PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 3240, 9 July 1873, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Monday, July 7. TUB MAREWHKNUA LAND BALE. Mr Stout rose to move the following motion: -—“ That this Council is of opinion that the Executive is deserving of the gravest censure for not officially transmitting to tho Waste Land Board the resolution of the Council re-' commending the postponement of the consideration of tho sale of land in the Maerewhenua district, applied for by the Hon. Robert Campbell; and for not urging and advising, through the leader of the Executive, who is a member of, and representative of the Executive at the said Board, the postponement of the consideration of the said safe, as recommended by this Council.” After tracing the history of the sale from its initiation to its completion, the hon. member went on to say that after the sale was concluded on Thursday last he placed himself in telegraphic communication with the miners’ associations throughout tho Province, and asked their opinion in reference to this alienation of auriferous land. He was glad to say that those associations he had communicated with had corns forward boldly and denounced the sale; and also protested against it. (The hon. member read telegrams from Mount Ida, Clyde, and. Arrow.) This was not a matter whether 5,000 or 10,000 acres should be sold on the Maerewhenua district, because if that were so the miners’ associations at Naseby, the Arrow, and tKo DunsUn, not being personally interested, would not have come forward so boldly and taken the stand they did; they did so, because they desired to see the public interest throughout the Province conserved, and to conserve that, they would do all they could, not* withstanding the action of any Executive that might be in power. It was not very creditable to us as a Province that it should be left to miners’ associations to see that public interests were conserved, and to look after the due administration of the public estate. He would next deal with the excuses that would be put forward in reference to the sale. The first excuse would be that the Government was bound to sell. He failed to see that the Government was bound to sell; the application to the Boa?d being neither a binding agreement nor arrangement. Under the Goldfields or Waste Lands Act of 1866, he did not care which, the land need not have been sold ; and was it not the fact that, under the new Land Act, the Superintendent had reserved land, the Board agreeing with that reservation? And even if the Government did not think there was ample power under the new Act, the Act of 1866 gave the Board power to refuse to grant the application, if it were prejudicial to the public interests. But hon. members would see that this application was not made under the Act of 1872, the only clause of which having reference to it was the 19th, which declared that all applications received under a prior Act should be decided according to the Act under which the application was made. Now, so far as the Waste Land Board and the Government were concerned, there was nothing in the papers laid upon the table to show that the Province was bound to sell; nor did he see how any hon. member could get up and say that the Government were bound to sell. He would assume that the Government were bound to sell. He would grant the hon. member opposite that point; still he said he was worthy of the gravest censure, as if he had not been bound to sell And for these reasons, let hon. members look at the position in which the Council was placed. If the Government were bound to sell, why the trouble and expense of sending Messrs Shepherd and M’Kerrow to report upon the land ? (Hear.) Secondly, he wanted to know why the miners and miners’ associations were deluded into the belief that their opposition might be successful if they were persistent in it, and only showed good grounds for it. —(Mr ßeid: Hear.) If the Government were bound to sell, why did they not come down to the Council when the member for Waitaki proposed his motion.— “ Hon members may pass what resolutions they like, hut the Government is in honor bound to sell this land, and wc cannot take cognisance of any resolution the Council come to.” If they had done that, it would have been manly and straightforward; and it might have been put forward as some excuse for their strange conduct on this occasion. But not one word was said. Not only did they not oppose the resolution, but they actually consented to the suspension of the Standing Orders, the resolution passing without the slightest" delay. If the Government was hoqnd to sefl, hqw did it bkppen'tjj’aji up to that time no* on e single won} of ex t planation had been vouchsafed by the gentler men on the benches ? Why did they not come forward after tho sale on Thursday, and say to the Council: “We regret we cannot carry out the decision come to on Wednesday; the fact was we were bound to sell, and therefore did sell; we are very sorry for having had to do so.” Instead of coming down with any explanation, the Government actually refused to answer questions in reference to the sale, except they appeared on the Order Paper. That was the way the Executive treated the Council Another excuse would be that, even if there was not a binding agreement, it would have been breaking faith with Mr Campbell not to have sold. How was it, then, that up to that time the Council