There is hardly a chance of letting pasturage, except, perhaps, in a very few specially favoured localities, on such terms as I am bound to propose. In the first place the rent is too high; but secondly and chiefly, there is no security whatever for improvements. Now, if there were such security, possibly stock-keepers might be induced to pay the high rent, but without the security, I really feel a difficulty even about asking it. Immediately outside our block as much land as is required may be had without any payment, or at a merely nominal rent, and unless we have some special inducement to offer, we cannot expect that any one will prefer our side of the boundary. I submit to the Association that it is quite impossible for them living in England to fix the proper terms and conditions of pasturage licenses in New Zealand, they do not know the quality of the land to be let, or its position, or (what is of more importance still), the comparative inducements to stock holders which other accessible districts offer, in short, any of the circumstances which determine the market value of the pasturage. These are matters which it would be far better to leave for determination here, either by their agent page 192or by some other competent authority. Let the rent be moderate, and above all let the license give such security for improvements as is involved in the "pre-emptive right," and I have no doubt that we shall soon see our plains covered with stock. But if the rent of 20s. per 100 acres, without security be adhered to, I am much mistaken if we see a single head upon them except the few which will be owned by purchasers. If I were asked to name a rent I should say 10s. per 100 acres would be amply sufficient. Some land may be worth more, and will be quickly picked up; but average land will not be worth more, and to prevent jobbing as well as for other reasons, it is better to have a fixed rent for the whole.