Provincial Council.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 267, 23 May 1855, Page 3

Provincial Council.

Wednesday, May 16 th. (Continued from Saturday's paper. J Clause 27 having been read, Mr. Brittan proposed as an amendment the return to the old Pasturage regulations. He rested his case upon the evidence of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who stated that they had no official complaints against the existing rents. The terms were that the licensee shall pay for the 20th part of the run, in the first year, at the rate of 20s. per 100 acres; in the second year, l-10th; third year, l-sth; fourth year, l-3rd ; fifth, sixth, and 7th, half of the ' run applied for, at the rate of 20s. per 100 acres per annum. Mr. Bray said tbe honourable gentleman has grounded his amendment upon the evidence of the Commissioner that he had received no official complaints ; but in September, 1852, there were official complaints made to the agent of the Canterbury Association, which he would read. We were not legislating for two millions of acres within the block, but 12 millions in the province. They might reasonably expect there will be a considerable amount of pasture land yet discovered. The rates suggested to be paid in these remote parts of the country would be a prohibition against their occupation. Mr. Sewell protested against any attempt to dispose of the question that evening. Mr. Hall said he thought the house might safely proceed with the discussion, and to the division upon the amendment. The committee was fully agreed upon the rejection of such a proposition. It is now said that the evidence of the Commissioner of Crown Lands is satisfactory, and the honourable gentleman quoted that evidence in proof of his argument that the rents were acceptable to the stock owners. He denied that they ever were so, and he could produce proof that the rents were not satisfactory. (Mr. Hall then read an abstract from the report of a meeting of tbe stockowners, in September, 1852.) Mr. Hall contended that the argument implied an objection to the rent, and that Mr. Godley postponed their adjustment until a more settled period. These regulations, made under Mr. Godley's instructions, applied only to the block. The regulations he bad suggested, and which were before the committee, applied to the whole province within and without the block. Mr. Sewell: Mr. Hall is surprised that Mr. Brittan should maize such a proposition as the renewal of the old terms of rent. On the other hand, he was surprised at tbe general tenor of tbe regulations. He could not have supposed it possible that any one should put himself forward as the champion of these pattern regulations. First iv order is a sv/eeping reduction of rent by one-half. He agreed that fixity of tenure was of more importance than rent ; but fixity of tenure is to be given in a manner perfectly unparalleled in the whole history of a colony.— (Question.) —Mr. Sewell: Am I in order, sir? —Chalrman : Perfectly. Mr. Sewell: Then perhaps honourable gentlemen will refrain from interrupting me. There was the preemptive right system in full force, and tbe run holders are to bave the right of purchase at half the present price. He was ready to reduce the rents by one-half, or abolish them altogether, if the stock owners could make out their case ; but the stockowners did not touch tbe question of rent. They did not complain of tbe rent, they objected to acreage system, and thought it more equitable to pay per capitum ; and be proposed upon this evidence to abolish £3,800 of revenue. But they say tbe stock owners complain of tbe rents'. Why, its always disagreeable to pay, and when tbe rent is put down to this half-an"acre system We shall have grumbling at that. Tbe rent is a matter of contract between us. They were bound by a contract too with the holders outside the block. They needed facts—and there was that supplied by the committee that there were some 30 applications on the file. But then there was his friend, Mr. Bealey, who would indulge some of those giddy flies who desired to burn their wings. Is it any reason because Sir George Grey made a bad bargain with the occupiers outside the block, is that any reason why we are to come down to that scale ? In all the colonies of New South Wales, and in New Zealand too, there is a policy of diverting a large portion of the pastoral country to tlie agricultural interest; and with that view there is a large portion of country set apart as settled districts. The ,