had not heard a single word about that ? Why was not the Council told it, when the member for the Waitaki proposed his motion qn the day after, or on the night of the sale? If moiqbers weiic"going judge fHfc question from a moral point of view—if tie morality of the transaction was to be considered, he would like to know if the Province was not to be considered ? The miners had just as good a claim on the Government as the Hon. Eolwrt Campbell. If the Government was in honor bound to sell, they were, at the same time, in honor bound to see that the interests of the district were not sacrificed; and that no auriferous land should be sold. He left it to the Government and the Council to say which was the more binding. As another excuse, it might be said that the constitution of the Waste Land Board was to ldan t e, and therefore the Government could not help tile sale. 1 - It-was not neces? Gary to go into that question. In the gqqtleiqcii forming the non-political element of the Board, the Council h»d> every confidence.—(Hear.) Those members at first refused to sell, and if the political members of the Board—the leader of the Executive and the Chief Commissionerhad voted against the sale, it would have again been refused; therefore the Government bad no right to throw the blame on the non-political element of the Board. Another excuse would be that the Council had no power over the leader of the Executive, who was the member representing the Executive at the Land Board. That defence.was entirely taken away by the action of the hon. member (n the the other night when he stated tfyt ft ipas the hliejqtiQq?qf > the''GqveiTj. ment to carry on the business qf the fiQuntryhe said that he only held his seat qn the Land Board so long as he was Secretary for Lands j that when he ceased to be the one he ceased to be the other, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that he should have a .seat on the Board, in order that the Province might be properly represented there. So that so far as the hon. member was concerned he was not there as a non-political member, but as the representative of the Province supposed to carry out the resolutions of the Government and Council. And what did he do ? Instead of intimating to the Board what the request of the Council was; instead of asking the Board to defer consideration of the question hesu-tn ally'voted fu feydr Tf the sale.- That & fflf was, he thought, sufficient to inake hew mW here vote for the motion, whatever their views on party questions might be. He could 'not understand the hon. member at the’head of the Government doing this. If the Council had passed a strong resolution, saying, “ we renu diate this transaction entirely; we decide fW there shall be no sale of this land,” there have been some reason for the hon. member votmg for the sale. The Council did not desire

to repudiate, but merely desired that there should be further inquiry anil report, and only asked that consideration of the sale should be postponed. That was a request which almost any Board, or any Executive, would ha ve been bound to have acceeded to. What possible reason could the Executive give for not acceding to the reasonable request of the Council for further inquiry ? Was it not the fact that the land had been open the whole year, and could it be said that the further delay of a week or a month would have been an injury to Mr Campbell, the Province, or anyone at all ? Why did the Executive not allow a select committee of the Council to consider the question ? Because they knew that the sale was wholly untenable. The policy or impolicy of the sale had nothing to do with the question ; it might have been a good or a bad sale; but the Council was neither asked nor called upon to decide that. The Executive had assented to a thing one day; and done the very opi ositethe next. Was the Council going to sanction that? If that were to be the case, the Council would at once become mere registering machine. In fact, that was the position the Government had taken up. Ever since the session began, there was hardly a question that came before the House, but no sooner did the Government see that the majority were in favor of it than they got up and said they assented to it. Indeed they could not get the Government to disent from anything. There never was on those Benches before an Executive so pliant and so ready to do everything that everybody or anybody wished. That was a reason why the motion should be carried, because the Council should let the Executive know that it would not do for an Executive to agree to anything they wore asked one day, and the next day do the very opposite. lhat was a kind of action which the Council, if it had any souse of its own dignity, could never consent to. The hon. member next proceeded to argue that the land sold was auriferous, and, referring to Mr M‘Kerrow’s report on the subject, said that however talented a person might be it was impossible that he could properly prospect 10,000 acres in about eleven hours, btill that gentleman proved that with imperfect prospecting gold was scattered over the land, and, in view of that fact, he recommended that the application should be either or granted intact. In the face of that report, in the face of the existence of 1,000 acres of auriferous land, in the face of the recommendation that the application either be granted intact or not at all—could it be said the Government