GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 676, 19 August 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Per Press Agency .)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, August 17. The House resumed at 7.30. CANTERBURY PASTORAL LEASES BILL, Mr Stevens went on with his remarks on the Canterbury Pastoral Leasing Bill, in order to show that the present occupiers, from their previous occupancy, their improvements, and knowledge of the capabilities of the land leased, were better enabled to give the highest rent for the use of the land, especially when their tenure was secured as far as it could be in accordance with the legislation of the House. He asked what capitalist would be likely to come and purchase the lease of the runs under the provisions of the present Bill, especially with the knowledge that it might slip out of their hands at any moment. Throwing the whole of these lands into the market at one time would be calculated to produce a glut in the market, and so deteriorate their value, and thus be detrimental to the interests of the public ; and in arguing this way he was not doing so in the interests of any class, but of all. Mr Lumsden thought there could be little doubt that an attempt was being made to obtain special legislation for a special class in Canterbury, and he was surprised at the arguments of the last speaker, who, being an ardent abolitionist, must necessarily be a supporter of uniform legislation. He understood that to a very large [extent the lands of Canterbury had been spotted by runholders to the exclusion of small settlers, because he believed it was a fact that a large proportion of the small farmers were merely tenants. Mr Mueray-Aynsley argued that the free selection of land in Canterbury had promoted settlement, They had followed the one principle for years in their land regulations, and found them highly successful, and if this Bill were passed it struck at the root of their land regulations. The price of two pounds per acre had been found a .sufficient check to squatters buying it up for pastoral purposes. A good deal had been said about the gridiron system, but the system had been found to be a mistake, and not at all to the interests of squatters. He thought House could not do better than leave this question to be dealt with by the Government measures. If they left the question to be dealt with by the bills of private members, the result would be anything but satisfactory. Mr Donald Reid thought all lands not required for sale at an early date ought to be classified and a fixity of tenure given ; but the case was different with regard to these lands. There was no security for compensation for improvements, no inducement for the runholders to increase the carrying power of their land. If the same law was in force in Otago that was in Canterbury £3C 0,000 would be in the treasury in six weeks, and the best of the land nibbled up, Their plan was to feed the market according to the requirements of the people. He disagreed with the member for Dunedin and the mover of the Bill. He thought they were bound by good faith to renew the leases in Canterbury. It appeared to him the fairest mode would be to introduce a provision into the Government Bill, giving a further ten years’ lease on the condition that the holders would at the expiration of that time abandon all interest in and claims upon these runs.

Mr De Latour said if the title to these lands was not to be extinct in 1880, why did Canterbury ask the House to legislate upon the question at all ? He was of opinion the system of classification referred to in Otago was in nearly every instance false and mischievous. The principle of the measure was a sound one, and ought to be affirmed, They ought at least pass its second reading, and keep it before the House until they considered whether the Government Bill was superior ; if it was they could then drop the present Bill. Mr J, Evans Brown spoke as a member known as one of the strongest opponents of the runholding interest in the province, and he could say that ail the people of Canterbury wanted was that they might obtain a fair rent for their land in pasturage, of which runholders had a vested interest, not in fee simple As the Government intimated having a valuation of the runs, he thought they ought to wait for that, as the proposal had been found to work successfully elsewhere. Another great objection to the Bill was that a great amount of capital had been advanced to the runholders upon the strength of their tenure, and if that were destroyed nothing short of a commercial panic must ensue, and the effect would seriously damage the credit of the colony. If the measure became law there would be a ring formed immediately, which would lose no time in buying up the four million of acres of pastoral land, which would be bought up for less than a £IOO,OOO. They were told that Government whips were whipping up votes against the Bill, but they were not told that Opposition whips had got three Government supporters i*> r«air with one Opposition member. Eon Major Atkinson said the House had heard sufficient to make it clear it would be dangerous to pass the Bill. They were told the Bill was intended to give greater rights to a certain class of Her Majesty’s subjects, but it was really intended to take away existing rights. He felt the House would never take away rights that had grown up during the last twenty-hve years, before having ascertained the whole circumstances of the case. Not a single statement of the member for Dunedin was correct. He entirely misquoted aud misrepresented the circumstances of the case. The fact was that the name of runholders was a red rag to that gentlemen, and made him lose his head. He hoped the House would wait for the Government Bill, which he thought would meet the interests of the people, while respecting those of the occupiers. * Mr Siirimfki considered the introducer of the Bill deserved the thanks of the House aud the country. If the runs were cut up the revenue of the colony would be more benefited than by any system of runholding. Mr Murray hoped the B«U would not be pressed till the Government measure was introduced, and moved that the debate be adjourned. Mr Manders supported the adjournment.

