PARLIAMENTARY

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 17, 21 July 1885, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY

HOUSE OI? REPRESENTATIVES.

[W« TOUTED FBBBS A.BBOCIITMV.J Wellington, July 17. The House at 7.30. LAND BILL. If r Irew hailed the bill with, satisfactioD, and held that no colony could becom* great ualeM it had liberal land liwi. Mr Bruce objected to the perpetual leasing system, as he thought it vicious in principle and would become vicious in practice. Land should be sold in as ■mall allotments as possible, and dis* Stsed of to persons on favourable term*, c felt bound to oppose the present bill. Mr Hmrstheuse could see nothing objeetional in the bill, aid therefore would support it. Mr Joyce preferred the deferred payment system to perpetual leasing. MrM. J. S. Mackenzie thought the best system was that mot acceptable and profitable to the State, and he contended that the perpetual system was not desirable. As to deferred payments he regretted that the period in. which Crown grants should be issued had been altered. He considered that several clauses in the bill were of a retrospective character, inasmuch aa they imposed conditions which were sot in the original bargain. The Premier hoped the perpetual leasing clauses would be retained. He thought ft would be a sad day for Hew Zealand when it had no State land. Mr Duncan would support, the bill with some amendments. Mr Fisher thought the Minister of Lands deserved credit for introducing the measure, as it showed an evident desire to settle people on the land. Mr Smith complained of the working of the Waste Lands Boards in. the past, and would like to see the elective prinetnle introduced. m comma ten ambndhbjtt bill. MrMacarthur said there no principles in this BiW- He understood that the Premier was to provide the machinery, aad the Colonial Treasurer the finances for this Bill, and he presumed this was the result of those hon. gentleman's consideration. A considerable want of knowledge had been shown in preparing this Bill* The measure would not in the least degree provide for the requirements it professed to answer. One of its objectionable features was the election of the county chairmen by the ratepayers. The •lection of auditors was also unwise, and he believed that system was a vicious one ia small boroughs. The system of apportioning the rates he had no objection £T although it was rather rigid. The « miscellaneous- portion" of the Bill did not call for much comment.