The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-26 00:00:00

'his run, to buy their rights at an enormous pre-

miurri.

To prevent this collision between the grazier
and the small settlers, it is proposed by others
that the free selection should be restricted to
what is called the settled districts, in which
the pastoral leases all expire next year, and
where the land, therefore, is available for any new

experiments.
Others, again, propose that certain agricultural
areas should be marked out, in spots where there
may be a considerable extent of fertile land, and
that free selection should be permitted within those
limits, by which it is thought that the agricultu-
rists will be concentrated, and not scattered abroad
all over the face of the country, as would
be. the case under a system of indiscriminate
free selection. As it is, the population under
the pastoral regime is in the interior so scat-
tered that it is exceedingly difficult find ex-
pensive to supply them adequately with schools,
churches, courts, police protection, and postal con-
venience ; and if the agricultural population is to
be similarly scattered, the difficulty and the cost
will be aggravated.
But the real fact is, that bona fide agriculturists
will not scatter themselves over the country, for the
simple reason that there is no inland market for
their produce, and the cost of transit to the coast
is so great as to absorb all the chance of profit.
Those who would take up land if they could get it
wherever they like would not do so with a view to
raise for sale agricultural praduce, but for the chance
it would give them of keeping stock. Hence with some
the cry of free commonage is made to keep pace
with that of free selection ; for what is the use of a
little bit of land to a poor man, it is said, when he
cannot keep his bullocks upon it ? Yet it is obvious
that free commonage upsets altogether the present
pastoral system, for the same land cannot be leased
to Crown tenants and yet be available at the same
time for as many poor men as like to run their stock
upon it. The present revenue derived from the leases
of Crown lands, together with the assessments, is
about £lBO,OOO, far more than enough to pay the
interest on our colonial debt. What should we gain
by foregoing all this, and throwing the grazing right
open to an indiscriminate scramble ? We should
gain, our land reformers tell us, in population and
in industry. The great squattages would be broken
up, every industrions man would have a chance of be-
coming a stockholder according to his means, and the
pasturage would be more completely utilised than
at present. The defenders of the existing system,
on the other hand, contend that free commonage,
besides being a glaring violation of existing leases,
would lead to endless collisions bAween the small
stockholders, would destroy the natural grasses by
allowing the land no rest, would put put a stop to
the improvement of breeds, and would facilitate the
spread of infectious diseases.
The price of land, though not so much mooted as
the right of free selection, is also a much disputed
question. Thera is no magic in 20s. more than in
any other sum that it should be considered the na-
tural price of an acre, and very much of the land in
the colony is not worth that. But then it is urged
that the land is the real security on the credit of
which the English capitalist lends us money to make
railroads, and if we sell this land prematurely for a
price which barely covers what has hitherto been
the cost of survey we shall destroy that security.
On the other hand, it is contended that the Eng-
lish capitalist is not such a goose as to look to the
land for his security, inasmuch as barn land is
worthless—that he looks to population and indus-
try to create revenue, and would rather that the
land should be given away than kept unsoldthrough
a prohibitory price being put on it. It may be in-
teresting to the British capitalist, if he should
chance to have any ideas on the subject, to know
how his opinions are confidently vouched for, and as
confidently disputed on this side of the world.
Amid the discordant opinions and confused
clamour of a general election, it is impossible to
foresee what sort of a land law will pass. Candi-
dates are apt, under the pressure of the hustings,
to concede more than they wish, and to catch after-
wards at every opportunity of retracting. It is
doubtful even whether any Land Bill at all can be
passed this session ; whether public opinion is as
yet sufficiently matured, and whether any possible
Ministry can propose any bill that shall enlist the
support of a majority in both houses.
The Cabinet policy has not been propounded.
The Minister for Lands and Works, indeed, has
openly avowed his personal attachment to the doc-
trines of free selection and deferred payments, as
applicable to all lands not under lease and as to be
applied hereafter to all leased lands as the leases
fall in ; he is opposed, however, to free commonage.
But the Premier has declined to commit himself
definitively to any plan, whether because he does
not quite agree with his colleague, or whether be-
cause he has not made up his mind he does not say.
The general impression is that he is waiting to see
' how the elections go, and will adapt his scheme
to what appears to be the prevalent public opinion.