C—l2c.

1910. NEW ZEALAND

CANTERBURY PASTORAL RUNS, THE LICENSES OVER WHICH TERMINATE ON FEBRUARY 28, 1911 (REPORT OF INSPECTION OF), BY MR. GUTHRIE.

Laid on the Table of the House of Representatives by Leave. Mr. Robert Guthrie to the Hon. the Minister of Lands. Sir,— Lands Office, Christchurch, N.Z., 19th October, 1909. After careful inspection of all the pastoral country mentioned in our itinerary, I beg to submit for your consideration the following statements and recommendations. As my colleagues and mysel: were unable to agree on our views, on the first run we discussed, as to subdivision; and as, from my long practical experience of this class of country, especially in the Mackenzie country, I intended, in any circumstances, supplementing the report with various local matters which my colleagues did not consider themselves sufficiently capabls of expressing an opinion on, wo therefore agreed that it might probably be better, and certainly would save a considerable waste of time discussing these matters, for us to draft separate reports. Before entering upon the discussion of the subdivision of the various runs that came under our inspection I should like to place on record the fact of what was, to any one interested in the welfare of the Dominion, a very sad sight—viz., so many abandoned homesteads, and so little—so very little—improvement put on these Crown lands after an occupancy of fifty years and more. The question at once arises in one's mind, after witnessing this sad state of affairs in a young and vigorous Dominion like New Zealand, where the population is steadily increasing in nearly every other district, why should it be here steadily and quickly decreasing? And why, where thirty years ago there were many comfortable smiling homesteads, should there be now only the ruins left to mark the spot, with generally a patch of fruit-trees showing, through all this decay, a vigorous growth and good promise of plenty? Is this state of affairs the fault of the lessees of these runs? Tn my opinion it is not. Owing to the insecurity of tenure under which this class of country is held, the lessees are doing as every one else would do under the same conditions, taking all out of the land and putting as little as possible back. If this country is to be improved, and the bona fide population increased, as it should be, besides judicious subdivision there must also be a certain amount of security of tenure, and that can only be done by completely altering the present system of tenure under which this class of country is held. Having lived in the Mackenzie country for the last thirty-four years, and being thoroughly conversant with this state of affairs, I have for some years given considerable thought to the best modes of dealing with this class of land so as to get the best results both for the bona fide lessee and for the State. In my opinion, the bulk of the country we have inspected is suitable for bona fide settlement, as laid down under the present conditions of the small-grazing system of tenure, and I therefore think this part of it should be dealt with in the new leases under this system of tenure, with certain necessary amendments. It would be necessary to abolish the present maximum area of second-class small grazing-runs, so that any run could be dealt with under this system irrespective of its area ; and, as this would be the initiation of a new system of dealing with this class of country, and naturally it may be dealt with in larger areas during the first term of lease than might beconsidered judicious for all time, I think an amending clause should be inserted sriving the State the right, if considered necessary, to further subdivide at the end of every twenty-one years ; the lessee in occupation to have a continual right of renewal of the homestead at revaluation, and sufficient area to more than comfortably keep a family. This would give security of tenure, and also safeguard the locking-up of the land from the naturally increasing population. It would mean that the country would be, without further legislation, automatically opened for closer settlement as the increased population demanded this. (I have always held that a clause of this kind inserted in the 999-years clause of the Land for Settlements Act would have been a wise provision, which would have avoided a very great deal of future worry and trouble to the State.) . . . . , . Now, in giving compensation for improvements at the end of the lease, in my opinion, in this class of country, the increased carrying-capacity should be considered the most important improvement- and I certainly think that the State should seriously consider this matter, and try to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion in regard to this most difficult and important question. In reading the evidence given before the Royal Lands Commission a few years ago I note that