were bound to sell when the memorandum that was annexed when the first application was put in expressly stated that no auriferous land should be sold. But there were other reasons against the sale, for not only was the land auriferous and fit for agricultural purposes, but within a few miles of it there was to be a railway constructed, and it had been intended to move that a railway should go right through it, and which, in consequence of the level character of the land, could be made at a small cost; so that not only was the land fit for settlement, and auriferous, but from the fact that railway construction was to go on there, the land would sell, not at LI per acre, but 1.3 or L 4 per acre. It had been said that the motion which he (Mr Stout) had moved was really a vote of want of confidence motion. He did not care whether it resulted in the retirement of the Government or not. He did not wish the Council to look at it wholly in that light, but more particularly that if the motion were not carried it would form a bad precedent, for then they would be simply endorsing the of the Government in acting in direct opposition to the wish of the Council. _. t . . The Provincial Secretary : I feel that 1 am pretty well on my trial; at the same tinw, before I proceed any further, I must compliment the last speaker on the very temperate anti polite language, which he used on the present occasion. I think. Sir, the speech he has just given utterance to should be held as a model of temperance and good feeling; and although he hit me pretty hard in many ways, he tried to do so in a manner which I thought gave no offence whatever. If the remarks of some hon. members during the past week, on several matters of discussion, had been made in the same spirit, I think the temper of this House would be far better than it is. But, Sir, with regard the to question at issue, which I take to be that censure should be passed upon myself as the head of the Government, and as a member of the Waste Land Board, for not transmitting to that body the resolution passed by this Council.-(Mr Rkii> : “No.”)—well, Sir, before I proceed any further, let me say, with regard to my colleagues who sit with me on these benches, that the charge of blame being attachable to them, is unfounded, because they took » different view of the case to

what I did. Before I took my seat at the Waste Land Board on Thursday, my colleagues recommended me to urge a postponement. Well, gentlemen, I thought differently; and though I thought differently from them, I am yet unconvinced that I thought wrongly. I assert and maintain that, when I took my seat at that Board I threw aside all politics, and being placed in a judicial position, was as free in that position as any other member of that Board. With regard to the case itself, it had been postponed from time to time ; and it was arrang ed at a prior hearing of the case, that it should be finally settled on July 3.—(Mr Stout : “ No.") I can assure you that it was the case, and based upon that understanding, Mr M'Kerrow, the surveyor, was sent up to report upon that portion of the ground which had not previously been reported upon. But I must return to preliminaries. Now, with regard to the sale of this block of land : I mean the first sale, Hon. members will please bear in mind I am not here as the advocate of this sale ; on the contrary, I think it was a mistake.—(Hear.) But is there any hon. member who will say that a transaction honorably and straightforwardly py twomen—-fjho qne to purchase, tire other to pell—is not to ho carried put ? I would also point out the very absurd and anomalous position tha purchaser was placed in in regard to this transaction t he was invited, to surrender his lease over a certain block of ground, and he was further informed that he should become purchaser of the ground; and also that if any other person should tender for the same ground during the time the lease was in suspense, and the plans being received, which is generally twenty-four hours, the whole transaction should be cancelled. This is a statement which I am prepared to substantiate. The peculiarity about this matter is that any member of a Government who holds a position on the Land Board should bring up the matter before the Board, which consisted only of himself and another member ; for hon. members will observe that, on the 10th July, when the first meeting was held, there were present the late Mr Hughes, mepijaer thpn at the head pf the Government, and" Mr Thomson, the Chief Commissioner—the litter not voting; therefore the House will sec that actually there were only two members on the Board. On the following day, the 11th, the same process was gone through, and the same gentlemen being present, the land was actually sold. (Mr Rim): “ No,”) It will be interesting to bon. members to have another view of the question. I made it my business, not being cognisant with the circumstances, previous to taking my seat at the Board, to obtain a statement from the purchaser, giving his view of the case. I received it this morning, and with the consent of the House wi|| read portipna iff it; T|ris sfatqmeut )8 bis version pf hqw the' transaction came about. Mr Campbell's explanation commences by stating that the Provincial Council, in its session of 1872, authorised the Provincial Government to sell an area not exceeding 50,000 acres, in blocks of not less than 10,000 acres, at a