POST-SESSIONAL UTTERANCES.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 879, 19 April 1877, Page 3

POST-SESSIONAL UTTERANCES.

* MR ROLLESTON AT PAPANUL Mr W. Rolleston, M.H.R. for Avon, met his constituents last evening, at the Papanui sclioolroom. There was not a large attendance. Mr A. Saunders moved that Mr Norman take the chair, and in doing so expressed a hope that Mr Rolleston would make some explanation on a subject which had excited some interest, viz., his relation to the General Government. Mr Nun week seconded the motion. The Chairman briclly introduced Mr Rolleston to the meeting. Mr Rolleston —Mr Chairman and gentlemen —I have requested you to meet me here this evening in order that I may give you an account of my acts as your representative during the recent session of the Assembly. I will just briefly touch upon the point raised by Mr Saunders, and may state at once that my position in regard to the Government was such as not in any way to interfere with that as your representative and a member of the House. I undertook duties which, for some time previous as Superintendent I had discharged, notably us regarded immigration and other matters, and was not in any way a Government agent. There needs no apology tis there is nothing to apologise for, and the powers exercised by me have simply been a continuation of those which I held before the abolition of the provinces. There is a great danger of pulling down before you know what you are going to build up in its place. However, I felt this, that the result of the elections was scarcely doubtful upon this point. In the previous session there had been a very strong and active opposition, in which I took my part, against a conclusion being hastily come to in the House of Representatives. I thought, and explained to you at the time, that the abolition measure seemed to me to be extreme, and that the course which was lakon in resisting it, though extreme, was such as was justifiable, having in view, as it had, the referring of the matter to the decision of the public. I don’t think that it is well to turn the Parliament into a place of violent resistance, when once the voice of the people has been heard and their decision given upon the question. The decision rested very largely on the members from Canterbury, and no doubt owing very largely to their exertions abolition has been brought about. Seeing that the people of Canterbury have very largely arrived at the decision that abolition Would be passgd, it seems to me to be the duty gf anybody representing a Canterbury constituency to dp bis best in helping to work put this nc\y stale qf things successfully. I told you what my opinions were qn the subject, and I am sure you w'oujd not expect me to deviate from my own opinions. I said to you t hat I would vote qu all possible occasions y gainst it, bqt that I wquld offer no factious opposition. I pledged myself to a certain course qf action in this room, and 1 think I have faithfully arrived at my promise. Going to the House of Representatives, I may say that the position in which I found myself placed was a very strange one, I had the firm belief that provincial institutions had been well adapted to the requirements qf the country, but that the tiipe for some simplification or modification hWS necessary. I found that the men I had been working vyith in the last session, as I believed holding the same views as to the stability of provincial institutions, or at all events a modified form of them, had left me very much. I had not

left them. I found that they had boon taken up with a different cry, and were preaching a very different policy. First of all, the cry about the land fund was raised by Mr Whitaker in the House by resolutions which I will not weary you by reading, but the general purport of which was that the land fund was part of the consolidated revenue, and should be dealt with generally as part of the consolidated revenue of the colony. Then there arc the resolutions brought forward by Sir George Grey in favour of separation. I felt, therefore, as you may readily imagine, that imposition was a very difficult one. I don’t believe in men in the House who arc not attached to one party or another. I believe that a party Government is essential to the good working of our institutions; but I was convinced last session that there was no party I could follow. I had therefore to take my own course, and my votes were, in the main, in opposition to the Government of the day ; but at the same time I held views very widely different from a number of those lion, members who were in opposition to the Government. On the question of Separation, I may say that it appeared to me the terms of opposition were supposed to be entirely unfair—namely, that the North Island should bear £190,000 while the Middle Island should bear £625,000 a year. Moreover, it appeared to me—and it was perfectly clear throughout the whole course of the debate—that people take very different views of what they mean by Separation. The resolutions proposed by Sir George Grey meant really two provinces, with a federal government in Wellington. A large number of members supported Sir George Grey in the belief of absolute separation ; but whether it be so or not, there is no doubt, as has been said by other lion, members, that what it really amounts to is this, that the greater part of this island should be governed from Dunedin, and the greater part of the North Island from Auckland. That did not seem to be a satisfactory state of things, [Hear, hear.] Moreover—-and this is a point which I, perhaps, from my previous connection with the native department, feel very strongly upon—-I feel that difficulty as one which cannot be easily shaken off. It is all very well to say “ separate,” but you could not separate in the sense of giving no assistance to your fellow colonists in the North Island in the event of their requiring it. There