holders have certain rights, but the object is to promote the interests ofthe purchaser. Then there are the unsettled or purely pastoral districts,and the intermediate districts ; but passing from New South Wales, what was the rent in Van Dieman's Land ? It was £1 per 100 acres; there were vast advantages apart from the cost, and there they could pay that rent. Why is the public to make a present of the land to these stock owners, which is truly and honestly worth the money they proposed to ask for it? There was a calculation in the Lyttelton Times, from a stock owner. This gentleman bad increased his capital 300 per cent, in three years. He had only made 20 per cent, and multiplied his capital 300 percent. Poor,,miserable stock owner, he deserves to bave his rent reduced. (Laughter.) They had already disposed of the question as regarded the outside of the block, but he would suggest that a word or two should be introduced in the amendment, confining these terms of rent to the holders within the block. These terms were grounded upon and justified by an absolute contract He deeply regretted that they were called upon to deliberate upon this question at this hour ofthe night, exhausted as they all were. There has been a delay, but the delay was occasioned by getting rid of a certain quantity of rubbish ; they had wheeled that ont of their way. The object was to drive on the discussion of this question in a thin house, when there would be a preponderance of the stock owning interest voting in favour of his friend, Mr. Hall. Mr. Packer rose to move that the chairman report progress. Mr. Brittan seconded the proposition. Mr. Tancred was proceeding to explain when he was interrupted by the chairman calling him to order. A division was taken and the motion that the Chairman report progress was negatived. Mr. Tancred proceeded to animadvert strongly upon the course Mr. Sewell had pursued. The imputation of the honourable gentleman was unfair, and the sooner the question was disposed of the better. Mr. Bbay said the motives the honourable gentleman had imputed to them was most uni fair. He had on a former occasion moved an amendment which the rules of the house prevented his bringing forward, not for the purpose of depriving the province of £4,000 as Mr. Sewell said, for in fact the revenue in question was not £4,000, but £2,000. His argument was contrary to the facts of the case. Mr. Hall said the bouse had been fortunate in not adjourning, it had helped them to an address from the hon. gentleman which reminded him o'" Peter Pindar, who had said, " Wesf, though thy picture I am forced to Maine, I mean to „ay most handsome things about the frame." Mr. Sewell bad assumed that the whole subject had been disposed of. Firstly, the hon. gentleman commenced his speech by a personal attack upon the stockowners generally and himself in particular. This was an audacious request for stockowners to make, that the province should lose £4000. He presumed to say because he was a stockowner he was uot a fit person to legislate on the matter, but is the lion, gentleman a fit person ? He would not twit the hon. gentleman with his ignorance of the subject, but he would read an extract, shewing Mr. Sewell's experience of sheep farming, as drawn from his own experience in England. Mr. Sewell had never seen a sheep run, be had been here two or three years, and had never made himself acquainted with the character of a run. Mr. Hall then read from the instructions toMr/Godley. The agent of the association was only to let land at the rate of 20s. per 100 acres. How far would they be inclined to make engagements based upon such intelligence as that he had read. He had no hesitation in saying that had those instructions been acted upon, fresh mutton would have been as scarce in Canterbury as it was in the Association's ships. But now as to the imputation of motives. He did not expect that would have been the mode in which the hon. gentleman would have commenced his speech. It was unworthy the position of the hon. gentleman. For himself he would not condescend to notice such imputations, in future whatever may be tbe provocation, be would stand upon his rights, he would appeal to the character he bad sustained while fairly placing his case before the house. But about Van Diemen's Land, are tbe runs fenced ? what is the price of labour ? are they not small runs ? Mr. Hall proceeded to read the estimated cost of a station at Van Diemen

Land for 20,000 sheep, and notwithstanding the exceedingly low rate of wages and rations, proved that even there the rent could not be maintained. But the rent is more than counterbalanced by the extreme smallness of the expenses. Then he instanced the rent in the settled district of New South Wales, and urged that our regulations ought to correspond with those in New South Wales. The rents there within the settled districts is not less than 10s. per section, or about l-3rd of a penny, but they only ask a%. The loss of revenue is again and again harped upon with a pertinacity really most laudable even in the hon. gentleman, but he would again submit to the bouse a statement of accounts which he had already more than once read, and by which the house would see that tbe utmost loss of revenue consequent upon tbe change would be ;'about £700. He contended that it was unfair and unbecoming the position of the learned gentleman, so pertinaciously to adhere to statements so utterly at variance with the facts, when they bad been bo repeatedly disproved. The bon. gentleman then proceeded at great length to review other parts of Mr. Sewell's speech ; he complained that he studiously ignored every fact which told in favour of the proposed regulations. He had laboured hard to convince the house, and notwithstanding his remonstrance about the late hour of the night and his appeal to their sympathies for exhausted nature, he had succeeded in delivering