price not less than 20s per acre. In pursuance of this authority, the_ Provincial Government entered into negotiations with Mr Campbell for the sale to him of 10,000 acres on his runs Nos. 17 and 28, and these negotiations resulted in a letter from the Provincial Secretary to Mr Campbell, dated 10th J aly, 1872, agreeing to Mr Campbell’s offer, made at the suggestion of Mr Reid, to allow the sale of an area of that extent, and requesting Mr Campjjril to consent to the supp/ession of liis lease pver the lihd ajfvecd ‘to hb sojd. Ip reply to request, Mr Campbell, in ft letter of the same date, consented to the suspension of his lease over tho land agreed on. After Mr Campbell, in a personal interview with Mr Reid, had agreed to such suspension and cancellation, it occurred to him that he ought to guard himself against his property passing away without receiving some assurance from the Government that, in the event of his not becoming the purchaser, the matter should be restored to its original position. On mentioning this to Mr Reid, he assured Mr Campbell that in the event of anyone putting in an application for the land, all the documents connected therewith should be cancelled, and he be reinstated in his original position, the inidcrstaudlffg being that Mr Campbell spould become «ip purchaser pf tic block" at the upset price of *J)s per acre. Mr Campbell’s letter was cousidered at a meeting of the "Waste Land Board, held the same day, and it was then agreed to °l ,e 1 n > ri 1 i e |* n d for application under flections 83 and 123 of the Waste Lands Act, 1808, and Mr Campbell formally applied to purchase the land. On the fallowing day, Uth July, Mr Campbell’s

application was brought before a special meeting of the Board, ancl it was resolved that the application should bo received and registered; the survey to be made by the applicant, the I surveyor to be approved, and the right to rereserve such lauds as might be found to be auriferous or necessary for public purposes. I would direct the attention of members to this explanation of what was meant by the term “public purposes.” With reference to the words used—“public purposes”—the late Mr Hughes, then a member of the Bo it'd, asked what this term meant. Mr Reid replied that ho meant by this term reserves for roads that might bo found necessary, water races, &c, Mr Reid also assured Mr Campbell that nothing would be reserved except as above, unless the land were found to bo payably auriferous, and occupied for goldmining purposes. Since these negotiations were commenced, now twelve months ago, not one acre of the original purchase lias been occupied for gold-mining purposes, and this notwithstanding the constant and reiterated assurances to the contrary by those who have agitated on this question. The question arises— Why, if it is such rich auriferous land, the miners have not applied for it? The Government had agreed to allow Mr Campbell 10 per cent, in land for survey of the block ; and on the 18th September, 1872, Mr Campbell requested that the percentage area allowed for survey .should be surveyed in a position to be mutually agreed on between himself and the Board. The Board approved of the position of the area allowed for survey as sketched on the plan attached to_ the application. Subsequently to this, in September, 1872, an agitation was got up against the sale of a portion of the land, on the ground that it was auriferous, and the Waste Land Board resolved to refer the matter to the Government for their consideration, so that they might take proper measures for obtaining local information, and a Commission. was appointed to report. That report was to the effect that a portion of the land included in the application was auriferous, and it was recommended that it should be reserved. Ihe Government, acting on the report and suggestions of the Commissioners, again entered into negotiations with Mr Campbell on the subject; and it was finally agreed that about 0,000 acres on the south of the application should be reserved, and a corresponding area on the north of the application sold to Mr Campbell, in lieu of the part reserved. This agreement was submitted by the Government to the Waste Land Board on December 31, 1872, and it was resolved to amend the application of the Hon, Robert Campbell for 10,000 acres in the Maerewhenua district. That piece of the area surveyed south of a line from black Hill through Trig. Station H was refused, and about an equal area north of the original application added to it, in accordance with a sketch approved by the Government, produced. This was understood by both parties to be a final settlement of the question; all that remained to be done being the final approval of the pluns by the Waste Land .Board. Mr Campbell would only remark in conclusion that he cannot suppose either the Government or the Waste Land Board will be censured for having honorably carried out an engagement entered into in behalf of the Province, and having thus avoided the injury to its credit which would have resulted from an attempt at repudiation: an attempt which, had it been made, would have certainly resulted in litigation, which, so far as Mr Campbell is concerned, would not have been allowed to cease until he had sought to enforce his rights in every Court in the Colony; and had lie not succeeded in obtaining them in the Colony, then before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I