, laid*, great stress, upon evidence given iii Wellington, but those who were' examined must' only have been speaking from hearsay, if any. of them said it was agricultural land. It had been said if the land was purchased it completely shut out the settlers oh Moa Flat, and they would be compelled to abandonthe district ; but there was a very large portion of merely pastoral land in possession of those settlers with uheirtattie on it. ! " It had be6n attempted to thrmv cold water on the arrangement, but a -portion fencedby Messrs Cargill and Ander,son where their' sheep were—

Mr Stout: asked, the acreage of the block. Mr Oonnell did not know, but notwithstanding there was a large quantity of land owned by Messrs Cargill and Anderson.

.1 Mr Mackay : There are 1 only 2500 acres \ltogether in. the block, and out of it 2000 are taken up and fenced ; so. that there are only 300 acres left.

'Mr Gohnell only spoke from his impression through having ridden over it.

Mr Hughes, a member of the Board, suggested there was some mistake about the Shingle Block. Mr Connell called it the Shingle Block, thpugh speaking of Moa Flat.

Mr Connell was speaking of Moa Flat. There was a lai'ge quantity of land there. Another point was that Mr Clarke, by taking the land within the red line, l«ft the settlers without a road to the back country. This was not correct, as there was another road ; so that tli2 statement that the settlers would have to leave the. district was quite unfounded. , If the Board had any doubt of the correctness of his statements, he should like Mr M'Kerrow to be examined

The Chief Commissioner: Mr M'Kerrow has given a report which quite satisfied the Board.

M<* Connell : When the application was made through him, Mr Clarke was perfectly aware of the existence of the clauses in the Act which had been alluded to, and knew it was in the power of the Board to refuse to grant the application. And, as he was making a large deposit, he did n,ot wish to be placed in such an unfavorable position, and therefore distinctly brought those very clauses before the Board. It was, in fact, made a sine qua non that the Board should not only receive the application, but have all those matters distinctly understood. As agent for Mr Clarke he was not satisfied with merely niuntioning the subject, but took care to have _it properly and duly minuted. By referring to the application it would be seen it was signed by the Chairman to the effect that the application was not only received but granted.

The Chief Commissioner : Who was the Chairman 1

Mr Connell :Mr Cutten. The Board entered into a distinct equitable unnderstanding that those points were duly considered : so that if objections were raised now, they must be fresh points The legal points he must leave to Mr Smith, who would tell the Board the effect of repudiating the contract.

On reference to the minuses, Mr Stout pointed to the word l granted " being struck out. His contention was that even if the Board sold the land the sale was illegal.

The attention of the Board was called to the word " granted," having only a pencil mark drawn across it.

Mr Connell believed he had.noticei all the points not strictly of a legal character. Of course the Board understood his principal was prepared to complete the purchase.

Mr Bradshavv (Provincial Treasurer) asked leave to make one or two remarks. Two of the members of the General Assembly who gave evidence, did so on hearsay. He had read over the report, and he was clearly of opinion that all the land within a red line he had marked had been determined upon by the Government not to be sold as being tit for settlement — a large portion of it for agricultural settlement. He said so far in the Wakaia district, which he represented, similar land, which at one time was stated not fit for settlement, was now producing fine crops. He thought he could throw some light on the reply alluded to by Mr Mackay. VVhen the sale of that land was moved, he received a telegram from Mrßeigton, asking if the 5000 acre block would be sold, and he telegraphed "No," for he was certainly of opinion the Executive Government had determined to prevent the sale of that land ; and he now asked the Board svhether that lease was not cancelled on the 24th Nov., 1870, 'Gazette' No. 701— whether they could sell land cancelled under the 16th clause of the Goldfields Act. He s'-ood strongly on that point. Land cancelled under that clause was taken out of the hands of the Superintendent and Executive to deal with. ■

,Mr Connell considered thatevidene should be taken as to the character of the strip of land referred to.

After an unimportant discussion,

Mr James Smith was about to address the Board, when Mr Stout objected, as Mr Connell had been ah'eady heard.

The Board decided Mr Smith should be heard.

