a—l 2

1910. NEW ZEALAND.

CANTERBURY PASTORAL RUNS CLASSIFICATION, 1910 (REPORT OF COMMISSION ON).

Laid on the table of the House of Representatives by leave.

To His Excellency the Eight Honourable John Poynder Dickson-Poynder, Baron Islington, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies. May it please Your Excellency,— We, the Commissioners appointed by a Warrant under the hand of the Governor, dated the 16th day of September, 1909, and published in the A ew Zealand Gazette of the 23rd day of September, 1909, No. 77, page 2396, to classify and report upon the rural iands in Canterbury Land District known as Runs Nos. 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 93a, 110 a, 110b, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 178, 179, 233, 237, as provided by section 225 of the Land Act, 1908, respectfully submit for Your Excellency's consideration the following report and accompanying tables, setting forth our proceedings and the result of our investigations, which were arrived at after a most careful personal inspection of the runs, extending over a period of thirty-four days. Introductory. It is only in the natural order of things that, as the lands of the Dominion are opened up by the construction of railways, and roads, and bridges, and increased facilities are afforded for transport to markets, the productive population should become increased proportionately. The process is obviously one of natural development. Thus it is found that, to repeat a popular expression, "the back country of to-day is the front country of to-morrow." There is and always will be, probably, a difference of opinion as to the limit to which settlement of the high country ought to be forced. There is not, we apprehend, any difference of opinion as to the propriety of subdividing arable land or mixed agricultural and pastoral low-lying safe land, suitable for close settlement, into areas capable of supporting a family. With high country, however, the case is entirely different. To extend the principle of close settlement unreservedly to high pastoral country would be to court failure. For ourselves, we entertain no prejudice on the subject. Our object is to secure the occupation of the back country in moderate-sized holdings on sound and safe lines. To that end we have made a comprehensive examination of the country, its characteristics, climate, features, means of access, and stock-carrying capacity, with the object of arriving at a fair decision as to its suitability not alone for subdivision into smaller pastoral runs, but into close-settlement areas on which residence is compulsory.

I—C 12.