could be no finality with regard to leaving your fellow colonists in the North Island accumulations of the past few years. In addition to these reasons, you can readily imagine that I was not in a position to be promoting revolutionary measures in one direction, when I objected to the Government promoting them in another. It would not be right for me, holding the views I did with regard to the existence of the provinces and the part taken respecting the modification of Provincial Governments, to lend myself to an entirely different 'policy, with which, as a matter of fact, I had no sympathy, I had no sympathy with this separation cry, though I must say at the same time, that I look upon our being deprived of provincial institutions as the only outcome of this most foolish measure of abolition. I believe, however, that separation and the confusion that would follow, would be worse than the evils even of abolition. [Hear, hear.] There was another matter, too, on which I could not feel but very strongly, and that was, that the very men who were working in favor of provincial institutions—at least a number of them —were woi’king under Sir George Grey, as their champion, with a view to respecting ’ the local autonomy of the provinces. It seems to me a very strange thing that when the question came on, as it did, of our position here as a settlement and a province, no respect whatever was shown to our local institutions in respect of the waste lands, which I believe have a very firm hold on the province. We had a little to expect in the Assembly from members of what were the provincial party, but I believe that last session, the members of that party became the separation party. [Hear, hear.] I do not propose to go in detail through the weary pilgrimage of last session ; it is one of the weariest times I have ever spent in the House. I am sure that most of you must have been heartily tired of the telegrams that were inserted in the newspapers from day to day, without any satisfactory result with regard to what was done in the session. Hon. members who have already addressed their constituents have entered upon their pilgrimage, and have told you of their action in respect of the Piiko Swamp, enlarging somewhat upon it. I voted against the Government on that occasion, because I thought they had acted iu defiance of the Legislature, and hud done in several respects an act which was most inexpedient and improper, At the same time I desire to say that with regard to the Government in this matter I do not accuse them of corrupt motives in what they did. [Hear, hear.] I think a great mistake was made in trying to drive home a charge which I should bp very sorry to impute to guy member of the Government. I thought, however, that it was the duty of the House to have the matter brought up again, and voted in accordance with that conviction in order most strongly to express my feeling of disapprobation of the course which the Government had taken. There was a long debate on the subject, and tfie result of that debate is alrpady known tfl you. Nowadays, the members of the Government have got into the habit of travelling about the country, and the Government is not unfrequently committed to a course of action that shoidd only be adopted in Cabinet and in Council by Ministers acting as a whole. It seems to me that one of the greatest evils of late years has been the fact that Ministers have made it their business to wander about the country. The Government have been made responsible for the acts of any one of its members, and this has led us into very serious troubles and difficulties. There is nothing, as it seems to me, worse than separating front the ' standing orders which should govern qur constitutional course. The fact is, that recently wo have had Ministers joining the Ministry after being elected really tq oppqse that Ministry. AVe have iq tlie present Ministry every kind of principle represented. We have the unity of (he land fund represented in Mr Whitaker ; we have, 1 trust, in Mr Do wen one who believes that the land fund belongs to the district where it arises ; and Major Atkinson, 1 believe, was elected in direct opposition to a candidate, at any rate, whose principles were those of the Vogel Government. Wc have, 1 think been very badly dealt with in the past by public men changing their opinions after having had support op the belief that they entertained definite and strong opinions. [Hear, hear.] Nothing could have been stronger than the opinion expressed by Sir Julius Vogel on provincialism. Ho was the leader of the provincial party fop a long term of years. What followed upon that ? vVe find him the most active agent in subverting the province of

which he had been the champion. There are a few matters that occurred during last session that I wish to touch upon; and seeing the time that has elapsed since last session, and the short time that must elapse before next session, I propose stating mv views with regard to the course which should be taken during next session. The question of the runs came up at a very early period of last session. Before I went to Wellington I had been spoken to on the subject; ami T had expressed my opinion that it was very undesirable to mix up a local question of that kind with the political questions which were sure to be brought up, and the circumstances afterwards justified the apprehension I had felt in the matter. As I think, the run question was very unfairly made a political question, and mixed up with party questions in such a manner that it ought not to have been mixed up. The lion, member for Coleridge, in compliance with the promise made to his constituents, somewhat hastily, as I think, brought forward a Bill for putting up the runs to auction. The Bill that was brought down was, I think, exceedingly crude. In the first place, it had on the face of it. the putting up of the runsjto auction, and also in the tail of