WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 413, 8 October 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

(From a correspondent of the Press ) October 6. Since the Abolition Bill has been disposed of, the House has settled itself down to work, and the earnestness it displays to get through with the important Bills now on the order paper warrants the belief so generally entertained, that a fortnight more will see the close of the session. The debate on the Qualification of Electors Bill, on going into committee of supply, and one or two subjects which occupied attention during the early pait of the week, were so fully reported at the lime, that there is now no necessity for referring to those matters. The long expected Representation Bill came down on Friday, and but for the obstructiveness of one or two of the “ tag-rag and bobtail ” on both sides, would have been in committee ere this. On the whole it is fairly received, notwithstanding that Sir George Grey and a few of his immediate followers profess to see in it everything that is bad. The second reading was moved by Mr Bowen in the weakest speech he has made this session, and it was an extremely unfortunate reference of his to the holding capacity of a Legislative Chamber as the limit to the number of representatives. Sir George Grey and the local press have given him very little peace. The opposition to the second reading of the Bill will not be great, but in committee a very determined effort will be made to give a third member to the Thames, and to lop one off either Taranaki or Hawke’s Bay. The proposal to give an additional member to Napier is generally condemned; and I doubt if the Government will succeed in carrying it. On Monday the second reading would have been carried, but that some of the little fry, anxious to air their special grievances, brought others to their feet; and now we arelikelyjlo have another day’s debate on the subject. The features of Monday’s sitting were the debate on the Californian mail contract and the bringing up of the report on the Ohinemuri miners’ rights. The resolution for ratifying the San Francisco contract was moved by Mr Reynolds in a speech as short as it was weak. The efforts of the colonies of New South Wales and New Zealand to establish a permanent service were sketched in a few sentences ; its advantages as compared with the Brindisi or Southampton routes were passingly alluded to ; and the Acting Postmaster-General resumed his seat after intimating that he left to succeeding speakers the task of enlarging upon the commercial advantages of the line. So clearly did the House recognise that the colony was committed to the contract that there appeared to be a general disposition, after the resolution was moved, to adopt it without another word being said; and I am inclined to believe that that would have been done if Mr Murray had not thrown himself into the breach with an absurd amendment, calling upon the United States Government to contribute towards the cost of the service, Mr Stafford followed with a proposition that, judging by the favor it received on being made, is likely to be adopted. He wants route No 3, which avoids the dangers of Kandavu and makes Honolulu the calling place, adopted in pre ference to that named in the contract, and wants the coastal part of the service dispensed with. In moving in the last mentioned direction, he has the support of a large section of the House, but will encounter the opposition -of Mr Macandrew, who will not have any ocean service that does not make Port Chalmers one of the termini.

In the evening of Monday, Mr Bryce, as chairman of the Ohinemuri miners' rights committee, brought up that committee’s report, which discloses a most extraordinary state of things, and fully justifies the course taken by Sir George Grey in every respect save one, viz, in endeavoring to attach the blame to Mr Mackay. There is an excellent resume of the evidence in this morning’s Times, and the reproduction of it will enlighten your readers upon a piece of unusually smart business, which the concocters were clever enough to take care was just without the line which the law can take cognisance of. The evidence of Mr Brissenden is peculiarly instructive and amusing. In a few days the Tairua committee will report, and in its proceedings the same gentleman figures very conspicuously. Since the Disqualification committee have reported, the Hon Mr Taylor has not taken his seat; but Mr Buckland, in the other Chamber, having fortified himself with the best legal opinion obtainable in the country, continues to sit.

During the past week the Opper House has brought its discussions very prominently under the notice of the public. The debate on the Otago Land Bill, and the questions raised by Mr Waterhouse, have contributed to this result. On Tuesday, the Piako Lands Exchange Bill was moved by the Premier, with an explanation of its provisions, to the following effect;—“ln 1864, Mr Commissioner Bell made an award that a block of 2000 acres be surveyed within certain specified limits in the Piako district, and that the grant of such land be issued to Mr Willis. Owing to the native differences which for a long time had existed in that particular portion of the country, the survey was not made within the prescribed limits. Finding that it was impossible to carry out the sqrvey at the place pointed out, Mr Graham, the surveyor, or his agent, thought

