WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 368, 17 August 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

{From a correspondent of the Press.) August 12

The interval that has taken place since the departure of a steamer south has been so long that it would be repeating a good deal that must by this time be stale, were I to refer at any length to the debates on Tuesday and Wednesday on the Abolition Bill. Your readers have already been placed in possession of a tolerably full report of the various speeches; and the filling in that I shall attempt will, for the two reasons I have mentioned, be very small indeed. On Tuesday night there was a perfect rush to the House to hear Sir George speak. At six o’clock there had assembled in the passages leading to the ladies’ gallery enough of the fair sex to have more than filled it then; and the crowd increased, until by seven o’clock, when the doors were opened, there must have been gathered there fully three times the number the gallery could accommodate. Previously the ladies’gallery has been free to all who had tickets of admission; but since the occurrence of Friday week, when it was so rushed that Ministers’ wives were unable to find seats, the House Committee issued fresh regulations. Now only a limited number of tickets are issued; and the best seats are reserved for the wives of Ministers, &c. It is not difficult to imagine that there is in consequence not a little jealousy, and much grumbling. Equally crowded were the Speaker’s and public galleries. But if you except Sir George’s and Mr Reader Wood’s, there was not on the first night a speech worth listening to. Decidedly Mr Wood’s was the best: and he was quite in his element when he discussed finance. Sir George’s speech was again only to be commended for its manner of delivery. Its matter was beneath the occasion and unworthy of the man. Friend and opponent admit that. Abuse of the Governor, the Government, and the Legislative Council—there was plenty of that: self-glorification in about equal pro portion; but arguments or indications of that counter policy hinted at a few days before, and which the country was thirsty for, there were none. The little guns had it all to themselves on Wednesday night. (Of course, however, Mr Montgomery is not included in this term.) The member for Akaroa is reckoned one of the principal men on his side; and it is generally admitted that his speech is the best the debate has yet produced. Two or three of his arguments met with universal favor. The intention is to pursue the debate on Government days from 2.30 p.m. till the House adjourns, and on private days to take it up at 7.30 p.m. Thursday was a quiet day, but a good deal of wholesome business was transacted. At the outset, two hours were wasted in the discussion of Mr Murray’s motion, which asked the House to affirm that the duties now levied upon unrefined sugar and other articles of common necessity, should be reduced. The arguments of the member for Bruce contained a good deal that was true; but much was the reverse. Thus far his premises were correct; the change in the mode of taxation from measurement to ad valorem duties, which the Treasurer, in 1873, in asking the House to adopt, said was to equalise taxation, and was not required to increase the revenue, has, in fact, largely increased the revenue. But it is not true that the Treasurer promised to reduce taxation if the altered tariff produced increased revenue; while it was purely a stretch of imagination to say that the people have complained of the excessiveness of the existing duties, particularly of that upon “ unrefined sugar.” Judging by the opposite chaiacter of the arguments of those who were inclined to vote with Mr Murray, if he had been foolish enough to have pressed the matter to a division, the mot ion was introduced more to enable certain hon members to have a fling at the Government than to secure any practical result. The mover’s principal reason was a desire to encourage “ local industries,” on which he is great. Mr Reid professed to have the same view, which, however, was neither encouraged nor supported by Sir George Grey or Mr Macandrew, though both the last mentioned expressed their willingness to support the member for Bruce, if he moved in the direction of reducing the duties on what were admittedly “ necessaries of life,” such as flour, tea, and sugar. The argument of the Colonial Treasurer was unanswerable. So fully pledged is the public revenue at present, that every penny got will be required to meet the colony’s engagements; and until the public works were brought to completion and yielded to the colony some return above their working expenses and interest on cost of construction, it was absurd to talk of any reduction uf taxation, much more to reduce it in the fragmentary way now proposed. He ridiculed the idea, after the colony’s costly experience of differential duties in regard to colonial distillation, of the House ever adopting differential duties to establish sugar refineries, while Mr M'Lean showed how imaginative was Mr Murray’s idea of “ unrefined” sugar being imported into the colony from tfie Fijis, when all the sugar grown in that colony was refined on the spot. Mr Reeves viewed the

question from the Treasurer’s standpoint, but drew a most despondent picture of our railway system, which, according to his belief, is to land us in nothing short of financial ruin. The Minister for Public Works could not let such doleful utterances pass unnoticed, and in proof of what the railways might be expected to do, he mentioned, what must have been assuring to the House, that a comnany in Otago had offered to lease the Clutha railway, so soon to bo opened, for twenty-one years, and to pay to the State for the privilege of working the line 8 per cent on the total cost of construction,