Mr Sheehan said he saw members going about in what he might call colonial war paint, but after all were provincialists in the flimsiest of disguises. Colonial feeling as represented by Us Canterbury exponents seemed to be “ What’s yours is mine, aod

what’s mine is my own.’ As the Bill had to go before the waste lands committee, he hoped it would be allowed to be read a second time.

Hoa 0. 0. Bowen said, although they should approach questions in a colonial spirit, it was not right that localism should be entirely ignored. He, in common with the majority of Canterbury members, had consulted with his constituents on the question, and he would say the system of this Bill would not secure the occupation of the waste lands in a beneficial manner. Reference had been made to the leases of Canterbury, but there was no such thing, There the lands were occupied under annual licenses, and under that system they could be more beneficially occupied. Ho opposed an adjournment. Mr Stout supported the adjournment on grounds that all legislation regarding the waste lands should be adjourned till 1880. Mr Wason opposed the adjournment, which was lost on the voices.

Mr Fitzroy was afraid the mover of the Bill had not given that consideration to it he ought to so important matter, and which would have prevented him indulging in nonsense and rigmarole. This Bill, if passed, would inevitably lead to financial disasters to the province, and indirectly shake the confidence of capitalists in the colony. As to the pre-emptive rights, it was a mistake to suppose they extended over a large area of the runs, but they were very limited, and were granted only upon certain conditions as to improvement. Out of fourteen Canterbury members, twelve were returned in favor of assessment. After the runholder paid his year’s rent in advance, the free selector could purchase two-thirds of his run over his head, without his being able to get his rent back. It was an error to talk of cutting up the runs with a view to small settlement. If they would find anyone who would take up 5000 acres of any run in Canterbury and fence it and put up sheds and other appliances, and then do any good for himself and the state, he would forgive him.

Mr Rees said the Canterbury members were now very unanimous in their cry for justice directly the interests of Canterbury were affected, but they helped and aided to heap every description of injustice upon Auckland. They supported a Government that deprived Auckland of its land revenue and the power of dealing with their waste lands, and embarrassing Auckland in every way, and then taunted them as paupers. The hon gentleman then commented upon the singular fact that the only Canterbury members who gave independent votes on the separation debate, were those who had not been pledged to perpetuate these licenses. The others followed the Government like sheep every time they were asked. He objected to these men plundering Auckland and then proffering them a Peckaniffian charity. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr Rowe, but opposed by the Premier, and a good deal of discussion ensued, objection being taken to the fact that the Government measure was not before the House before this, as the Bill had been postponed for three weeks, to enable the Government measure to be brought down. A division was taken, and the motion lost by a majority of nine.

Mr Hodgkinson deprecated any injustice to the ruuholders by a violation of any agreement entered into, but he disagreed with the principle, and hoped steps would be taken to remedy such arrangement. He held that a subdivision of the runs would lead to an increase of population as well as an increase in the produce of wool, and the number of slock. The Canterbury land regulations be considered a lucky accident, but they did not provide for settlement as much as they ought to do. They only provided for the settlement of the £2 an acre land.

Mr Thomson supported the second reading of the Bill, and contrasted the land laws of Otago and Canterbury to show that those of the former were a great deal more conducive to settlement than the latter.

Mr Wakefield, in replying to his observations, quoted statistics to'show that, whichever land laws were best, it was a fact that there were far more holdings in Canterbury, in proportion to acreage and population, than in Otago. The hon gentleman went on to show how the effect of the Bill would be to open the way for innholders and capitalists to buy up the best of country to the detriment of the small runholders, who would, in fact, be ruined by the Bill, and which would be a disaster to the province. He failed to discover any principle at all in the Bill. The distinction made between back and front country was not at all sound, and if that was the principle, it was decidedly in favor of holders of back country—the fewer sheep he could carry to the acre, the better his tenure. He objected to the idea of cutting up the laud into live thousand-acre blocks, the value of which would be eaten up in survey and fencing. He believed the best way out of the difficulty would be to charge according to the sheep-carrying capacity of the run. The only difficulty in that would bo in esti“'‘Hnethe sheep running on freehold. Mr (HUKSiMiousE ibought the preceding member had spoken entirely in the interest of the squatters. If a-squatter had 500 acres of land good for agricultural putposes, and 900 acres of hills, if that area of land were divided, the half of it would be a great considera'ion for a small farmer, who could have half the 900 acres *of land for what, in his province, was called a “ turnout” for stock. As, on this question, he had pledged himself to his constituents, he would vote for the Bill.