shall explain to the House the reasons why, on the Ist of May, Mr Campbell's application was declined. His agent at that tune pressed for a reply, and based upon the statement which ■ I have just read, which was that there was a payable goldfield, the ground having been worked for the last few years, and for other reasons, such as the existence of a coalfield, &c. ,the Board declined to grant the application. On the following week the application was renewed, and the Board were of opinion that, in regard to the 5,000 acres that had been previously reported upon by the Commissioners, that might be granted ; and with regard to the other 5,000 acres —that a import should be received as to the condition of the ground. Mr Campbell’s agent again pressed for a reply. On that occasion the other Waste Land Board Commissioners voted against the application, for the simple reason that they did not know the particulars ; while Mr Thomson and myself, being conversant with the particulars, voted in favor of it. After that application was again refused, Mr M‘Kerrow was requested to go and report upon the ground for a second time, and upon that report, for the last time, the Board took action. And, Sir, in regard to this application : when the first objection was raised, the Government sent two Commissioners to report in reference to the nature of the locality, and they urged and arranged for striking off half the applica-

tion. That having been done, all the people who opposed the sale up to this time seemed to be satisfied. One, a principal and most persistent objector to the sale, Mr Taylor, of Oainaru, refused to go on any further with bis objection to the sale ; and others who had opposed the sale considered that their interests were conserved by striking off the 5,000 acres. But apart from that, the Government ami the Board both considered that a contract had been entered into with Mr Campbell by the previous Government; and that it was an absolute necessity that it should be carried out, not on account of the sale itself, but as a matter of honor between one party and another. There was a solemn and proper contract made ; and it was the duty of the Government to see that that contract was carried out faithfully and honorably. Of course I shall bow to the decision of tile House, if it should think that I was wrong in endeavoring tp do what I cqnsidercd to bo my dqty. Bcrinit pie to say it would be a very absurd thing tq suppose that a contract entered into should not be carried out faithfully, though theattempts that were made from time to time to alter this transaction prove to my mind that fair dealing was hardly to be expected. I, therefoio, think the course the Board took to be the only course they could take. They weighed the matter carefully and calmly, and then gave their decision that the purchaser was entitled to his land. They received no official intimation of the resolution of this Council, because no intimation was directed to the Government. The intimation was directed to the Superintendent of Otago, and was not transmitted to the Waste Land Board, for reasons which, to the Superintendent, are no doubt satisfactory. Tho Waste Land Board arrogate to themselves this position: they are independent of all Government whatever ; they are in a judicial pqsptiqp, ajjd, opting judicially, any matter tljat pomes before them is dealt with in that ipanper. It is true tliat tjip Commissioners were aware of this resolution, I was particularly aware of out, because I heard it from this place; but, .as I have already said, as soon as I appeared on that Board, I threw away my political position, and to my mind I could act there as freely as any other member of the Board. I might have carried out the wishes of my colleagues, and it might have been a political move to have done so, but I took my stand as an independent man, and as an independent member of the Wasstp Lipid bpifind tp act accprdiug tp my judgment in both capacities ; and declined to resort tq political moves. I might lave trimmed my sails, and g° n e tfi tic Board apff said, ft Tiffs ia a political move, and we must be careful. 1 )on’t act to-day ; let us push it off for a week, or until after the Council is over.” If I had done that, then I might bo called a political member of this Board. But I did not take that stand : I topi a indicia} view of the matter, and 1 am quite prepared to stand by the result, I consider that ip taking the course I did I acted fairly and honorably • but if the House thinks differently I cannot help it. It is not necessary to detain the House any longer, I have given my reasons for doing what I have done; but whatever the House may think, I hope they will not visit my iniquity upon the heads of my colleagues, because they were innor.ppt of i|. • ■ MCReii) Tile hop. member has stated that a contract had been entered into between the Hon. Mr Campbell and ftc Jate'_ Government that this land should be sold to hipi- YMU he state the date of the contract, and will he produce any document that bears upon it? TheI’itoViNCTAUfIKCKKTAUV: I cannot produce any further documentary evidence than is contained in the papers laid op tho table. There is a letter from the Heeretary of Lapds agreeing to sell this land to Mr Campbell Thu Government having agreed to your offer to allow the sale of 10,000 acres of your runs’’- and so forth. Mr Rkid : Allowed it to be sold ? The Phovinciai, Skchktaky ; There arc the Waste Land Board minutes, which will prove the sale to Mr Campbell Mr Ruin: Will the lion, rpoipbor refer to those minutes Aml'find thatpi'-q'ot ? ' Tho I’kovinciaP Bkchetauv : Gu page 4 “ Received and registered. Applicant declared the purchaser.” r l}ie application was signed, LI ,000 deposit paid, and I receipt W.as given f °Hon. Major Riciiappson : I wish to ask the i hon, member this question. He stated a short