Mr Murray’s motion having been withdrawn, the ITonso quietly went on with the business on the order paper ; but for a moment was lifted from the dulness which accompanies the transaction of formal business by a little outburst, occasioned by Mr Reader Wood’s motion for returns showing the estimated amount of land fund to be received within each provincial district; the estimated amount to be raised by the issue of Treasury Bills ; the estimated amount for each provincial district chargeable against the land fund; together with the estimated amount for departmental services for lacal public works and education proposed to be charged against the land fund ; and the balance between those estimated receipts and charges. The Treasurer took advantage of the opportunity to explain how the provinces stood affected by the proposed changes, so far as the land fund was concerned. At present the provinces received from the consolidated fund £277,000, and from local revenue £71,000, making £848,000 in all. Under the new arrangement they would get about £450,000, or £90,000 more than they ever before received. Mr Reid was very anxious to know where this additional £90,000 was to come from, and was referred for the particulars to page 19 of the financial statement; while Mr Dignan was informed that the Treasurer’s calculations included £340,000 provincial charges. Thereupon Mr Wood jumped to his feet and denounced with great warmth of tone the proposed perpetuation of the army of clerks, &c, which was the curse of piovincialism; purposely forgetful, however, of the fact that in his statement the Treasurer had been at great pains to explain that the Government intended, after the expiration of the present financial year, if abolition was carried, to largely curtail departmental expenditure by amalgamating offices wherever it was possible to do so without injuring the efficiency of the public service. Well might Major Atkinson say he had been entirely misrepresented by the member for Parnell.

The remainder of the sitting was devoted to Bills, two of which call for a passing reference. The Otago Land Bill, as it passed the House, allows the fullest scope for carrying on the deferred payment system which is in force in that province, and which so far has been eminently successful. Up to the present time, though repeated attempts to extend, the area have been made, the province could only set apart in any one year 30,00 f) acres on deferred payments. This year the province renewed its application to extend the area to 100,000 acres ; and the waste lands committee, guided doubtless by past experience, and particularly by what occurred when the Heriot hundred was thrown open, recommended that all restrictions should be removed, and it be left to the provincial authorities to determine what extent should be thrown open in any year, To the surprise of the Otago members, not only did Sir Francis Bell admit the success of the system, and the fair manner in which it had been carried out by the Provincial Government, but he expressed his approval of the action of the waste lands committee in removing all restrictions. Furthermore, speaking as the representative of the squatters be led the committee to believe that tb«re was very little likelihood of the proposal meeting with opposition in another branch of the Legislature. And by waj of conclusion he urged the House not to leave the land question unsettled, when it would be desirable that the whole attention of the people should be directed at the approaching general election to the Constitutional question. It was amusing to see how eagerly Mr Fitzherbert snapped at Sir Francis’s concluding observations, and adapted them to his own purpose, thanking the speaker for joining the Opposition in their appeal that the Constitutional question should be relegated to the people for decision. But Sir Francis wouldn’t have a political interpretation put upon his words ; and he treated the committee to a further explanation, which means anything you like. However, the Otago Land Bill passed with little or no discussion. To all appearance there was a thin House, when the Deceased Wife’s Sister Marriage Bill got into committee ; but the member for Waitaki was there, with his forces well marshalled, should he be required as he was to show his strength. On the main clause of the Bill being put, Mr Pearce moved that the chairman should leave the chair, but only five members went into the right lobby with him, while twenty-six voted for the Bill. As a means of expressing his disapproval of the attempt that had been made to effect a surprise, Mr Cuthbertson [demanded a division and though in favor of the Bill itself, voted with the “ ayes.” Thus with the seventeen pairs that the indefatigable member for Waitaki had worked up, and Mr Guthbertson’s vote, there were in reality 44 in favor, as against 22 opponents of the measure. It is to be hoped that the passage of the Bill, for the fourth time, by such a large majority, together with the exceptional state of the law here on the subject, as compared with the Australian Colonies (Western Australia alone accepted) will induce the Upper House to look upon the measure with more favor than they have hitherto done. Sir George Grey’s motion on Friday, for leave to introduce a Bill declaring invalid all Orders in Council since July 20th, affecting the confiscated lands, raised the first note of the battle that there is to be on the question of the management and disposal of the lands in the North Island. The manner in which the motion was introduced, together with Sir George’s speech in support of his action, left the Government no alternative but to treat the motion as a hostile one. Their Executive acts were most directly called into question ; and in respect to them they were equally censured by Sir George. There is no need for me to dissect the speeches, seeing that the principal of them have been so recently placed before your readers; and that in all probability you will, at the earliest opportunity, find room for the remainder of the debate. But it might serve to enable your readers to arrive at a correct judgment were I to place before them the salient points of the question as viewed from each side of the House, The