that brilliant oration which they had heard, brilliant indeed in words, but lamentably deficient in candour. The chairman reported progress, and the debate was then adjourned at quarter to 12 o'clock. Friday, May \%th. Present—The Speaker, Messrs. Fooks, Brittan, Packer, Westenra, Ward, Aylmer, Thomson, Tancred, Sewell, Simeon, Ollivier, Hall, J. cc SBealey, Barker, and Bray. Mr. Sewell presented a petition from Capt. Harvey, praying for a grant of land in compensation for the large expense he had incurred in the construction of a road under the hills. The house went into committee on the Waste Lands' Bill, Mr. Fooks in the chair. Mr. Bhay said in the motion before the Committee, the terms of the pasturage rents were identical with those of the present day, and which were based upon tbe contract entered into with Mr. Godley. If that contract was adhered to it would be to the benefit ofthe stockowners ; because, under it there would be from every £ 100 of revenue derived, £16 13s 4d. for the construction of roads. They need not wait long, therefore, for a Rakaia bridge. Stock owners need not fear the scarcity of shepherds, for from the same source £1,600 would be obtained lor immigration, and a like sum for education. This was Mr. Godley's contract, and let the Government fulfil that and the stockowners would not fiil to comply with their part of it. The Constitution Act justified thi* appropriation of the revenue in the Canterbury Association act. And why was it uot carried out ? Simply because tbe Association had broken faith with them, because the association had neglected to pay to the Crown its jusi claim of 10s. per acre for the land. Had that money been paid as it ought to have been there would have been a very different state of things prevailing. The default was on t-e side of the Association, and (he suffering on the side of the Colony. Mr. Brittan said it was to be regretted that the hon. gentleman had uot been in the council of the late govefnment, they might, then have had a different state of things than prevailed vow. He had never said the stockowners had no ground upon which to rest their case; but he had felt that the onus probandi rested with them, and they had failed to support their demands by any sort of evidence. He had proposed these regulations not so much with a desire to enforce them, but iv the hope that after a careful consideration of tiie case a via media might be found. He disapproved of tbe whole course which tbe hon. gentleman (Mr. Hali) had pursued, when evidence was required instead of meeting it a.-* he ought to have done, he came down to the house with old newspaper extracts, and rests his case upon anonymous articles -, it was all inferential; 'there was proof only of this. He had asked what is the present price of reut? Take your pen and write down one half, and he dared to assert that it was a monstrous act. Again he had attached a great amount of importance to this alleged contract with Mr. Godley, but would the house accept it without proof. The attempt to link that hon. gentleman's name

in this council with this act was tantamount to an endeavour to cast a reflection upon him, but happily without success ; the general feeling for Mr! Godley was one of esteem, indeed he might say was that of esteem and affection. He was no party to private contracts. He would have had no hand in the system of fixing a high price in order to deter floekowners from coming to this colony, and so enable a favoured class to occupy the land, and then become party to the breaking of the contract. This statement was virtually this, that he had connived at a system of evading the rents. Happily they had ample evidence, if evidence in so flagrant a case was needed, that Mr. Godley never contemplated such a course. The commissioner of Crown Lands had informed them that no such contract had come under his notice, and he had been connected with the land department ever since the association had existed. It would be needless to follow the hon. gentleman through all his statements, but there was one he could not pass over, it was the question of account. He stated that the loss to the province would not be more than £SOO, and in his calculation had , set down £3,000 as the cost of the land office whereas the collection of rent cost nothing. Tbe rents were payable at the office. The hon. gentlemen then went into a calculation by which he endeavoured to shew that in 1858, the provincial revenue under the system he had proposed would be £3,000 per annum, instead of £1,125 under Mr. Hall's regulations. He charged the hon. gentleman with seeking to aggrandise the stock owning interest at the cost of the public weal, and moreover with trifling with the house in the attempt to deal with this great question without sufficient evidence. Hestood before them as a juror called to give a verdict according to the evidence before them, and bis verdict was, " that the case was not proven." Mr. Sewell said the hon. gentleman, Mr. Bray, had altogether misrepresented the nature of the contract; the time would shortly come to vindicate the position of the Association, and he should then shew that the originators of the association had claims upon their