The Premier pointed out the delay in bringing down their measure was caused by the recent protracted discussion. This question was one entirely distinct from any as affecting the dealing with waste lands of Otago. The two systems of tenure were quite different, The hon gentleman here detailed the leading distinguishing characteristics of the laud laws of both provinces. He maintained that the Bill was crude and unworkable, and deserved to be thrown out upon its merits or demerits. The hon member proceeded to criticise the details of the Bill, by pointing out in the first place that under the Bill the purchaser would have to pay for the property eighteen months before he caine into possession, no provision being made as as to how the in* ccease in stock was to be disposed of. The hon member then proceeded to refer to the r ersonalities which, he said, disfigured the debate, and to what looked liked talking against time. Sir G. Grey asked that words be taken down, including an expression previously used by the Premier, namely, “ foul-mouthed abuse,”

The Speaker declined to take the latter words down, as they had not been called attention to at the moment. He said that one word begat another, and he exceedingly regretted the words used by the Premier. Sir J. Vogel then said that until to-night he had taken no notice of the constant use of exceedingly improper language ; the speeches of certain members of the House had been treated with the contempt they de served, but matters had been brought to a climax by the speech of one who, for twenty minutes to-night levelled the most disgraceful accusations against members who opposed the Bill. The conduct of that hon member had been most revolting. He insinuated that a venial compact had been entered into, that hon members were devoid of honesty. “ I felt it my duty,” [said Sir J. Vogel, “to express my opinion upon such conduct. If in doing so I used words which you cannot approve of, I regret it; but I would point out that the conduct of which I have complained must be put a stop to, even if the unruly members have to be expelled. We have recently had an instance in one of the neighboring colonies where a member was unmindful of the feelings of his brother members, and if occasion arise we must follow the same course here. I feel it my duty this evening to call attention to this matter. As far as I am concerned, I have borne it for some time; but now that other members of the House are attacked it is time to take notice of it. Amongst the members who have been bo treated to-night is the hon member for Avon, who certainly cannot be called a supporter of the Government; I hope we Bhall hear no more of this sort of thing. I have been almost ashamed of being a member of the House the present session,” Sir G. Grey asked that these words be taken down. Mr Stafford also asked for the words to be taken down, because he thoroughly endorsed them, and requested these words be taken down too.

The words were taken, and the Premier called on for an explanation. He assured the House he did not apply his remarks generally, certainly not to more than two members, one of whom that night for twenty minutes hurled against a body of honorable men disgraceful and undeserved insinuations.

The Premier then withdrew. Mr Barff moved that the Premier’s explanation is satisfactory. Mr Bees did not agree. He, being the one person referred to, said he made no grave charges against the Canterbury members ; that the way they spoke to him during the adjournment showed this ; that in any case he never said anything he was ashamed of, and that what he had to say of a man or a body of men, he always said himself and before their faces, and further that when he made disagreeable charges he could always show that at least he had fair and reasonable grounds for doing so, and sufficient to compel the accused to show that the charges were unfounded. Mr Stout moved as amendment that the Premier expresses regret for his intemperate language. A good deal of discussion followed this, Mr Stout offering to withdraw his amendment if Mr Barff withdrew his resolution. Mr Barff would withdraw his-resolution if no censure would attach to the Premier in consequence. The SPEAKBRsaid—No censure will rest on anyone in particular, the blame is applicable to all. The best way is to let the amendment be withdrawn. Sir J. Vogel returned to the house, and asked what the decision had been 1 The Speaker said the question had been dropped. Sir J. Vogel considered this unjust to himself, but the Speaker quoted precedent from the session of 1856, and the Premier resumed the discussion on the Bill by pointing out that the principle of the Bill was quite inconsistent with its details, as well as with the principle of free selection. As a question of public policy the Bill was pernicious. It encouraged speculation, and was a speculator’s Bill, for who but a speculator could make a bid for stock eighteen months or two years beforehand, but a person having command of money. He would oppose the Bill, and move that the debate be adjourned to Thursday fortnight, which was agreed to, and the House adjourned at 2 20 a.m. Friday, August 18. The House met at 2.30 LEAVE OP ABSENCE. Leave of absence was given to Mr Header Wood and Mr Reynolds. RETURNS, Several returns with regard to public works were asked for by Mr Thomson and Mr Murray, but it was pointed out by the Government that great inconvenience was caused by constantly asking for returns involving great labor, and requested gentlemen to move for these returns in the ordinary way. COUNTIES BILL, The Premier moved the second reading of the Counties Bill, and informed the House that the whole subject of boundaries was open to revision and alteration. The hon gentleman then proceeded to refer in detail to the principal provisions of the Dill. He said that tho Counties might be altered subsequent to formation, but not without the sanction of both Houses Boroughs would not be included in the Counties. It was propooed that the first election for County Councillors should be for one year, and that afterwards, there should be another election for three years, but that would be open for discussion. They proposed first, that the number of councillors should be seven, to afterwards increase to nine. The hon gentleman laid tho most striking features of the Bill before the House, referring to the provision that the chairman of a County Council should be ineligible for election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Council. He said there was a great deal to be said on both sides. The loan provisions had been framed with the greatest care, and so as to enable them to obta’n loans in the most advantageous manner. After going through various details of the Bill, the Premier gave to the House a return showing the working- of local institutions at home, and the amount of revenue collected by them, with the different modes of expenditure, in order to show the capacities of the County Councils to raise money and carry on public works, besides conducting the ordinary affairs of local govcrnment. The bon gentleman also quoted from a Cobden Club paper to show that ic was necessary sometimes that counties should greatly vary in size, and instanced an English county which contained over two millions of inhabitants. After reading a great many returns relating to Koad Boards, the boa gentleman said that while the Govern-