80,000 acres of land, about which so much has been said, are situate in the Waikato country. Its class was third-rate swampy laud, and its situation in the confiscated territory. It was originally brought under the operations of the Regulations in Council affecting ihe disposal of those lands, insomuch as it had originally been put up to auction at the upset price of ss, which is the fixed price for third-class land, without finding a purchaser; and it afterwards remained open for selection for seven years without being taken up. On these points there is not the slightest question. A little over twelve months ago Mr Thomas Russell, representing a band of capitalists, including the Hon Mr Taylor, Mr D. L. Murdoch, Sir James Fergusson, and others, made application to purchase the land. There appears to have at first been some demur as to the price the company were to pay, and for a time the matter was hung up. S ,- r Donald McLean insisted upon gening the upset price of 5s per acre, subject to a condition to be mentioned presently. Thus far, too, there is no question. Now, however, arise a combination of circumstances which have occasioned much differenceof opinion. The land was ultimately sold to Russell and Go. To this SirG. Grey and his party object on a variety of grounds. Sir George lays down this proposition first:— The Government, he says, have admitted that the transaction is an illegal one, and they seek to confirm their illegal aft by passing an Order in Council, a system of Governmental legislation he is entirely opposed to. It may be remarked in passing, that Mr Stafford in his speech, showed that Sir George, when Governor, was a party to the Act which allows and legalises Orders in Council. The illegality of the act consists in that no notice was given to the public that they could have obtaimd the land at less than 5s per acre. Each of these three propositions is distinctly traversed by the Government. The illegality of the transaction is denied. The Defence Minister only goes the length of saying that the transaction i« yet incomplete, because the native titles over a portion of the land have yet to be extinguished, and till those are extinguished, the proclamation reouired to give the transaction the force of law —mark the distinction, not a word about to legalise an illegal act—cannot be issued. The Government, in the second place, deny that any undue preference was given Mr Russell and company, who having applied for the land, and there being i o other applicants, were entitled to be declared the purchasers. Next, it is denied that the land was improperly disposed of. The Government allege that the bargain was made for a sale at the upset price of Ks an acre; but that, in consideration of the company undertaking to form a good road through the land, to connect the districts on each side of the property, they agreed to remit half of the purchase money. In other words, the Government said this—“ You must pay the upset price of nearly £20,000; but if you make the road in question, you shall have half of the purchase money returned to you.” Not only have the company made the road, in which they have already sank £20,000, but are now laying down a tramway. It is curious to notice how the transaction is viewed by the Opposition, apart from Sir George’s strong ground of illegality. Sir George himself is silent as to the wisdom or otherwise of the sale; though, if anything is to be made out of his reply, he leans to the view that the sale was a good one for the colony. Mr Fitzherbert objects to the colony disposing of portions of an estate, which “equitably” belongs to the provinces. This equitable claim was disposed of by Mr Stafford, who argued that if there ever was a colonial estate, in the true sense of the term, it is these confiscated lands. It was an act of generosity on the part of the Government, of which he was the head, not to charge the provinces with the cost of the three million war loan; but he denied that any claim to the equitable right to those lands on the part of the provinces could be based upon that act. This is, however, a digression. To return to the consideration of the bargain with Russell and Company as being a good one for the colony or the reverse. On the one hand, there was Mr Reeves declaring, “ on information received,” that the land, if submitted to auction, would have fetched 80s an acre ; and that the company have consequently netted a quarter of a million by the transaction ; on the other hand there were such men as Messrs Buckland,'* May, and Wm Ke'ly, who personally knew every inch of the ground, telling the House that the land in its normal state is purely swamp, and next to useless ; that for seven years it has lain idle, while it is only reasonable to suppose that if it had been such a good thing as some members supposed, the Aucklanders would long since have pounced upon it ; and that it will require the expenditure of many thousands of pounds to make the land profitable. Thus you have shortly and as succinctly as I could gather them the facts of the case, as brought out by the debate. The action of the Government in resisting the introduction of the Bill was mainly attacked by Mr Sheehan, and Mr Wood declared it was without precedent. The Times this morning proves the incorrectness of that assertion, by showing that in 18G5 the House refused leave to the Native Minister of the day (Mr Fitz Gerald) to introduce a Bill to dismember the province of Auckland for the enlargement of Hawke’s Bay. Then the ground was shifted. Mr Wood fiercely denied that Sir George wanted anything but immediate enquiry, which Sir Donald and Major Atkinson had already promised to assist him in getting, if he would only move in that direction. Sir George, according to Mr Wood, was one thing ; when speaking for himself he was quite different. Despite Mr Wood’s special pleading, the impression remained with the House, as Mr Stafford had already put it, that Sir George had appealed to that “ new Parliament” about _ to be called into existence, as a more impartial tribunal, and inclined to deal more liberally with the claims of private individuals. A second time did Mr Wood change his ground, and in this contention he was supported by the whips of his party, Messrs Sheehan and Bunny. The introduction of the Bill was but the initial stage of that inquiry, which the Government professed to be anxious to court ; if the Bill went to a second reading the whole thing would be there discussed, charges made, and defence heard. But Mr Joseph Shephard showed how unsatisfactory, to say the least of it, would such a mode of procedure be. By it only charges, more or less vague, but equally damaging, would have teen brought forward, while the facts would have been but partially disclosed. There was only one proper way to consider and to investigate such charges as had been made—to refer them to a select committee, before whom the investi-

