THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1876.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4669, 31 October 1876, Page 2

THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1876.

A short telegram, a few days ago, announced that certain clauses affecting the tenure of runs in Canterbury had been rejected from the Waste Lands Administration Bill by a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives. These clauses were very simple. They only provided that the annual rent to be paid for runs on and after the Ist May, 1880 (when the present leases expire), should be determined by assessment by the Waste Lands Board of Canterbury, not later than December, 1879, and be so fixed till the year 1890. The Governor was to appoint Assessors, also to appoint the Waste Lands Boards, and the ranholder was to be entitled to retain the run til] 1890 on the assessment so made. This was' objected to as creating j»raotically a privileged class, who would, by 1890, have made another and a stronger march towards the possession of great estates carved unfairly out of the public lands of the colony—that the ruuholders have no right and no claim to consideration beyond what they had already enjoyed in the very profitable tenure granted to them for many years past—and that, on the expiration of the licences they now hold, they should be treated just as any other tenants of Government land would be treated in the like circumstances. Ministers supported the Bill as it stood, and were beaten by a very small majority ; but we are unable from the meagre telegraphic information to say exactly how the Act, as passed, now provides that these runs should be dealt with in 1880.

The importance of the question may be inferred from the fact that nearly six millions of acres of pastoral land are held on licence in Canterbury alone, and that over fourteen millions of acres are so held in the colony at large. It may also be inferred from the following document, in which the case for the runholders ia set forth fully, though, strange to say, hardly a rvuiholdf.n name is attached to it:—