Mr Duncan,, as a member of the Board, declined to be guided by either Mr Stout or Mr Smith. The Board had their own legal adviser to refer to.

Mr Smith, in view of MrJStout's objection, and jytr Duncan's statement that argument on his part would be useless, would not trouble the Board with any reply. He would only s-iy generally that Mr Clarke held the Board bour.d to complete the sale already commenced; j The Board halving deliberately in view section 46, agreed to sell a certain tract of land. The only thing remaining to be done was that the boundaries should; be determined by survey. Mr Clarke held the' Waste Land Board bound to complete conr. tract, or he would seek a legal remedy elsewhere; <<■,' - . .:>■;■::''. <; V.V- ?-r/> j Mr Stout said the objectors would also elsewhere seek a legal remedy ; jv and as ;Mr Clarke was rich,- and they were poor, [ hehoped ,th e. expense , would, be ,. ,thro,W;ni upon 5 ium. He would only say, tfiat'^'u 'ihe Bdard •had any "doubt as-to'-tKe'ititerests ; 6f- the district being prejudiced,^ and, wonldj^adjaurn their decision, _he. woul4 undertake' "to (get

memorials signed in every neighboring district jn Tuapeka, Roxburgh, Tapanui, and elsewhere*

The Board proceeded to consider the question,'but ultimately, on the motion of Mr Duncan, adjourned to three o'clock.

On the Board-reassembling at three o'clock it was intimated by the Chief Cotfimissioner that the proposal for consideration was Mr Reid's proposal :— " That the sale be agreed to, except that part of about 1950 acres that lieS'N.E; of the road line that divides block 4,and the ten acres reserved asa school site. That Mr Clarke can have the option of select^ ing an equal quantity in any part of the run contiguous to present application, or his deposit returned for the part taken off in terms of 4.6th 'section, Waste Lands Act, 1866."

Mr Duncan observed that he .had duly considered the whole question, and the point touched upon by Mr Conuell, together with the'xnspute that took place ac the meeting of the Board, when the application was received. He clearly stated at the time and when the matter came before the Board, and it wa? asked if it could grant" the application, that it could not be; granted.; and he called attention to the arrangement ; declining to listen to the statements made by the chairman. He found also that the people of the' district had made great complaints about the sale, saying that its effect would be injurious to, the district ; and seeing that Jthey had conceeded a great deal ill their original demands — that according to Mr Mackay they were to take a part of the block, leaving that part which' was occupied as a station— and seeing that his vote entirely carried out the 46th clause of the Act, he would support Mr Reid's motion.

Mr Hughes would support the resolution, which was then agreed to

Mr James .Smith : With reference to the decision just come to, I have to inform the Board that Mr Clarke will not accept one acre less than the area surveyed.

Mr Reid : Mr Clarke will be entitled to the acres surveyed \ but the Board has the undoubted power to say where the land shall be taken from. Under the 46th clause he can abandon his survey or not ; in that case, the Act decides how his deposit will be dealt with.

The Waste Land Board met at noon on the 17th. Present — The Chief Commissioner, Messrs Duncan, Hughes, and Reid.

One thousand acres of land, section 10, block 13, Hillend District, was resolved, on the application of Walter Miller, to be put up for auction at 10s an acre. Applicant to pay for survey, and the coat to be added to the price of the land sold.

Thomas Calcutt's application to purchase 50 acres of Rush Reserve, Hawkesbury, was referred to the Ranger for reports.

David Doulls request to prevent the Town Council of Balclutha interfering with the erection of a mill, was referred to the Provincial Solicitor.

John Parker, who made application for a lease of 50 acres of land at Cooper's Gully, for coal mining, was directed to furnish a survey and a report from the Warden, when, if not objected to, it would be granted on the usual terms.

John Sutherland's application to purchase sections 7 and 17, block 10, Waitahuna West, held under agricultural lease, was sanctioned. The remaining sections applied for were refused.

The prayer of the memorial of Gr. F. Richardson 1 and others, tobe allowed to alter certain regulations, was refused.

Mr 1 1 arris's application on behalf of J. and A. Boyd for a lease of section 44, block 6, Hillend, for a quarry reserve, was declined.