Ration would be thorough, and the evidence be given on oath, When the Government had no alternative but to treat the matter as hostile, there was no course open to the Opposition but to decline to vote. They had been compromised, without being consulted. The Times blames Sir George for not having consulted his party, who would, in all probability, have advised him to have asked for a committee of inquiry, and that no further action should be taken until that committee had reported. Each of these things has been conceded by the Government upon their own motion. The division list you will find in your Parliamentary telegrams. In the opinion of some it serves as an index of what the vote will be on the main question.

The debate was exceedingly practical, and on the whole the speaking decidedly good. Still a little fun was created, first by Mr Sunny, who detailed most innocently the formation over champagne and breakfast of that New Zealand party which was to have been a power in the land, but of which we may say, as was asked of Hans Breitmans, where is it now? For half an hour the member for Hokitika kept the House in much good humour. For the purpose of allowing the fullest discussion, he proposed, as an amendment, that the Bill should be read that day six months; and was proceeding to address the House, when one of the Maori members rose to call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that the mace had disappeared from the table. Naturally Mr White resumed his seat. Taiaroa’s rising had excited some members’ risible faculties rathermuch; and the'Speaker, falling into the mistake that the Maori member had risen to second the amendment, declined to allow Mr White to proceed. In vain did the member for Hokitika try to explain that “ that bauble” was the cause of all the confusion ; but after much persistence, he managed to say a few words, which were to the effect that he considered he had not been very well treated; at which declaration the House laughed greatly. Shortly after ten p.m. the Abolition debate was resumed, and continued till midnight. The speakers were Messrs T. L. Shepherd, Brandon, and Major Jackson. The first-mentioned made a good point in advocating that road boards should be constituted for goldfields districts, and that the gold revenue should be treated as rates and subsidised as under the general abolition scheme. Mr Brandon made a strong ultraprovincial speech, lauding provincialism and provincial administration to the skies. Major Jackson, on the other hand, had nothing to say but condemnation of provincialism as affecting outlying districts, and committed himself to the statement that during ten years the provincial authorities of Auckland had only managed to expend £BOO in the Waikato, the district he represented. On Tuesday the debate will be continued by Mr Rolleston. It is extremely difficult to say how long it will be continued ; but it may be safely said that the discussion will exhaust another fortnight. The Opposition will certainly prolong it until after the Caversham election is decided. They reckon, and correctly I think, on the return of Mr Stout, the Provincial Solicitor, who I venture to affirm, from a knowledge of his abilities, will prove a source of strength to their party, and be a decided acquisition to the House.

A good many committees are sitting just now. The principal and most important of these is that which is investigating the Tairua block, and other matters affecting the Thames goldfields, about which Sir George Grey has been making a great fuss lately. Shortly stated, the facts are these:—The Government purchased a block of land irom the natives, and a condition of the purchase was that the latter should have reserved to them a thousand acres, which were not to be taken in more than two blocks. When gold was discovered on the land the natives wished to exercise the right to the reserve, and to have it surveyed. They chose a spot. Sir George Grey now alleges that this reserve never existed before the discovery of gold, and charges Mr Mackay, the Government agent, with having made it for private purposes. Both of these charges on investigation prove to be unfounded, as it has been established that in 1873 Mr Mackay reported this reservation, and showed where it had been made. There is the issue of Ohinemuri miners’ rights, another sore point with Sir George, yet to be investigated. The goldfields committee “sat upon’’the more important part of Mr Mervyn’s Goldfie 3 ' 18 ’ Bill, by excising the clause which *° ex .t en d the area that can be taken up under agricultural lease on goldfields f* om 200 to 320 acres; but tlif l member for Alounfc Idsi) dissatisfied witn, that decision, intends to appeal to the House. Mr T. L. Shepherd has been more fortunate. His Pollution of Rivers Bill was referred to the Solicitor-General, who has drafted a measure which, if passed (and it seems likely that it will) will enable miners in any part of the colony to use streams and rivers for mining purposes. Where existing rights are affected, compensation, to be determined by arbitration, will be allowed; but in future land sales or leases of Crown lands, water rights are to be expressly reserved.