THE LAND LAWS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2932, 2 June 1870, Page 3

THE LAND LAWS.

TO IBS EDITOR OF THE LYTTELTON TIMES. Sib,—As the law relating to the sale of the Waste Lands is pretty much on the tapis at present, will yon be good enough to allow me to make a few remarks on the same ? If it were not for the privilege se liberally allowed by you in your correspondence mlnimn, to those who have not the ability or confidence to speak in public, they would find it difficult to make known their sentiments on any subject engrossing the attention of the public. There seems to be a great difference of opinion on this subject, as well as on all others. Therefore I think it incumbent on those most interested to make known their ideas on the subject. It appears to me to be only -a question of time. I think it will not be long before it will be generally acknowledged that however well the present laws have answered in time past, they have, like other things, had their day, and that under the present altered circumstances of the province they are altogether unjust and impolitic. I have beard and read a great many arguments, both for and against them, but I have heard none to convince me that they are wise, just, or liberal, at the present time. It is said that it would be unjust to those who- have purchased at the present price to alter it now. Would it be considered just or politic in an auctioneer, who, after selling the choice or pick of a pen of sheep or cattle, refused to sell the remainder at a less price? It may be said that there is as good land for sale at present as any that has been sold, and that it is worth two pounds an acre. If so, what was that land worth which was situated within a few miles of the market, to say nothing of that in the suburbs, when all farm produce was worth about double the price which it is at present, or is likely to be in future ? I coneider that the best land unsold in the province is not worth more than one pound an acre, and 1 the inferior not more than five shillings. What sane person would buy land now at two pounds an acre to feed sheep or cattle on ? If bought at all, it must be bought for the purpose of growing corn ; and let any person say, who has experienced it, what is the difference in the value of land within an easy distance of a market, and land at, say thirty or forty miles distant, even supposing there is a line of railway within a moderate distance. , , I see by this day’s paper that the proceeds of last sale amount to twenty pounds. Will that be sufficient to defray the expence® of the Board for the day ? What price ■ must land be. At to enable the farmer to compete with the squatter ? In rearing sheep and cattle thereon the farmer has to depend chiefly ou the return from his corn crops. Do away with the squatting, and then land may be worth the present price. Farmers would then, as in the old country, be able to make something of their stock. The above remarks apply principally to the justness of the law. I will now say a few words on the policy of maintaining, the law under the existing circumstances. It is considered by many of the landholders, but not all, that if the price of waste laud is reduced, it will depreciate the value of theirs. I believe that it would be the reverse, because it would tend very materially to increase the population, and thereforeenhance the value of uncultivated land. I believe, on theotherhand, that if the present law is maintained, the province will continue in a stateof stagnation,and win be the cause of the population diminishing, and so depreciate the value of all land, especially as the world’s highway is now opened. Who in want of land would be foolish enough to buy in a market where land and labour are higher, and all agricultural produce, without an exception, lower than in any other part of the world, when by making a short and pleasant voyage along the world’s highway they could purchase as good land, and in as good a climate, where there are no squatters to glut the “® rket one-eighth the price, and have the other seven left to cultivate it with ? Tour obedient servant, A NEW ZEALAND SETTLER OF 1842,