GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEW ZEALAND. [From the New Zealander, July 15.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WASTE LANDS BILL,

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 948, 2 September 1854, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEW ZEALAND. [From the New Zealander, July 15.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WASTE LANDS BILL,

Mr; Weld, in a long speech, after adverting to die arguments of, previous speakers, said there were two principles already developed and dividing this'bouse and the country, the two principles of Centralization and Provincialism; that these principles, like most others that influence the minds of men, have both much truth in them, the extremes only were erroneous. If upon a fair and careful examination of the Bill it shall be found that whilst It gives to the Provinces large administrative powers, and enables them in the sale and disposal of waste lands to meet their peculiar requirements, it retains in the hands of the central government the power of real and efficient control, and, if necessary, of at any moment resuming the actual management, then, and only then, htt would ask this house to accept this bill, and it it was because he believed these conditions were fulfilled that he would express his confident hope that it would pass triumphantly through its several stages. He then attacked Mr. Wakefield at sorafl length, and said that in England the hon. member at the time of the passing of the Constitution Art was in favour of giving up the entire disposal of the waste lands to the Provinces. (No, no, from Mr. Wakefield) While addressing himself to that hon. member, he thought there was a subject on which, as the author of that scheme of colonization called by his name, he might fairly call upon him to enlighten them. He confessed

he was anxious to hear the hon member's speech, for he believed that on hi-: speech that day his character as a colonial politician would rest in the minds of many, as be knew it would in his mind? as a theorist he has hitherto not unfairly confined himself to generalities, but to-day be stands here aa a legislator, to state his views on the subject of the waste lands as the member for a New Zealand constituency — nay more, as a leader of opposition, as a possible even probable holder of office. In that capacity he will allow me to call upon him accurately to define his views and to reconcile certain recorded opinions of his which I own are a mystery to me, (hear, hear.) He has talked of " killing the goose for the golden eggs," and of the minimum price of five shillings being a sham and no price at all, be "has also told us be came here pledged to his constituents to rote for the lowest price proposed in this Assembly. In this book of his " the Art of Colonization" be has stated that the highest price ever yet required for new land in New Zealand is "insufficient." In this same book that I hold in my hand he has further stated that " the sole object of a price of land is to prevent labourers from becoming capitalists too soon," for that one object and no other. He trusted the hon. member would reroncile these apparently conflicting opinions, thai he will tell us whether or no the sufficient price is the lowest price that may be proposed by auy member of this house, lor he will not allow the Provinces to alter it, and if not, what is the sufficient price. (Hear, hear.) He owes it to his own great reputation to answer these questions, and if he does not, I for one shall leave this house a disappointed man, and he must tell his hon. friend that his silence would be a trinmph for all who have opposed the principles he has enunciated in that hook, the hand-book of the Wakefield system. He (Mr. Weld) then contended, at considerable length, for the management of their waste lands by the Provinces, and argued that jobbing would be more difficult under a localised system than under a central one. He thought that a different price for land in different Provinces would not create an ill feeling between them ; he felt confident that steam communication and knowledge of each other would do more to put an end to petty jealousies than if the price of land from the North Cape to Stewarts Island were fixed by a code as immutable as that of the laws of the Medes and Persians. The hon. member concluded by expressing his earnest desire to see this country an united British Colony, aud it was because he desired to see this that he asked the house to adopt the English principle of granting •loral powers to provide for local WBnts, under euch paramount control as this bill afforded, for upholding the supreme authority of this Assembly and the General Government. The house then adjourned till six o'clock.

The house met again at six o'clock according to adjournment. Mr. Wakefield said — My hon. friend (Mr. i Weld) has called upon me to take this opportunity of laying before the house a statement of my opinions on the subject of the disposal of waste land. Glad indeed should I be if the bouse could go into the whole subject ; but all opportunity of doing so denied to us by the Government, which treated as a censure, almost threatening to resign if the house should adopt it, my hon. relative's proposal that we should really consider the whole ; subject by a free discussion of principles in committee of the whole house. (Hear.) I am moved by a sort of instinctive impulse to begin by noticing the speech of the hon. member for the Wairaea (Dr. Monro) whereby he objec'ed to this bill on principle, and took the most decided step against it, as the only one that would be consistent with the decided character of his objections. (Hear hear.) As I understood him, by an elaborate and skilful argument, be insisted on the great advantages of central government for New Zealand, and disparaged in the same proportion, the provincial institutions of local government with large powers, which to my mind, are the most valuable feature of our Constitution. (Cheers.) I cannot help differing with him altogether. Instead of wishing to decrease, 1 desire to augment the importance and dignity of our Provincial Governments as much as may be possible without affecting the unity and greatness of the whole colony, (Cheers) This, Sir, is no uew opinion of mine. My hon. colleague from the Hutt, and probably his Honor the Superintendent of Wellington, will recollect, that on a remarkable occasion in our Provincial Council, I declared that if the choice were presented to me between keeping our General Government without the Provincial system, or keeping the Provincial Governments at the cost of losing the General system, I should not hesitate in preferring that part of the Constitution which enables six distinct legislatures to " make laws for the peace, order, and good government" of the Provinces. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The principles of our Provincial system appear to me to have been carried more satisfactorily into effect, than in any other case which the political history of the world supplies to my recollection. In a happy adaptation to the circumstances of the case that system appears to me unexampled and unique. Whilst it resembles the American system in decentralization of government authority, it differs therefrom in being suited to & country of comparatively small extent, by containing within • itself the elements of future amalgamation into one government of the wholft country ; and to my mind it very favourably differs from the American system in the monarchical form of the General Government, and in the means of extending that form to the Provincial Governments — of course along with ministerial responsibility in both cases. (Cheers.) Effect has been given to the same idea in Switzerland, where the cantons are separated from each other by formidable chains of mountains, and each has a distinct local government, all of them being united under a general Diet ; 1 but there the monarchical form is wanting — that form of which our ancestors set us the example, and from which I trust that we shall never depart. (Cheers.) Our system was devised with a deliberate view to the geographical character of the Islands, to the peculiarity of their original colonization by distinct bodies cf emigrants' proceeding from the mother country, and to the excellence of the monarchical system when carried out with precautions for responsibility ; and I, j Sir, for one, regard it as a most interesting experiment. (Cheers.) Nor have I the least doubt of its success. I consider onr Provincial Governments, as now constituted, to be municipalities, being similar to the celebrated municipalities of ancient Rome, under which Italy was locally ruled by a number of generally subordinate

