PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 691, 18 July 1882, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, July 17. The House met at 7-30 p.m. NEW MEMBER. The member for Stanmore, Mr Pilliet, was introduced by Sir George Grey and Mr Wynn Williams, and took the oath and his seat for Stanmore. BAND BILL. Mr Pyke resumed the debate on the Land Bill. He complimented Mr Rolleaton on introducing this excellent Bill, which showed he possessed the courage of his opinion. He had the noble audacity of advocating opinions which, if not popular, were at least noble and just. The main principles of the Bill were in accord with the tendency of modern thought. Although no Legislature had ever endeavoured to give them practical effect, the principle was that the land was, and must always remain the property of the State. No matter how disposed of the Bill would benefit individuals by enabling them to go on land without first impoverishing themselves by an expenditure of purchase money. Ths advantages to the State would be incalculable. What would be the condition of the colony if it sold all its land ? To sell land was really not to raise revenue, but to destroy the source from which the revenue should be raised. There was really no limit to the taxation which land might bear, although there was a limit to the power of indirect taxation, They were flinging their patrimony to the winds in selling this land, and allowing large estates to accumulate in the hands of a few, regardless of the lessons of the history of other countries all the world over. The majority would, in turn, make the minority pay when they found themselves shut out from the land. He entirely concurred with the caution shown by the Government in proposing first to try the experiment on a limited scale. He laughed to scorn the idea that people would not take up leaseholds. The sales of pastoral leases in Otago, which had realised L 70,000 a year, showed this. He believed two-thirds of Dunedin was let on leases. There was a groat deal of sentimental nonsense talked about this question of freeholds as against leaseholds. People did, as a matter of fact, lend money on leases. He preferred the State to the money-lender as a landowner. If the leasehold ultimately became freehold, still one great good would bo done, that the people would have been settled on the land. In India the sum of L 16,000,000 was annually raised by the rent of lands. He entirely differed from the Minister of Lands in reference to the lands on goldfields, and thought at least thirty years’ lease should bo given, and not limited to twenty-one years. The outcome of the ballot system was that the wealthy man got the bulk of the land, and so many dummies were put in. He considered the landlordism of the private person was the worst sort, and not that of the State. This Bill would be a death-blow to land sharks, and therefore they woqld oppose it. He hoped

that no party feelings would fnfluence members in dealing with a measure of this importance. Mr Hursthouse said it was the duty of the Legislature to place the people on the land, and he hoped to see the day when the Education Reserves of Otago would be settled with a thriving population. He held that the peace and contentment of the people was of more importance than theoratical dealing with land. He thought there ought to be a difference in the durarion of leases in open and forest land. In forest country there ought to be an extension of time in the first in* stance. Under this Bill it would be very wise to reserve to the Grown auriferous land. He hoped the law of entail would be abolished, thus breaking up large estates every generation. Mr Fergus spoke in favor of the Bill, and complimented the Minister of Lands for introducing it. In commenting on the Bill Mr Weston expressed the utmost disappointment at the policy, weakness, want of policy, and procrastination of the Government this session. They sat on the benches, letting members scramble over wretched private measures. There was a great contrast between their conduct this session and that of the late Premier. Now nothing could be got at all from them. He felt it his duty to say this openly, although he said it with pain, as many of the members of the Government were his personal friends. It was now the duty of the House to see that right men were put on the Government benches, and that the work of the country was done, or else they would all go back to their constituents like fools and not like wise men. He did not say how he would vote if a vote of want of confidence was proposed, but unless they brought down a real policy at once and proceeded to deal with it in a businesslike way, he would do his best to turn them out.

Mr Duncan would not vote for the Bill, and Mr Stewart, Mr Secretan, and Mr Feld wick opposed it. Mr Hobbs and Mr Levin supported it. The House adjourned at 12 65.