LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XI, Issue 525, 27 March 1852, Page 19

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PASTURAGE REGULATIONS. Sir — I cannot suffer your leading article of Saturday last, so far as it relates to the Pasturage question, to pass unnoticed. It is the peculiar province and duty of the journalist to investigate truth ; and in order to do so effectually, it is necessary that the principles with which he sets out Bhould be clearly stated — that they be fairly warranted, by being deduced from ascertained facts — that no advantage be taken of ambiguity of words to mislead the judgment, and divert it from the original scope of the argument— and that all the links in the chain of reasoning be distinctly connected with each other, and the conclusion with the whole, so that the point to be proved be fairly made out. I cannot but think, that so far as you have yet gone, you have lamentably neglected all these requisites of logical discussion. You have not clearly stated the principles upon which you have set out. So far as they can be ] gleaned from your argument, they are not war J ranted, by being deduced from ascertained facts.! You have taken advantage of an ambiguity ml words, to mislead the judgment of your readers,! and divert it from the real scope of the argu-f ment. The result of your promised further articles on the same subject, will demonstrate whether the point you seek to prove be fairly made out. I will now proceed to an examination of the article in question. You say, in general terms, " that the Company's Regulations of August, 1849, are now for the first time attempted to be brought into operation." This is not the case. There are persons residing in all the settlements who have purchased land under those Regulations. I cannot suppose you ignorant of this, any more than you can be of the fact that the Regulations in question were in operation in England from the date at which they were issued until the sur~ render of the Company's Charter. It is true, they were quietly shelved by the Company's Principal Agent in this colony, but this was done in contravention of his instructions, and he has since been severely blamed for it. Can it therefore be fairly stated, " that these Regulations are now for the first time attempted to be brought into operation ?" Had you confined your observation to that part of the Regulations which refers to the subject of Pasturage,, and merely stated "that they are now for the first time attempted to be brought into operation within this settlement," you would have been nearer the mark. You are too well aware that the sic volo of the Company's Agents was law to the settlers. You know that no redress could be got in the colony for the thousand»and-one grievances inflicted upon the settlers, either by the Company or its Agents. V ou know how completely the interests of the community were sacrificed to the advancement of the few, who were favoured in their claims. And yet you leave it to be inferred, that the Regulations in question were not brought into operation because the settlers did not wish it. Out upon such argument ! They were never submitted to the settlers. The settlers never had the opportunity, as they have now, of accepting or refusing them. They were Bhelved by the Agents, to suit their own purposes, and to suit the views of a few persons, who, if they could, would willingly monopolize every inch of land in the settlement. The readiness with which the settlers avail themselves of the opportunity now offered, more than sufficiently demonstrates their wishes on the subject. You say, " that under the Government Regulations, the pastoral country was proposed to be let on terms highly favourable to the small capitalist, to the total disregard of the rules of political economy." Are we to infer, that it is advantageous to the community at large that the small capitalist should be highly favoured, to the total disregard of the rules of political economy ? If so, the doctrine is singular and new. And how do you prove your statement, that the Government terms are so peculiarly favourable to the small capitalist ? Because the man who has 1,000 sheep less than his neighbour pays £1 a year less for the license fee — or something under a farthing per head ! Happy small capitalist! Prodigious saving! Awful tax ! Rendering it quite worth the large capi* talist's while at once to limit his flock to 5,000 head ! Surely the greatest financier that ever lived could hardly have devised a simpler mode of restraining the cupidity and ambition of a sheepowner ? Never was such encouragement given to small capitalists before ! But whilst descanting upon the very great advantages held out to small capitalists, why did you not add, " and there are hundreds of thousands of acres which they might have occupied upon those favourable terms, had not the present agitation tended to destroy so excellent a system ?" It would have been pleasing to know where the small capitalist was "to feed his flock." We hear that the whole of the pastoral districts in the jurisdiction of our Commissioner were absorbed by the large capitalists, who were not to be daunted by the additional farthing and fraction per head. There was no room for small capitalists — the highly favoured of the Government regulations! favoured even to the total disregard of the rules of political economy ! And here lies the hitch. The unfavoured large capitalist finds that the Regulations of August, 1849, will interfere with his monopoly— that these Regulations will open the pastoral districts to a large section of the community. And here lies antagonism to those Regulations. And now, sir, as to your assertions respecting the mode of carrying out these Regulations. i How do you prove your statement, " that the public will be robbed in this settlement alone to the tune of £1,000 a year, soon to become £2,000, for the Bole benefit of thelandpurchasers,