ment recognised the necessity of pushing on the Abolition Bill, they still recognised the impropriety of allowing any considerable section of population to live in a state of discontent. He was utterly at a loss to understand what was the cause of the discontent in Auckland, because if there was one part of the colony more than another which the measure was likely to benefit it was Auckland. It appeared to him that strenuous endeavors had been made to prevent the people of Auckland and the Government coming together in a business-like way to devise some plan for its welfare, and in this connection, he asked what attempt had been made by Auckland authorities to do anything during the past year for the benefit of people of their province, He ventured to say that if it were represented to Government wherein their measures were pernicious to the interests of Auckland or defective, the representation .would receive their most prompt and careful consideration. It was not the way to go to work to be constantly saying that the House did not fairly represent the people ; to be discontented with everything ; and constantly crying out against being sat upon. The hon gentleman explained that it was intended that the Act should be permissive. Any road district that did not choose to come under the Bill might pray to be omitted from its operation ; and, further, that they would be enabled to take advantage of the financial arrangements of the Bill, without of course being able to make use of the rest of the machinery of the Bill. Before concluding he referred to Sir G, Grey’s notice regarding the Bill, and said he believed the hon gentleman did not do so on behalf of any large number of the party who usually acted with that gentleman. It should be remembered that what was the chief cause of Government introducing these measure was the-com daints proceeding from Auckland against being treated in an exceptional manner under the first abolition proposals, The hon gentleman then detailed at considerable length the position in which Auckland would be placed under the Counties Bill. When they withdrew their Local Government Bill last session they reserved the right of reconsidering the provisions of the Bill, and in introducing this Bill, he asked for the assistance of the House in passing the second reading. It would be a great pity and an injustice to the country not to pass this Bill this session.

Sir G. Grey deprecated the practice of the Premier of trying to sow dissension between the different parts of the colony. The hon gentleman then went on to show how the Canterbury members aided the Government to deprive Auckland of what she believed to be her rights. They did fthis in the matter of the Piako Swamp, on Mr Whitaker’s resolutions, and on his own resolutions they joined in doing injustice. Now again they were going to deprive the people of all that was dear to them without consulting the people. There was no doubt, he believed, that twelve Canterbury members were pledged to get the runholders twenty-one years’ lease of the waste lands of the colony. [Loud cries of “ No, no.”] Well, he would say they wanted a certain measure passed, and were anxious to keep in power a Government that would give them the measure they wanted, and which they would never get from his side of the House. The hon gentleman proceeded to justify the motion he was going to make. It was his duty to oppose this Bill on behalf of the whole of New Zealand, A more objectionable measure, as contrasted with their past institutions, had never been presented in any Assembly in the world. It was to rob the people of the colony and reduce them to a position of serfdom, and make them slaves to the monied classes. It was to throw into the hands of the runholders all the land of the colony. The proposals were monstrous—a retrograde step—and ought not to be allowed in any civilised country of the world. Ihe hon gentleman then objected to the rating principle as something unjust and unrighteous, as shown in one man having five rates to the one of his fellowmau. The proposals of the Premier were to exempt the rich man from taxation, and make the poor contribute. He was filled with concern that such a man should be allowed to control the destinies of the colony. He proposed actually that the poor of the colony should bear the whole burden of the immense debt which he got them into, and which he squandered. He (Sir G. Grey) was more in favor of local representation than the Premier. He did not believe in a system of local authority that would make his friends rich. Throughout the Bill it was nothing but property—property — property. If the people of the colony were aware of the tricks and deceptions by which their present institutions were being altered, they would not submit to what would bo so disastrous to them in futuie. The people ought to be allowed time to make up their minds. If these measures were forced on and passed, it would be found impossible hereafter to rid themselves of the incumbrance which was placed upon them He moved that the Bill be read that day six months.