gratitude, instead of the constant bickerings indulged in. It was absurd to talk of such a contract being entered into with Mr. Godley, he had made no stipulations of the kind. There was a contract sertainly, and that was on the part of the stockowners, and that ought to be fulfilled. Mr. Tancred said there was then a one-sided contract, if such a thing could be called a contract. But there was proof of what the engagement had been within their reach, there were letters which shewed its character. Mr. Godley had left, the contract was broken, and none was left that could be construed as binding on them. The lime was now come, when as Mr. Godley had said new arrangements were to be made. It was for the people to determine in their Council, and the stock owners had a fair right to ask that their case should be considered. There was no reason why they should pay five times as much within the block under Mr. Godley's regulations, as tbe stockowners outside the block paid under Sir George Grey's regulations. The onus probandi was with the hon. gentleman to make good this anomaly. He would entreat the bouse not to be led away by the sophistry of the hon. gentleman, or his accumulation of Blue Book evidence from New South Wales. The case of New South Wales was not analogous. The returns on the table proved more, they proved that stockowners were going out of the block as rapidly as they could, and why ? simply because of the rent. Mr. Rhodes said it was simply a question of whether the squatter could or could not afford to pay the rent. He could bear testimony to the fact that Mr. Godley had promised that"the runs inside the block should be equalised with those outside. Mr. Rhodes then went into an explanation of the rents payable at Port Phillip, and shewed that while there the runs were capable of carrying a greater number of stock, the rents were less and the facilities were at the same time greater, and the markets were nearer. It was an easy thing for a man to take np a section of 640 acres which would render 20,000 acres comparatively valueless. Had the price been originally equalised, and occupation given as men came into the country, there never would have been occasion for this driving down south. The cause of the evil was allowing theoretical men, with their heads crammed full of new schemes, to lay down the law, and who knew nothin-r of the practical operation of the busk Mi -:;id the hon. gentleman who had

just sat down had, he thought, proved the case. He had satisfactorily shewn the absurdity of the present system by contrast with the practice prevailing in other colonies. He had shewn, moreover, that while the rents were lower, and the advantages of wood and water greater, there was this crowning point, that there a sheep to 2 acres was the average, instead of a sheep to 4 acres, which ruled here. The hon. gentleman then went into the question of figures, and read again his statement, which he had drawn up in the manner suggested by the hon. gentleman at the head of the Government, and tbe results were the same. There would not be a loss of more than £SOO in the first year to the Province by the adoption ofthe regulations. He entered into a very full explanation ofthe contract alleged to have been made with Mr. Godley, and read a copy of that gentleman's letter to Mr. Aiken, in which the arrangement was acknowledged to be provisional only. Mr. Hall also read a letter from Mr. Hunter Brown, bearing testimony to the same conditions, and also to the opinion entertained by the stockowners at that time. Mr. S. Bealey said there was a sreat waste of time in the mode that was pursued of crimination and recrimination. The subject was too important to be dealt with in so light a manner. Long speeches, altogether irrevelant to the matter under consideration were indulged in, and if that course was persevered in, he should move that no hon. gentleman be allowed to £speak more than 20 minutes. Mr. Packer said he had no desire to exceed the limit, but it was a novel thing in that house. It was a remarkable one, too, coming from the side of hon. gentlemen who had said all they could on the subject, and had all the indulgence imaginable, that they might really make out their case. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to argue why the difference should exist iv the terms of rent within and without the block, and quoted Mr. Rhodes' arguments and experience in support of his position. Be v. Mr. Aylmer'advocated a reduction of the rent. Mr. Hamilton desived the attention of the house to a few remarks he would make in reference to this alleged contract with Mr. Godley. The letter, to which some allusion had been made signedSH. which appeared'at that time, was written by himself, and had the benefit of Mr. Godley's revision. He could confidently say that Mr. Godley did not assent to the opinions of the stockowners. He however did think that the time might come when they would be justified in making a reduction of their rents, but the question now was, to what extent should that reduction go ? What said the stockowners? As far as he could understand they had really said nothing on the subject. Let them make out their case, and if it was