it, that the stock should be taken on the runs at a valuation. Practically, if that were done, it seems to me that the putting up of the runs to auction with that incubus upon them would leave the thing in the hands of the large capitalists. My own view, which I shall act upon in the next session, is, that the tenure of pastoral tenants js distinctly a grazing tenure and nothing more ; that the .State is bound to get the utmost value it can for that tenure, but must not get that value at the expense of shutting up the country in any way. If you go in for an extreme rental, you must give extreme privileges of tenure, which I think it would be very mischievous to give. With regard to the land question generally, my belief is, that our land regulations have worked far better than any other regulations in the colony, and not only have they been the admiration of this colony, but of other places. I don’t mean to say that they arc without their failings and faults, but I think they have worked better than any other regulations towards the settlement of an industrious and thriving population. Otago and Southland together contain an area double that qf Canterbury, but we have a larger number of holders, and are growing a large amount of wheat and other agricultural produce in excess of Otago. During the past year there has been an increase in the produce of wheat alone of something very near a mi|liqn of bushels, and j tl(iqk that on the whole the settlement of this province has been most satisfactory. [Hear, hear.] There is one point now settled with regard to the pre-emptive rights, and that is that they shall cease to exist after the year 1880. In the Waste Lands Bill which the Government brought down they declared themselves in fayor of deferred payments, the land so sold tq be in special blocks. My qwn feejing yith regard to the system qf deferred payments is, that it would not be advisable generally to initiate it: but the circumstances of the colony in connection with the immigration system are such that I believe the Government would do wisely to set apart blocks of land for the purpose of settlement in connection with the system of deferred payments. I have had this conviction forced upon iqc by the settlement qf immigrants, especially in the south of this province. We must put them in such a position as will enable them to get a hold upon the soil, and to settle profitably in the country. Some years ago Mr Stafford advocated village settlement throughout the country in connection with the railway scheme, and I believe that even at this late stage the Government would do well to carry out a village system of settlement in connection with the immigration scheme in hand. With regard to the land fund, my belief is that the control of it passed very largely from the province at the time the Vogel scheme was initiated. The Colony has been on the aggressive in taking our land fund from the date that Sir Julius Vogel proposed his public works and immigration scheme. The question is nq\y how much —not all qf it —of the land revenue is to be expendediq thq districts in which it is raised. Ido not think the argument regarding the compact of 185(1 is anything so strong as that of the old Wakefield system, that the colony must return the land fund to the land itself; and my own belief as to the future course to be adopted is to obtain the consent of the Assembly to the appropriation of some part at least qf thq land fund for the benefit of the locality in which it has arisen. The idea of taking the land fund for general purposes will I believe, if the members of Otago and Canterbury remain time to themselves, not be carried out, and I am glad to find so old a politician as Mr Fox agreeing, in a speech recently made by him ,witfy the principle I have just alluded to of returning—in part at least—the land fund to the land itself. I am also glad to find that Mr Stafford, in a Speech, an extract from which I will read to you, also agreeing with this. Mr Stafford said (‘I am not at.all prepared to extend the benefits qf a universal colonial land fqud derived from the sale of land in some qf the provinces at yery high prieps, tq those qom--miiuijies yiijch hayc giyep away their land. | shafl never bp found amongst those who are ;it all inclined to adopt such a principle as that. It would bo grossly unfair to those districts which have steadily insisted upon getting a high price for their land. lam cont ent that we should say—up to a certain price the whole of the receipts shall be colonial, but above that certain price vho receipts shall go to the district in which they are raised, and shall not be colonial property.” There is no doubt that the next session will bring the question prominently before us. The present system of finance, as regards the land fund, is a perfect jumble, and leaves us without any means whatever of making roads, bridges, &c., to enable people jo gqt on to the land, I think therefore that the views expressed by Mr Stafford in the extract I have read to you will meet with the general approval of the public. Of course such an appropriation as he advocates must bo of a permanent and abiding character, and I think it is only fair that such an appropriation should be made. Of course I don’t mean lo say in speaking of finance that the present system as brought down by the Cyovernment is anything but of a temporary character. Everything was sacrificed to Abolition. One great evil that the supporters of Abolition alleged against the existence of the provinces was that they were spending money raised colonially. But we have now a system of finance with regard to the land fund, which shows that now this evil —if it be true it existed formerly—is even worse now- Wq have, as regards the financial aspect qf the land fund, a deficit qf £-300,000 to be met by Treasury bills- Take the case of Auckland; there is £BO,OOO charged to the land fund there. (To be Continued.)