Mr Manj>bh3 asked what was the use of opposing a system that the people need not have if they did not like it. He for one spoke for his constituents on behalf of the Bill. Notwithstanding the generalities of f ir George Grey, the only real objections to the Bill were owing to local prejudices about boundaries, The bon gentleman dwelt on a great many of the details of the Bill, which would make it peculiarly applicable to the country districts. The debate was cut short at the usual hour.

The debate on the Counties Bill was resumed by Mr Oubtis, who, while supporting the second reading, considered that the Bill provided powerful machinery for doing very little. The scope of their operations should be enlarged, so as to induce abler men to come forward and take part in public affairs. The County Councils should be entrusted with all the local administration in the same way as in England. He hoped to see all sorts of boards absorbed in the counties.

Mr Rolleston opposed the Bill, as unsuitable and unnecessary—a cumbrous and unfit substitute for provincialism, leading to inextricable confusion between counties, Road Boards, and the Government. Their substantial reve ues he doubted, and their borrowing powers were a sham. No one would lend money on the security offered. As part of the colonial policy, it was a failure. It was a missing link between Road Boaids and General Government, but it b gan at the wrong end. He deprecated t he remarks of one of the party with whom he usually acted iu not giving him credit for

acting honestly and lor the good of the country. Mr Donald Reid said the provinces would be abolished on the 30th of September, and unless the Bill passed, the whole colony would be thrown into confusion, and the injury would be serious. He would not be acting justly by his constituents if he was a party to bring about such a state of things, but, while he supported the second reading, he firmly believed, after a short trial of the counties, they would be glad to revert to the provinces. He was opposed to many provisions of the Bill, but would do what he could to render it a workable measure. He warned the discontented out-district members that their constituents would be worse off under the Counties Bill than under provincialism. One great objection to the Bill was that it gave Auckland a share of the land fund indirectly. Mr Montgomeby agreed entirely with Mr Reid, and suggested that Canterbury be cut up into not more than three counties (us Mr Reid wished Otago to be), and the people consulted as to the boundaries. He objected to the principle of subsidies as pernicious, Mr Wason supported the Bill, recognising it as at least an attempt to do something in the direction required, but he denied it localised the land fund.

Mr Delatour deprecated this losing of hope by members of his party of obtaining some suitable modification of provincialism. The Bill was monstrously defective in all the elements required. The permissive principle, however,wou’d effectually prevent any County Council ever being constituted in Otago, nor would Otago submit to be robbed out of £IOO.OOO next year. Mr Hodqkinson would not vote for the Bill, and if read a second time, would not assist in improving it in committee. Mr Gibbs supported the Bill, in the hope of seeing important amendments. Mr Burns was utterly opposed to the Bill in every way, but if it must be read a second time, he would help to make it as good as possible. Mr Stout opposed the Bill in a long speech, attacking it on many grounds, the rating, the boundaries, its tendency to create jealousy, and discontentment between the town and country, an attempt like the French Constitution to fit circumstances, and above all to the pernicious system of money bribe, and without which the Bill would not have had the slightest chance of passing. The only other fault of the provinces was they could not give enough roads and bridges. The Bill was all for property and property holders, and must throw the legislation and land fund into their hands. The thirty-nine counlies would be a source of more wrangling than ever known before. Sir R. Douglas supported the Bill, as it would enable the people of his district to spend their own money, which they could do better than the General or Provincial Governments. Mr Lumsden disapproved or a great deal in the Bill, but under the peculiar circumstances of the case would support the second reading. Mr Lusk regarded the Bill as a flimsy delusion, and likely to prove an expensive encumbrance, that would not be easily shaken off once it became fixed. Mr Thomson opposed the Bill generally. The House adjourned at 12.30. There was a thin attendance, and the debate was quiet throughout.