tive ago that the Superintendent did not send the resolution of this Council to the V* aste Land Board ; will lie supplement the information which he has given t" tins Provincial Council by statue; whether the Executive Government, as represented hy the gentle ■ en on the benches, requested his Honor to send the resolution to the Board ? The Provincial Secketahy : I do not third-, it came before the Executive at all.—(Laughter). The Hon. Mr Bathgate condemned the conduct of the hon. member _ for Caversham for coming into that deliberative assembly as a member of it, to advocate a case upon which lie was and had been professionally engaged. Referringto the question at issue, he arid it was not whether the land to Mr Campbell was auriferous or non-aurifeyous, but whether the Executive were deserving of the gravest censure for their conduct. But had the hon. member for Caversham proved his case? The Council might pass anything they liked; but they could not clothe the Executive of the day with power to enforce an illegal resolution of the Council. —(Hear.) There was in the correspondence this fact; that on July 10 Mr Campbell wrote bis first letter stating that he would allow 10,000 acres of his laud to be sold, on consideration that he received compensation. Would the Council believe that Mr Campbell would make sucha proposal as to surrender 10,000 acres of his run, if he had not previously made a verbal agreement with the head of the Executive that he was to be allowed to purchase the same ? There was no doubt about it. Mr Campbell himself states so ; and he (Mr Bathgate) defied contradiction of his assertion. Mr Reid : I may state that there was no special agreement that Mr Campbell should he allowed to purchase. There was an understanding that, if the land were sold at all, it should be sold to Mr Campbell. There was no special agreement. But it was specially agreed that if the land was proved to be auriferous, it should not be sold. —(Hear.) Mr Bathgate remarked that the explanation only made out exactly what ho anticipated was the fact, viz., that the head of the then Executive made a private verbal arrangement with Mr Campbell for the sale of this' land. They had Mr Campbell stating so : that in consequence of that understanding, as it was called, he agreed that his lease should be suspended, and the land laid open for application. Then circumstances occurred which he had no hesitation in saying constituted such an agreement as Mr Campbell, by the aid of the_ law, could compel the Province to fulfil.—(Cries of “No.”) He did not ask hen. members who cried “no” jso strongly to take his opinion, neither did he intend to take theirs, hut he believed that by that memorandum Mr Campbell was advised by his counsel that it was in his power to enforce the fulfilment of the contract.

Mr OiiMMiXG alluded to the novelty of the position in Avhich he was placed as a now member of Council. After listening to the remarks that had been made, the impression left on his mind was that the present was a much better Government than the Opposition was inclined to give them credit for being. With regard to the question more immediately _ before the House, it had not been proved to his mind that a mistake had been made by the head of the Government. For these and other reasons lie would oppose the motion. Mr R. CiiAHKE said that he had been connected to a great extent with miners’ associations, and he Avas prepared to bear testimony to the fact that the alienation of auriferous land Avas a point upon Avhich they felt very strongly. The Council had been informed by Mr Stout that he had been communicated Avith by those associations. Had the members of those associations had the papers noAv lying before members, they Avonld have seen at a glance that the Government was not to be blamed for this transaction. Unless more convincing evidence against the Government was forthcoming than had yet been brought fonvard, he for one was prepaid to record his vote in favor of the Govemm ent. —(Applause.) Mr Reid : When the members at the head of the Government rose to address the Council on this occasion, he stated that he felt he was being placed upon bis trial. If that was really the case, I must say that he managed very cleverly to shift his ground and place me upon my trial. Well, I am quite prepared to meet the charges brought forward against me. I find the first statement made by him Avas that he had been urged by his colleagues to agree to a postponement of this sale in order that further inquiry might bo instituted, and that he Avould not agree to that course. I think it Avas a great pity he did not twenty-four hours’ previously inform the Council of the stand he intended to take ?.» a member of the Waste Land Board. Instead of being a consenting party to the resolutions as passed by the Council, if he, as a member of the Government, felt that the Province was in honor committed to the completion of this transaction, it Avas his duty to rise up in bis place in