Christchurch, Canterbury, August. 1876. To the Hon. Sir Julius Vogel, K.C.M.G., Premier of New Zealand, and the Hon. the members of Her Majesty's Government of New Zealand, Wellington. Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned pastoral tenants of the Crown, bankers, directors, and managers cf loan and investment companies, merchants, and others Interested in the important commercial industry of woolgrowing as carried on In the province of Canterbury, especially upon runs fcald under licence from th» Crown, beg respectfully to addrcisyou upon the question of the future tenure of the runs in Canterbury By reference to the statement of the Hon. the Premier made to the House of Beprese ltatlves on the 14th of July last, we notice with great satisfaction that it is the intention of tbe Government to introduce the consideration of this question during the present session of Parliament, with a view to the settlement of the basis upon which the future tenure i of the Canturbury runs should be held. We would venture to urge upon you the absolute necessity of adopting this course without delay, for the following amongst other reasonsl. That the existing uncertainty as to the rentals to become- payable to Government for runs held under depasturing licences in Canturbury, from and after the Ist day of May 1880 , Is acting most prejudicially to the Interests of those classes of the community whose business operations are Intimately connected with the growth of wool 2. That in consequence of this uncertainty, there has been manifest for some time past a disinclination on the part of the investors either to purchase rnn properties or to renew their Investments on security i of runs and sheep in Canlurbuiy. S. That a very considerable amount of English capital, in addition to money belonging to colonial investors, amounting, in the aggregate, to several hundreds of thousands of pounds, has hitherto been Invested on rnns and sheep here by way of mortgages of stock and bills of sale; also, liens on growing clips oi wool, as may be ascertained by reference to copies of securities registered in the office of the Supreme Court. 4 That the confidence of English and other capitalists who have advanced their money upon pastoral securities in Canterbury can alone be sustained by prompt legislation,, fixing upon an equitable basis the future rental of the runs in Canterbury 6. That unless action is shortly taken f u this matter and the existing uncertainty removed, serious monol tary difficulties will most probably ensue from tho ceriain and sudden withdrawal of capital at present invested on security of runs and sbeep here, resulting in an alarming depreciation in the value of sheep, and consequent ruin to many sheep-farmers and others dependent upon them. 6. That any postponement of the settlement of this question, or injurious legislation thereon, will have the effect not only of prejudicing the interests of the present runhclders themselves, and those upon whose pecuniary support they to a great extent depend, but of iaevit.bly damaging to a most serious extent the prospects of that large portion of this community whose prosperity as evidenced by the numerous and substantial improvements to be seen scattered through the length and breadth of the province—has in the main been created and fostered by the expen iitura incidental to sheep-farming by tenants of the Crown, and by the many other advantages derived from the maintenance of that Industry. In conclusion, we thiaU it may be urged upon yon, as an additional reason for your attempting to set Ibis vexed question at rest, that the present depressed state of tho wool market, owing to the past and we fear continuous fall in th-i price of that commodity, is seriously iuconvonicncing sheepfarmers In the colonics ; and that all legislative measures should be promoted which would have a tendency somewhat to alleviate existing drawbacks, which are operating unfavourably to a class who have contributed, notwithstanding many Impediments, in no small degree to the commercial prosperity of Ne'v Zealand. —We have the honour to remain, your obedient servants, Charles Kobt. Blakiston' manager Trust and Agency Company of Australasia (Limited) Christchurch; Thomas Cass, John Marshman, Local Trustees Trust and Agency Company of Australasia (Limited); Jos. Palmer, chief officer Union Bank of Australia; J. E. Hill, inspector Bank of New South Wales; John Tucker Ford; Charle- Iteed, Westerfleld Ashburton; Wm. Postlethwaite, Baukepuka, Geraldins; Blohard Westenra, Camla, Selvvyn; Henry John Tancred, Ashburton; Samuel Bealey (by his attorney Edw. J. Lee), Haldon, Selwyn; Francis I). G. Weave' Mount Algidus, Lake Coleridge; W. C. D. A. j' Walker, Mount Possession, Ashburton; H. Westmacott, manager for Clifford and Weld; DaUety Nichols and Co., merchants, Christchurch; JS tj' Coster, Blackford, Mount Hutt; Miles Hassal and Co., merchants, Christchurch; W. W. Cobb, National Band of New Zealand; J. L. Coster, mimager Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch; F. P. McOrae, manager Bank of Australasia, Christchurch: George Hart Winchmore, Ashburton; John C. Boys, Uangior.v Harman and Stevens, land agents, Christchurch- w' D. Carruthers, inspector New Zealand TrustandLoan Company (Limited); John C. Morris, manager Colonial Bank of New Zealand, Christ hurch- Sam" S. Revans, manager New Zealand Loan und Mercantile Agency Company (Limited); H. Selwyn Smith, general manager of the Ne<v -Zealand Shipping Company (Limited); Twentyman and Cousin, merchants, Christchurch- John Inglls, manager Matheson's Agency, Christchurch* Edwards, Bennett and Co., merchants, Christchurch-' Saunders and Henderson, merchants, ChristchurchC. W. Turner, merchant, Christchurch; J. D Macpherson, agent South British Insurance Company George Gould, merchant, Christchurch; T. J Mall ; ing and Co., merchants, Hereford-street, Christchurch; David Craig, agent New Zealand Insuradcs Company for Canterbury; James A. Bird, agent Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company for Canterbury; Sclanders, Flech<-r and Co. merchants, Hereford-street, Christchurch; H. Mat! son and Co., estate agents, wool brokers, <6o , Christchurch; W. N. Milton, Birch Hill station, Ashley Aj Carrlck, manager National Insurance Company of New Zealand; Henry Hoare (by his attorney Geo. Packe), runholder, Kalncliff; Biehardsun and Co., Glentin Station, Ashley; H. E. Alport, live i Sr» salesma n, Christchurch; G. T. Chisnall clothier, Christchurch; J. V. Ross; John Lewi/?, station agent, Chnstchurcb; Edwd. B. Bishop, merchant, Christchurch; H. J. Waters, Colombo-street, grocer; F. Hopkins,• Colombo-street, butcher; 1 George Fletcher, Colombo-street, Christchurch ; H Thornson, Colombo-street, Christchurch; George Gee Colombo-street, Christchurch; B. Dewsbnry, jun' Colombo-street, Christchurch; George Piercy, Colom- ™ 3 Vi®' Pb^harch: Fred. Hobbs, Mayor of Christchurch ; Edward M. Templer, stockowner. - A very cursory glance at this letter will shew-the influence it must have exercised on the general politics of the session. It will also explain much that has been mysterious in the general bearing of the Canterbury members and in other matters or constitutional arrangement by which wus question would have been indirectly ,

affectecl. N fiHta being addressed to ' the Premier and members ..of. Her, Majesty's Government of New ' Zealand." "Had the addresa been t(* (the iiiiaembly,. jit .Trould/ been tue "Asseirblyj the- rliiJrß;: been [the natur^.^ ; recipifint,, r ;Hia Eaoellency is certainly a 'member "of Her Majesty's Gk>vernmenfefpf New Zealand, ! land, as certainly, cannot-Bo regarded asj subordinate to the Premier, a position m ! which! this address places him. On the whole it will be i felt that New Zealand has had a narrow escape of forever losing; control over the waste lands of the colony now held by the Crown tenants for pastoral purposes. In another ten years they would have been able to pick out the eyes of the country so completely that the hilly and other lands adjacent would fall to them as a matter of course. Wo should think that Canterbury will be less enamoured of runholders as representatives in the future than she has been in the past, and will prefer even payment of members, if that be necessary to save the choice of the electors from being too much restricted. Looking at the matter from an Auckland point of view, we certainly cannot see the value of the promised unity of the. land fund if the land itself is to be in the first place so widely and ruinously alienated and placed out of reach.