for a^reduction of 50, 60 or 80 per cent, he would consent to it, but the house had a right to know upon what data they rested their case. One fact was notorious, that runs are now being sold at a profit. Mr. Sewell spoke in explanation, after which the amendment was put and negatived by a division of 14 against, and 4 for it. Mr. Bray then rose to propose an amendment which would embody the whole Province in its operation. His calculation wa*s that the license fee and the assessment rate outside the block together created a charge equivalent to 20s. per 1000 acres. He would move that the sum paid for a license to occupy any pastoral run for 14 years shall be £5 per annum for every run not exceeding 5000 acres, and at. the rate of 20s. yearly for every 1000 acres for all runs above 5000 acres. If this regulation was agreed to, he would then propose in council that a poll tax of Jd. per head be charged upon all sheep upon the runs whether within or without the block. This poll tax would be retained for revenue because all lands within the province would be affected by it, freehold as well as leasehold, and he proceeded to shew that no loss to the revenue would result from its adoption. The runholders outside the block would be induced to cancel their present holdings for licenses under the new regulations rather than pay a double poll tax, which would be tbe case if they did not. Mr. Ollivier seconded the amendment. There was an approximation to the lease system which he approved of, and which was so essential to encourage improvements. The revenues would at first sight appear to suffer from the adoption of this regulation, but as it was to the interest of the stockowner to improve for the

purpose of greater increase, he had great hope that in a very few years the Provincial revenue would shew a large increase as the results of the poll tax. Mr. Brittan thought the amendment more objectionable now, than he did when it first came under his notice. He feared that great objection would be made to it by the freeholders. The law would take effect upon the properties of holders of 100 acre sections, and there would he great objection to this poll tax upon the cattle on dairy stations, at the same time he saw the difficulty of exceptions, as then the General Government and tbe New Zealand Company would be entitled to share the revenue derived from such a source. Mr. Sewell thought the plan deserved consideration. He quoted the instance of Australia where the principle prevailed of a poll tax for local purposes apart from those of the colony. The mode was not a bad one, if they could arrange its inequalities. Before he gave his support to the measure he would like to see tbe New South Wales ordinance, wherein, he believed this principle of agistment was to be found. He thought by this means provincial revenue might be retained for Provincial purposes, and it might if successful, be used more extensively for such purposes. Mr. S. Bealey said he should like to see the holders of small numbers of stock exempted. The mode of raising the revenue he approved of at the same time it would be a reasonable relief to the stockowner. The question was then put, and carried by a majority of 10 to 7. The original motion, as amended, was then put. Mr. Sewell rose and said the effect of the vote was the reduction of the rent from £100 to £20 [" No, no, there is the poll tax."] Yes, there was the poll-tax, but that was not under the consideration of the house; the immediate effect was this enormous reduction, and it was therefore incumbent to adopt some means of bringing up the rent to its present amount. The hon. gentleman then went very fully into the examination of an account which appeared in the Lyttelton " Times," and commented upon it very fully, but the extreme length of these debates precludes us from giving the figures. Tbe amended clause was again put by the chairman, whereupon Mr. Ward rose. He said he was neither a sheep owner nor an agriculturalist,—he was a cattle owner. He had listened very attentively to the speeches of the honourable gentlemen, and regretted to say that he had heard nothing to convince him of the propriety of the course proposed. He was, in fact, perplexed with the variety of arguments, few of which were of a really practical nature. He desired to take a broader point of view of the and he thought the chief point was the occupation of the land. The most beneficial mode of occupation was perhaps when the land was sold for agricultural purposes ; but if it was not sold, then he thought every facility should be given for its occupation for other purposes. The question has a two-fold reference; it had reference to the value of Waste Lands and to the profits of the run holder. He would submit an amend - ment to the committee, the necessity for which had been created by the data which Mr. Godley's regulations had furnished on the one hand, and the modification which circumstances seemed to justify on the other. The run holder's objection to Mr. Godley's regulations was, that the maximum was not only too high, but was arrived at too soon. He would move " that there shall be paid yearly los. per 100 acres under 5,000. That for 5,000 and all above