they would try in another place. They made accordingly a survey of 2000 acres north of the proper boundary line. It happened that no portion of the land so surveyed was contained within the . limits of the area prescribed by the award made in favor of Mr Willis ; a portion of it also was on land already awarded to another claimant; and another portion of it has never been acquired from the natives to the present day. Nevertheless, owing to neglect or a mistake of some kind, the survey thus made was accepted, and a Grown grant issued for the extent of land originally proposed in Mr Commissioner Bell’s award. It was not long before the error was discovered, and then the Secretary tor Crown Lands communicated with Mr Graham, who was representative of Mr Willis at that time, requesting him not to deal with the land. Undoubtedly the proper course under the circumstances would have been to institute legal proceedings, but it was thought at the time that communication with Mr Graham in a friendly spirit would have prevented any furtherdifficulty; but as things turned out, it had no other object than to hasten Mr Willis’s operations with respect to the land, which was soon after sold to Mr Farmer, and afterwards to Messrs Brown and Campbell, a well-known mercantile firm in Auckland. It appeared that this piece of land was, amongst others, offered at auction by Messrs Brown and Campbell some year or two ago, and it was bought by Mr Thomas Russell. Messrs Brown and Campbell conveyed to Mr Russell a title under the Land Transfer Act ; the proper legal formalities were gone through, and what is known as an indefeasible title under the Land Transfer Act was given to Mr Russell, The case now stood thus: Mr Russell’s claim was covered by a title to certain land, a part of which did not at present belong to the Crown, and that portion of it which did belong to the Crown was covered by an antecedent right. Accordingly, the Government had introduced the measure now before the Council to remove this difficulty. It proposed to exchange for tnis land a piece of land of equal value, to be selected by Mr Thomas Russell.” A strong speech was made against the Bill by Mr Waterhouse, who appears to have been at considerable pains to get at the bottom of this business. His researches at the Land Transfer Office showed that an indefeasible title to the laud could only have have been procured by fraud, as only upon some egregiously erroneous statement of fact could a title have been obtained ; wherefore he contended before the matter was proceeded with further, the Council should be informed how the fraud was perpetrated, and what steps the Government had taken to bring the perpetrators of it to justice. It was not at all surprising that the effect of such a speech should have been the rejection of the Bill. Two days after the debate in the Upper House, the question was specifically put to Ministers by Mr Reeves whether they intended to at once institute legal proceedings against the persons alleged to have made a false declaration before the Registrar of Lands in order to obtain a title to lands in the Piako district. In a very lengthy reply the Treasurer acquitted the officers of the Government from any knowledge of or complicity in the fraud, and went on to say that so far as the Government could see, no one could be proceeded against under the Land Transfer Act. All he knew of the charges was from the public prints, and on that the Government could not proceed; but if the hon gentleman who was reputed to have made the charges in another place, and who was celebrated for his accuracy and public spirit, would put them so that they could be made the subject of enquiry, the Government would be glad to assist him. Mr Waterhouse intends to accept the challenge of Ministers.

But this matter is dwarfed into insignificance by the discussion on the motion raised by Mr Waterhouse on Thursday last, upon which the Council unanimously resolved “That in its opinion the acknowledgment by the Government, in the purchase of Native lands, of ‘ rights,’ or leases, acquired by Europeans from the native owners in violalation of the laws of the colony, is opposed to all sound principles of public policy.” The debate upon this motion, which, had it been brought forward in the other branch of the Legislature, would certainly have been regarded as a vote of censure upon the Government, is fairly reported in the New Zealand dimes. The remarks of Colonel Whitmore and Mr Mantel), it will be observed, were particularly Strong, and furnished material for a remarkable article in the Times, which of late has been particularly anti-Ministerial. The Lords have also been exercising their skill at disfiguring a Land Bill, and have tieated that sent up from Otago i n a way that is not likely to heighten the kindly feelings with which the upper chamber is regarded in that province. Despite the energetic protests of Sir J, Richardson, who stood forward as the champion of settlement, the Lords raised the price of land on deferred payments in Otago from 20s to 40s per acre ; and increased the rate of payment accordingly. Of course, the Otago members at once abandoned the Bill. Since Mr Mervyn’s Goldfields Bill has passed, under which the province can take pastoral land within a goldfield on paying compensation of 2s fid per acre and paying for fencing, the difficulty of acquiring land will not be so severely felt ; and Mr Macandrew is content to carry on with this Act and the Land Act of 1872 for another year. On Tuesday the Lords take up the Abolition Bill, on which they will have a good deal to say.