Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 94, 23 October 1852, Page 10

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —The Report of the Committee of Stockholders, published in your Journal of Sept. 25, has had the effect which it was mainly intended to produce, that, namely, of" attracting1 public attention to the present very unsatisfactory settlement of the Pasturage question. It was never contemplated that the Report should be received as the final opinion of the pastoral settlers who attended the public meeting. It simply puts forward a number of specific propositions for the consideration and discussion of the public; in order that, when the time for legislation shall arrive, the deliberate and collective opinion of the people may be embodied in whatever law it may be found necessary to enact, for the future management of the waste lands of our settlement. As one or those who signed that Report, I am glad to see that this discussion has commenced • and it is iv the hopes of provoking- a further elucidation of the subject that I make the following remaiks upon the letter of your correspondent"'?!. I shall pass by bis misrepresentations, that ' to concede" the claim of the Stockholders "would amount simply to an entire surrender of the waste lands, and of all control over them to those wiio happen to be the first occupiers," &c. —iiis insinuations that we think "it desirable that Canterbury should remain one vast sheep walk, or that the pastoral should be fostered by ibe discouragement of the Agricultural interests,'' his assertion "that we have had

all the talk to ourselves," and that we " would be very glad to ignore" the " interest" which " the Public has in the waste lands." There does not seem to be anything in the Report, which called for such expressions as these. Nor shall I notice the argument—that the squatters came under the present system voluntarily, and have, there/ore, no right to complain—farther than to remark, that the question is not one of "complaint," but is a discussion as to the most advantageous mode of using the unsold waste lands of the settlement, in which it is neither improper nor unnatural that we should take a part. I shall at present notice but one fallacy which pervades the whole of I|'g letter, although it is not definitely expressed. He seems to suppose, as many I am aware do suppose, tV»at the question is one simply of Landlord and Tenant; and that the sole duty of the Governing power, as agent for the landlord, that is the Public, is to extract the highest possible rent out of the unsold waste lands of the Settlement—to obtain for the wild gi'ass of the plains, the highest price which it will fetch in the market. This is, however, but a narrow view of the relation in which the Public stands to the squatters. The duties of Landlord are but a small part of those which devolve on the Government as entrusted with the care of all the public interests of the community. The object of Government is not, primarily, to raise revenues— that is a tax gatherer's notion of Government; — but it is so to make and execute laws as to promote the greatest prosperity of all classes of the people: and the raising of revenue is only justifiable, so far as it contributes to this result. It is quite conceivable that the pasturage lands might be let upon such terms as would produce a great stagnation in pastoral enterprise, and that the injury thus inflicted on the settlement would be far greater than the gain on the amount of rent. Ido not say that the question of rent is of no importance to the public, only let us not imagine that the question is one only of rent. As far as the actions of Government can influence the economical phenomena of a country, they should be designed to increase the wealth of the whole community. I do not speak of the distribution of wealth between particular classes, but of the aggregate wealth of the State; and I say that whatever tends to increase that wealth is the best policy—of course I mean where no moral considerations interfere with the economical. Now the wealth of a country is measured solely byits productive power; andthat country is the richest which produces the greatest amount of things having an exchange value, in a given time. Applying this law to the management of the pasturage lands, it would appear that that system will be the best for the interests of the country at large which will admit of the greatest quantity of produce being raised from the pastoral districts : nor will this economical truth be at all violated by the fact that the increase of the wealth of the State may be accompanied or caused by the prosperity of some few individuals. It may be said that if this were sound reasoning no rent at all ought to be demanded. The reply is that the occupation of sheep-farming entails many serious expences on Government, which it need not incur, were the population to confine themselves to occupations which could be carried on within narrower limits of territory. It is to meet these expences that the rent ought to be demanded from the squatter; whether he should be made to pay more, I shall presently enquire, if you will allow me space in your columns on a future occasion. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, A Land & Stock-owner.