that quantity, there shall be paid 10s. per 1,000 acres, for the Ist year; 20s. per 1,000, for the 2nd; and an increase of 10s. for every year until the Bth year, when the rent should be fixed at 80s. per 1,000 acres." Mr. Blakiston seconded the amendment. Mr. Ollivier argued that the proposition was virtually that of the amended resolution. If the figures were taken, which they had just heard read, as the standard of a flock owner's increase, the rent and the poll tax together would in eight years amount to at least £75 for every 1,000 acres. The amendment was rejected by 11 to 6. The clause as amended was then agreed to. Clauses 29 and 30 were then agreed to, with a slight alteration in the latter. Clause 31 having been read, Mr. Ox-livier proposed to alter the words " five years" to ♦' three years" in each case in

which it occurred ; and also proposed that at the third cycle the stock required to be placed on the run should be four times its original amount; also to attach the penalty of forfeiture ofthe run, for false returns of the amount of stock. He contended that they were justified in enforcing the fullest compliance with the provisions of the act, in return for the liberality which had been shewn towards the stock owners. Mr. Tancred seconded the amendment, and said that there could be no objection to the clauses ; the increase of the stock would enable compliance with the regulations. *._,: Hall said he objected to tbe amendment. The house ought not to ignore existing understandings. The system they were pursuing was really tantamount to riding rough-shod over everything. It would disturb arrangements which had been entered into, and would actually deprive many holders of their runs, who could not comply with the regulation, because of their runs not being stocked to the fullest extent. The license, when exchanged, would date back, and that would jplace some in a period of tenure when the run should have double its original stock ; not having this quantity they would be liable to forfeiture. They have done what is far better for the interest ofthe settlement; they have drafted off their breeding stock to other parts of the country, and by so doing conferred a benefit to the settlement; but at the same time they have reduced their flocks. Mr. Ollivier said the objection was utterly untenable. It seemed there was no point nt which the question was to be satisfactorily adjusted. Was the house then to pursue the course of sacrificing every thing to the demands of the stock owners ? He was grieved to hear the remarks of the honourable gentleman. They had made vast concessions to the class he belonged to, and having discharged what he considered to be a duty to that class, there was now another duty to perform, that was their duty to the public, and that demanded that they should see that the conditions of the contract were rigidly adhered to. He bad been assured by experienced stock owners that the terms of his motion were most reasonable ; and common sense seemed to assent to it. The house was not, therefore, to be deterred from its duty by the inconveniences which might arise to private arrangements. Mr. Hamilton suggested the insertion of a few verbal alterations to the clause, after which the clause as amended was agreed to. Clauses 32 and 33 were also amended aud agreed to. Clause 34 was postponed. Clause 35 was agreed to. On clause 36 being put from the chair, — Mr. Bray proposed an amendment that the j preemptive right should be limited to 20 acres in every 1,000. The discussion of this clause occupied a considerable length of time. Mr. Sewell dwelt upon it at considerable length, in a vein of rich satire, the whole force of which would be lost by abbreviation. Mr. Hall followed in reply, arguing in favour of preemptive rights generally. He contended that whenever improvements had been made it was on a spot covered by preemptive rights. The amendment was put and rejected. Mr. Hamilton then moved that preemptive rights should be exercised over 6 sections of 100 acres each and no more. Mr. Rhodes seconded this amendment. He thought the allowance liberal to the squatters. He required no protection from the actual purchaser. The consideration of the clause was however deferred. Clause 37 was agreed to after an animated discussion. The Chairman then reported progress. The Speaker resumed the chair. Several notices of motion were then given. Mr. Ollivier rose to ask the honourable gentleman at the head of the government, a question in reference to an alleged act of violence committed upon the prisoner Mackenzie, wple removing him in custody to the Port. \-jilr. Brittan said he had caused inquiry to be made, and was glad to assure the house that there had been no more violence used than was actually called for by the circumstances of the case. Capt. Simeon said he visited the prisoner as soon as he arrived in port in the custody of the gaoler, and there was no complaint made by him ; and he desired to bear testimony to the fact that the treatment of the gaoler generally

was of the most humane and considerate character, consistent with tbe duties of his office. The subject dropped, and the house adjourned at quarter to twelve o'clock.