who will share this money between them?", / Theflockowner will pay to the Government the I license fee, and in addition to this will pay I either head money or acreage. Were the fees, &c, mentioned in the Twenty* fifth Report of the Directors (pages), to go into the pockets of the Company, or into those of the landpurchasers ? Is it not too absurd to suppose that the Government would Buffer the proceeds arising from the occupation of the waste lands of the Crown, to be appropriated otherwise than as revenue ? I have a shrewd guess as to whence you have derived this most untenable fancy. You next assert that the Regulations were intended to give the land proprietary an advantage over their fellow settlers. This is true enough as regards lands allotted to settlement?. But you are silent on the mode of obviating this alleged evil. I will point it out hereafter. You next assert, " that the Regulations are to have a twofold operation— on lands allotted to settlements, and lands not allotted." You insinuate, that it is the general belief that the Governor-in-Chief will limit the settlement to the number of acres comprised in the original scheme. There is no such general belief. The idea has long since exploded. It was a hope rather than a belief — a hope founded on the fear that the terms for sale of land could not be altered — and that fear only held, until the publication of Lord Grey's despatch of the Bth of August, 1851. There is, as you are well aware, a difficulty, almost amounting to impossibility, in limiting the settlement in the manner referred to; and I venture to hope and predict that it will not be so limited. With those parts of the Regulations which refer to lands not allotted, we have therefore nothing to do, and I will confine myself to lands "allotted." You assert that over these "a right of commonage is to exist." Is this stating the principles fairly ? Is it warranted by the fact ? Is it not rather taking advantage of an ambiguity, to mislead the judgment of your readers? The words of the Regulations are as follows— " No license to be granted within the boundaries of any of the said settlements for any defined pasturage runs'; but the extent or amount of pasturage to be enjoyed by each licensee, and the mode of using the same, whether in commonage, in runs, or otherwise, to be decided in each settlement by wardens elected annually under the following arrangements," &c. " The pasturage in each settlement to be apportioned, the mode of using it to be decided, and the parties interested to be apprised accordingly, by the wardens," &c. Now is it absolutely necessary that under these Regulations commonage alone should exist? I think not. It appears to me to reßt with the wardens whether it should be " commonage runs or otherwise." It is left to them to decide the question. And moreover, let us not forget the following passage in Earl Grey's despatch, which is sufficiently explicit— " In other respects, the modification of the existing terms will be in your power ; and you are authorized by her Majesty to make (by yourself, or through the intervention of the LieutenantGovernor) any such modifications in your discretion; subject to the ultimate approval of her Majesty's Government. But this is a power which you are not to exercise except with the general assent, ascertained in such manner as you may think most advisable, of the settlers themselves. You will remember that they established themselves in the settlements under the inducements afforded them by the terms in question ; and that although, from the difficulty of giving them in their unincorporated state any powers by Act of Parliament, it has been found more convenient to take these powers for her Majesty's Government alone," it it not the less necessary that their interests should not only be fully considered, but their opinions also consulted and acted on. And if any scheme can be devised by which the management of the internal affairs of the settlments, and distribution of the funds, can be placed in their own hands, I shall have great satisfaction in entertaining it" The Governor-in-Chief is authorized, we see, to modify or alter the terms with the consent of the settlers — not merely of the land proprietors — subject only to the ultimate approval of the Home Government. The tone of the whole despatch shews the anxiety of the Home Government to consult the wishes of the settlers, and can we for a moment doubt that it would approve of modifications made with their consent ? You next say, " that no inducements are held out to flockmasters to improve their stations, and promote the comfort and happiness of their servants by building for them substantial and convenient houses and cultivating gardens. The breaking up of the soil is prohibited except by special permission, and no claim for improvements is to be recognized." You fall into rather a contradictory strain in the above passage. You assume what you have before denied. You evidently refer to distinct runs, the existence of which you previously conceive to be impossible. And you then argue, as if you had forgotten one of the oldest rules laid down by political economists, namely — that landlords always increase the rent of their lands in proportion to the improvements effected upon them, even though such improvements have been effected at the expense of the tenants. And you also forget, that where this rule has not been stretched to the utmost limit, it has seldom deterred the tenant from improving. Supposing for argument sake, that the same rule will be applied to the runs, may we not also suppose that they will be improved. May we not suppose that if it be worth the while of a fresh applicant to offer, it will also be worth the while of the occupant to pay, an increased rent. The actual licensee will always have the best chance of retaining his run. If he be willing to pay as much for it as another, why should he be disturbed 1 If he be not willing, then

