Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 96, 6 November 1852, Page 5

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times,

Sik, —I have raised a hornet's nest about my ears. When I remarked that the, squatters had had all the talk to themselves, little did I think that all that talk had so faintly overshadowed what they had in store. It is difficult for me to answer three antagonists ut once, each taking a separate line of argument; I have not time to do so at length, t will confine myself, therefore, to a few general observations upon each letter in succession.

Mr. Stoddart, for whose experience and ability no man hasjx higher respect than myself, does not condescend to argue with me. "The advocacy of his policy," he says, *' opens up a field too wide to expect space in your columns for insertion ;" —so he only draws a touching picture of the " extreme risks and hardships" of his calling, and denounces me as a hungry official. It is hardly necessary to waste many

words in reply to mere shrieks and groans. I am sorry he is not happier: doubtless it requires some pluck to be jolly in the gorge of the Rakaia.

But Mr. Stoddart still has to show why he should expect consolation out of the public purse. If iw&e so perilous and sad a life, with so much to deter in it, so little to attract—so much to be suffered, so little to be gained— why, I must be permitted again to ask, did he embark in it with his eyes open ? " Gentle Shepherd tell me why." If in truth he be so much disgusted with his position as he would have us think, I can promise him that there are plenty of people, "hungry officials" and others, who will be delighted to exchange with him— perhaps even to pay him a handsome premium for the good-will of his " extreme risks and hardships," and who will be perfectly satisfied to run the risk of having their "bleeding capacities measured," and even to be " placed in the humiliating position of sponges." I now come to the longer and more didactic epistle of Mi'- Jerningham Wakefield. And here I will premise that the very last man who should advocate such views is his father's son. Almost every argument he uses for pastoral fixity of tenure at a nominal rent, is applicable, word for word, to the old system of (i free grants," which Edward Gibbon Wakefield has justly earned immortal honor by destroying. But let that pass. Mr. Wakefield says that I " advocate the policy of putting the highest price possible on natural pasturage for no other purpose but that of getting a revenue out of stockowners." Begging his pardon, I do no such thing:—l advocate the policy of not giving up the public estate for ever, or for an indefinite time, at a rent admittedly inadequate, to one set of people ; and I do so, not only for the sake of revenue (that is, of obviating the necessity of taxation) but for the sake also of common fairness. If at the end of seven, or ten, or fourteen years, there should be ten pastoral capitalists for every run, I say it is not fair that the value which such a state of things would confer on the runs, should go into the pockets of one small class of men. Mr. Wakefield must know perfectly well, that the runs would practically in such case be put up to competition, and that the greatest possible amount of revenue would be got out of them ; " because," —as he rightly observes, —': the owner must pay, or his sheep starve." But there would be just this important difference: that instead of the " governing body or Public," (i.e., the rightful owner,) having the benefit of this "remarkably pleasant and easy mode of taxation," the sum raised would all go into the pockets of the lessees, to whom that owner would have so unwisely surrendered his inheritance.

One is sufficiently surprised to recognise in Mr. Wakefield's letter, as in Mr. Stoddart's, the tone of genuine Protectionists. We might almost fancy mutatis mutandis, that we were reading the Morning Post or the Quarterly. Mr. Stoddart enlarges on the " risks and hardships" of the squatters,—Mr. Wakefield on their virtues and deservings. Both agree that a class so miserable, and so meritorious, should be consoled, "encouraged," and "protected" by getting their land rent-free for ever. Mr. Wakefield, indeed, is so kind as to admit that they may, perhaps, fairly be asked to pay the interest (!) of the money lent out in surveying their holdings,—but as to the Colony deriving a net revenue from them, he hasn't words to express his indignation at such tyranny. We may well, then, wonder he does not propose that the Public should pay them bounties, for being so good as to grow an exportable commodity for its special good. He might find precedents even for that, in the annals of Protectionism. Modern economists, however, dare to hold that public property should be managed like private property,—to the best advantage : that the State should be no respecter of persons; and that any attempt on its part to apportion " encouragement" according to the respective virtues of different classes and individuals, is useless to those whom it professes to favor, and is, moreover, unjust to the rest of the couimu-

nity. There is little space left me for dealing mtji the letter of the Committee-man. I agree with him in thinking that it is possible (and not a*visable) to " let pasturage on such terms 88 would produce a great stagnation in pastoral enterprise," and that the " injury thus suffered would be far greater than the gam on the amount of rent." I also agree with Jiim that " the question is not one only of rent, noia-

ing, then, these views, it is satisfactory to me to observe that the existing regulations which " even the Agent of the Association has allowed not to he perfectly satisfactory," do not discourage pastoral enterprise: that runs are taken up as fast as stock can be got to put upon them : and that, as is notorious, not one bond fide intending Stockowner has been diverted from his intention by the amount of rent or the precariousness of tenure. The Public, therefore, has in no way suffered as yet: and we may presume, individuals do not think they will" suffer ; —though it is nobody's business but their own, to enquire into that. I would just ask your correspondents to look at the Government runs outside the " Block," where not a farthing of rent is paid, and a fourteen years lease is given. Have they been stocked more rapidly? Has pastoral enterprise been more successfully encouraged there ? If the two systems may be judged of from results actually before our eyes, the verdict will most certainly not be in favor of that one which is most favorable to the squatter. •'- But I must repeat, what I have already stated, that I do not profess to be an admirer of the Association's regulations. lam ready to admit that every squatter should have a pre-emptive right, or compensation for improvements; I will even go so far as to allow that a seven years lease is too short a term, and that not a word can he said for the liability to intrusion on the part of alien "pre-emptive right" holders. It is not, however, for me. to propose detailed amendments: my object was to assert a principle. What I asked was, that the Public property should be managed in such a way as may be most for the benefit of the Public, and not for that of a class, however meritorious, or however useful. The reasonableness of this demand still remains to be disproved. In reference to the observation about " officialism," I cannot refrain from remarking that to become " alien and unsympathising," it must first he treated as such, unjustly, or, through "a vague and groundless jealousy," from which it is itself certain to suffer a much more severe "squeezing" than any the Stockowners are likely to undergo from it. With the introduction of liberal institutions, it were at least desirable that the liberal feeling hitherto manifested in this Settlement towards the Public Service should not be surrendered for the old absurdity of tugging in on every possible occasion an insidious and ungenerous sneer nn-ainst it, till every right-minded man shrink 0 from an employment that implies degradation rather than honor—the mistrust, and not the confidence of his fellow Colonists. It is contrary to common sense—to all sound reason,—-to" maintain that the best interests of men in the service either of a private employer or of the Public, are not bound up with the success of that Colony, which they have adopted as their home. And to ' run a muck' at them whenever they advance opinions, is to attempt to stifle freedom of discussion after the fashion of an American mob, as well as to attack their privilege as Citizens. ° The want of a name paraded at length at the end of my letter, has most unnecessarily stirred up the bile of two of mv antagonists : who seem to forget that arguments, if soundj lose nothing by the omission, and that there is no custom of newspaper controversy requiring that it should be supplied by Your's very obediently, 3§.