GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1071, 3 December 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[by telegraph, pee pbess agency.] HOUSE OE EEPKESENTATIYES, Saturday, December 1. The House met at 2.30. Leave of absence for ten days was granted to Mr Seaton and Mr Fyke. In reply to Mr Hursthouse, Mr Sheehan said the Government would have a flying survey made of a railway between Motueka and Montere, as requested in a petition irom settlers in those districts. riVANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BIEL. The x inane 1 ’a I Arrangements Amendment Bill was received by message and read a firs! time. Sir G. Gee sr moved that the second reading should take place at 7.30 this evening. Major Atkinson objected to either this Bill, the Land Bill, or the Loan Bill being proceeded with to-day. Ido time had been afforded for considering such important mea*

sures. If, after due consideration, the Opposition could accept these measures, they would assist in passing them through on Monday. Mr Macandkew thought it reasonable to leave the Financial Arrangement Bill over to Monday, but the Land Bill might be gone on with. The Government, however, were in the hands of the House. Mr Oemond said all the Opposition wanted was a fair time to consider the Bills. They would he quite willing that the Government should move the second readings and then adjourn the debate. After a slight discussion the matter dropped, it being understood that at 7.30 the question of going on with or posponing the Bill should be determined, LANDS SALE BILL. Sir G. Gkey moved the second reading of the Land Sales Bill. It would be remembered that in the Financial Statement a system of classification could not he made immediately, but provision for it would be made next, session, and as a step towards the establishment of a uniform price the very simple Bill in his hands had. been drawn up. It established a uniform price for all lands sold by auction and all sold by free selection. Settlement, therefore, would not be stopped until further legislation took place, as all demands for land fit for settlement as sufficiently worth £1 an acre could easily be found until classification took place, and a uniform price for the value of laud could be established throughout the colony. The Bill provided in a simple efficient manner for a great difficulty, and paved the way for a uniform land law for the colony. Mr Retd said the Bill was very short, but would tend very much to confuse the land laws. One clause in the other Land Bills would have been a simple way of dealing with the matter and at taining the end. Short as the Bill was, it was contradictory in its provisions. It would double the price of laud, which could not in Otago be sold at the present price of 20s an acre, and so would stop all sales. More intelligible were the provisions for the case of selling by auction land open for selection but simultaneously applied for by two persons. He did not approve of it classing the price of lands. The Waste Lands Board had already ample power to increase the price of lands worth more than 20s an acre. The Bill would raise all deferred payments land to £3 per acre. The Bill would decrease the land revenue and impede the progress of settlement. He moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr Macandhew thought the best proof of the value of the Bill was the very mild opposition it received from Mr Reid, who was an expert in land law matters. He was strongly in favour, and had always been in favour of a uniform land law for the colony. It was absolutely essential, now that the land revenue was coloniulised. He did not think settlement would bo at all impeded by the present measure, which was merely a temporary one. He saw no reason for postponing the debate on such a simple measure. Mr Travers had read, but utterly failed to understand, the Bill. It was inconsistent and unintelligible. He thought the auction system highly injurious to settlement. It had proved so here and elsewhere. The man of capital drove out by it the man who wanted to settle. The whole system was a delusion and a snare—a delusion as to the revenue, and a mischievous trap for the would be settler. He eulogised tb e Canterbury land laws, and said that had it not been for its goldfields Otago would have been a desert, with all its lands in the hands of capitalists. It would be better to leave the land laws as they were until next session, unless the Land Bill already passed in that House become law, and this Land Sale Bill should not be passed. Mr Stout thought Mr Travers’s speech more contradictory than the Bill. He showed utter ignorance of Otago and its land laws. In bringing down this Bill, instead of putting new clauses in the other Bill, the Government was really adopting Mr Reid’s suggestions, yet he now complained of their having done so. He denied that the provisions of the Bill were in any way contradictory. The opposition to this Bill was simply to try and stop making the Land Fund colonial revenue. Nelson, Marlborough, and Auckland were really the only provinces which would be affected by this Bill.

Mr Gisborne considered the Bill simply a step towards establishing a uniform system of land law as necessary to making the Land Fund colonial revenue. He saw no objection to the measure.

Mr Sutton thought there was no necessity for this measure this year. He did not believe in uniformity of land laws or prices. Major Atkinson thought this Bill would not be understood till they had the Financial Arrangements Bill before them, and an explanation of how this Bill was to do what was desired in banking accounts. If it could be shown it would do this the House would, no doubt, pass it, but he did not think it would do this. The matter was one of finance rather than of policy. Mr Kelly hoped the Bill would be amended in committee in a certain direction, so as amongst other things to provide for the sale of land not purchased when put up to auction.

Mr Mandeks supported uniform laud laws aud a common purse. He even objected to the 20 per cent, reservation to local bodies. He would support the land policy of the Government.

Mr Delautoue thought it the smaller provinces would not, by agreeing to an increase of price, meet the sacrifice which Otago and Canterbury were making by giving up their land revenues, he aud others might be inclined to reconsider the question of giving it up. Mr McLean was afraid the Bill was unpracticable, otherwise it would to a great extent meet his views, but he wished to consider it in connection with the Financial Arrangements Bill. He urged the adjournment of both Bills till Monday. Mr Rees thought any amendment required could bo made in committee.

Mi’ Lumsden thought this Bill would afford the Council an excuse for throwing out the other Land Bill. This Bill would also injuriously affect Southland, and he would oppose it unless it were altered considerably in Committee. He would not agree to a uniform price. Sir B. Douglas urged an adjournment till Monday, as ho wished to see how the Bill would affect Auckland, and to consider it apart from all party considerations. The debate was then adjourned to Monday. Mr Sheehan then moved that the House adjourn to Monday. Mr Eolleston opposed this, urging that the discussion of the financier Arrangements Speech should proceed to-night. Ho spoke until the dinner hour arrived.! By arrangement afterwards the Financial Awaugoaiwits Bill was postponed till Monday.