the Council and say ho Avould be no party to the postponement. It appears to me that the explanation made by him to-ilay is altogether a second thought. The high and independent feelings which operated upon his mind ought to have been fully explained, and urged as a reason Avhy the resolution should not be carried. He consented to that resolution in the Council, and then immediately afterwards he retires to his position at the Waste Land Board, Avhere he feels that he must act independently, and accordingly he lays aside the movement in the Ceuncil and takes Avhat he there conceives to be the more proper course—that of agreeing to the application. The Other statement made by the lion; member I think requires re filiation. He says that a bargain Avas entered into bctAvecn two men that the Hop. Mr Campbell sbquld be the purchaser : 'that bargain having been made heUve.eq iqysolf and Mr Campbell, ft musf, lie clparly understood that Ido not rise

to defend myself in this very serious matter. It was quite true that there was an understanding between Mr Campbell and myself, that if this land was sold he would be preferred as the purchaser. It was clearly understood that no other person was to be allowed to come into Mr Campbell’s lease ; but it did not follow that the land was to be sold, and that he would be the purchaser. On the very contrary, the resolutions passed by the Board went clearly against any such understanding, and he (Mr Campbell) as clearly understood that if the land was found to be auriferous, it was on the Government to refuse the application. Mr Campbell was present at the Board meeting when that resolution was come to, and he could not possibly have been mistaken with regard to it, as he quite agreed ii\ itl ' How, then, can ft bp said* (bat a' bargain was made between two men’ that the applicant, should be the purchaser?' Then the hon, member followed that statement by another assertion - that at that meeting of the Board the laud was actually sold, A perusal of tho resolutions I have now read will show him that such is not the case. An article in that morning’s paper professed to show the position of matters. The writer stated that the applicant had been declared the purchaser. That was precisely the mistake into which the head of tire Government, had fallen, A perusal of the printed foms* o£ application y. r i|l Bjmw that i‘| is tSifeVThty"of jlip Board to" regeivq 1 and 1 'register thesp applicaiiqffs'; but it dpes hot follow tfhsV hcoapae they are obliged'to, dq thill, that tpe applicant is to be. declared the purchaser, It was evidently qwjpg tq a misconception of this hind that seme hum members’ minds had become impressed with the idea that the applicant was declared the purchaser, at the time the application was received. That was a fallacy, and I beg that they will have such an imurfissinp removed froin tlmlv minds tfiat th|s sale took effect, as the application was simply received and registered, The blank space left in the application had to be filled in and signed, which might bo done months after the application was received. In tho case of unsurveyed land, the filling up and signing does not generally take place for a considerable period afterwards. We have had a statement before ns, made by M*' Campbell, and I must grpy that that vis a mosfc'pnffsual bourse to have'"followed;"Besidesbeing unusual, I look upon it’as a niqst improper co\irse for the lion, member at the head "pf tlig Gqvevm ment to follow. Mv < 'anipbell may have entertained t'.oc opinion” bn the point, and the members of the Board another. 1 for rny part never at any time entertained any other opinion but that he (Mr Campbell) was to be the purchaser, if the laud was sojd tp any mm. My interpretation of the reservation,s made, against the land being sold at all, was that they implied any roads that might be found necessary, land found to be necessary for tho construction of water races, or for the residences of those who might be engaged working the land. That was the opinion I expressed to the Board at the time. I state most distinctly that there was no contract between Mr Campbell and the |atg Government to sell any laud at all. Un 'the very contrary, the Board rcselried to itself the fight to retain any land that might provp to bo auriferous, or which might be required for public purposes. Having sold the land ffi the face af these facts, I consider the Government to bo deserving of most severe censure. [Wc arc obliged to hold over the remainder of our report.]

The debate on Mr Stout’s motion was continued last evening, and brought to a dose at about a quarter to ten. The following is the result of the division Ayes, 17: Messrs Allan, H. Clark, Green, Hallenstein, Ireland, Kinross, Lumsdeu, Menzies, Mollison, M'Kellar, M’Kenzie, M'Neil, Reid (teller), Stout (teller), Sumpter, Wilson, Wood. Noes 23: Messrs Rustings, G. F. 0. Browne, R. Clarke (teller), Gumming, Daniel, Davie, Ddatour (teller), Driver, Fish, Haggitt Hazlett, Mills, iWDermid, M'GTashan, M Lean, Oliver, Roberts, Rogers, Tcechcraaker, Tolnne, Turnbull, Turton, Webster. Pairs. —For the motion: The Hon. Major Richardson and Mr J. C. Brown. Against it: The Hon. Mr Reynolds, and the Hon. Mr Bathgate. Thus it will be seen that there was a nul House, Mr Shand being the only member who did nut vote. The result of the division was received with loud cheers and a few hisses from some occupants of the gallery.