■

let him trot. Should it be deemed advisable, however, that part of the Regulations may also be modified, but care should be taken in conferring a boon, not to give a handle for abuse. And now let us see what course is open to us. It is perfectly clear that if we wish to get rid of the system attempted to be established by the late deplorable Council (and by the way I cannot but express my surprise that you should consider that system so very excellent, emanating as it did from that Council), we must adhere to the Regulations of August, 1849, which have been declared by competent authority to be a contract subsisting between her Majesty's Government and the Bettlers in this colony. The following extract from a despatch from Earl Grey to the Governor, dated sth September, 1851, is to the point : — " There is however one point in Mr. Tollexnache's letter to which I wish to direct your attention. He contends (at the end of his letter) that the Company's terms of pasturage at Nelson ought to be regarded as a subsisting contract at the date of the notice of surrender of tbeir charter, and that the right of the owners of the surveyed sections to the depasturage of the waste lands adjoining those sections, is a portion of this contract. Mr. Tollemache alludes, I presume, to clause 2 of the paper issued by the Company on the Ist August, 1849, as the Cook's Straits' Settlements Terms of Pasturage. These terms were indeed only to last ' until further notice,' but if no notice determining them has been given (and I am not aware of any such), the argument undoubtedly arises that they are still in force, and, like the terms of purchase, are binding on her Majesty's Government ; and that any license to pasture lands within that settlement given to parties not qualified, as particularly specified in Clause 2, is a breach of such contract, and invalid. " Let us therefore take the Regulations as they stand, protesting however that we do not consider them perfect. Let us in the next place carefully consider what modifications and alterations should be introduced to render them suitable to the circumstances of the settlement; and let us submit those modifications to the Governor- in- Chief, whom we must (for the jnonce) suppose to be actuated by a desire to comply with the wishes of the settlers. And what will our adherence to these Terms effect? It will put an end to the villainous system established by the late Council, with all its gross abuses. It will restore to the jurisdiction of the settlers the whole of the pastoral -districts within the limits of the settlement, instead of leaving the fairest and best portions of these districts to be dealt with by the judgment of such geniuses as Colonel Campbell. Ample Ecope will be given for the encourage- j znent of those whom you consider deserving of favour, even "to the total disregard of the rules of political economy." Instead of seeing the Wairau, the Kaiparatihau, and Waihopai districts monopolized by twenty or thirty individuals, and stocked only to the fiftieth part of their capabilities, we shall find them covered with small flocks and herds.. We shall see those portions which are suited to agricultural purposes adapted to those purposes. We shall find room and scope for our increasing population, and we shall be able to offer additional inducemnt to the intending emigrant and purchaser of land. Whilst enumerating thus briefly a few of the advantages to be derived from adhering to these Regulations, we should not forget that they also secure to the settlers a most important privilege, a privilege long contended for, namely — the control over all the unsold land within the settlement, which is not specifically devoted to' agricultural purposes. 1 should have thought that you, as an advocate for representative government, would have hailed with satisfaction the offer of Earl Grey to consent to any scheme which could be devised, by which the management of the internal affairs of the settlements, and the distribution of the funds, could be placed in the hands of the 6ettlers themselves. I am, &c. W. T. L. Travers. Nelson, March 22, 1852.

' Mendicity in Bavaria. — A very curious and by no means ©vor-Christian mendicity law has been published in Bavaria. According to this J^w, not the beggars but the givers are to Be punished; for whoso gives alms, either in ready money or victuals, is to be fined from one upwards to fire florins. The clergy are enjoined to drive beggars out of the churches, and from before the church doors; and innkeepers are forbidden to allow them to crave alms in their houses. — Bell's Messenger. Brigamdags in Smyrna. — Letters from Smyrna 15^>unce that a party of brigands had recently carried off Mr. Van Zennep, the Dutch Consul, while he was walking with his children in the garden of his country residence, about four miles from the city. He was forced to accompany these brigands to the mountains, and was there detained until the demand for 50,000 piastres (£415-Bterling) had been paid as a ransom for his liberation. Occurrences of this nature have several times taken place, and large sums are frequently extorted by way of ransom. — Times, Nov. 1. The English flag ha 3 lately taken [possession of a small island near Sicily, which peered up over the surface of the Mediterranean some little time ago, then disappeared, and has lately been steadily increasing. The lazy Sicilians lounged along the shore, and could not make out why two of our ships of the line kept cruising about the neighbourhood, till they espied, one fine morning, the British lion dancing merrily in the breeze over a tract of land which will probably prove very advantageous in a commercial point of view. — Atlas. The sale of the Illustrated News has increased since the opening of the Exhibition by 20,000 copies.