but local independent legislatures, — not municipalities with powers limited to pnving and lighting, prpsided over by a Mayor in England and Provost in Scotland, such as I fancy the hon. gentleman has in his thought*, ag those to which our Provincial Governments ought to be reduced. Instead of helping to do that, I would guard everyone of their privileges with the most jealous care ; and on this occasion, the main question of principle is whether the legislative authority of the Provincial Governments ought to be increased without delay. (H^ear, hear.) A document before the house suggests one or two more remarks on t!u« subject. I mean the Empowering Bill. I believe, Sir, that if that Bill pass into law, an important step will have been taken towards reducing our Provincial Governments to the condition of paving and lighting corporations. My meaning will be most briefly explained by a supposed case. Let it be supposed that my hon. friend (Mr. Weld) shall return to his Province as Colonial Secretary, and that an hon. connection of mine, the Superintendent of Nelson, shall also return to bis Province by the same steamer. On board the vessel, the Colonial Secretary and member of the Executive Council would be the most important person of the two ; but as soon as they landed in the Province of Nelson, the case would be reversed ; and there can be no doubt that the Colonial Secretary, moved by that polite deference to authority which marks the English gentleman, would, when meeting the head of the Provincial Government in the street, pay to him the ordinary mark of official respect, and would call upon him, as we do with jndges, not waiting to receive a call from them when we come as strangers to the place of their abode. I expect to hear from the hon. member (Dr. Monro) as much approbation of this measure as I have expressed disapprobation of it. (Hear, from Mr. Monro) The sentiment which dictates my jealous regard for Provincial rights, was described by my-bon. friend (Mr. Weld) as the "sentimentality of constitutional objections" to the Waste Lauds Bill ; for lam equally jealops of any infringement on the constitutional functions of the General Assembly. I think that my hon. friend when using that expression, must have forgotten u certain letter of 341 paragraphs (laughter) which was addressed by bis bon. colleague (Mr. Sewell) to the Duke of Newcastle ; a letter, the whole aim, scope, and tenor of which is to exhibit the " sentimentality" of attachment to the Constitution. That document, which I now hold in my band, is a most able and earnest protest against the unconatitutional policy of Sir George Grey. I will now turn to the Bill itself, and request the attention of the bouse to several distinct aspects in which it presents itself to my view. Its leading principle was emphatically stated by my hon. friend (Mr Fitzgerald) on a former occasion. He then declared that his opinion, and more especially with regard to countries only partially settled, the right principle of government was that of localising power in the spot where the persons most interested resided. He said that he had been led to that opinion by study before he became a colonist, and by his own experience in New Zealand. In saying that, he only cherished the opinion of a mutual friend of his and rain 3, between whom and me, there is, I believe, no difference of opinion on the subject of localising colonial government. But my hon. friend stopped there — where I cannot stop. I think that this principle, like all others, has its proper and natural limits. There are numerous cases, in fact, and a thousand more might be conceived, where great mischief would ensue from placing all authority in the hands of those having the most immediate local interest. I will mention one of these cases, to which I request the attention of my hon. friend the Superintendent of Wellington. This bill is intended to place all authority as to waste lands in the Province of Wellington, in the hands of the Council, which is composed of members who represent the town of Wellington, two districts adjoining that town, the district of Whanganui, far away on tbe West Coast, and tbe districts of Wairarapa, and Hawke's Bay, on the East Coast. The Hawke's Bay district is 200 miles distant from Wellington, and moreover separated from that place by mountains and rivers difficult and often dangerous to pass. It is a very fine district, where settlers are beginning to congregate, and are likely soon to be numerous. They will have only half of the representation of two members in. the Provincial Council, the other half belonging to Wairarapa. Now according to tbe principle of my hon. friend, as stated by him without limits, the whole power of disposing of waste land in the Hawke's Bay District ought to be transferred to the settlers there, who have the most immediate and strongest interest in the subject. If the Bill is founded on that principle, why stop at Provincial management? Why not go on to district management? Why should the settlers around Dunedin legislate for the settlers at tbe Bluff, with respect, that is, to land at the Bluff? Why should my hon. friend, as Superintendent of Canterbury, with councillors elected by Christchurcb, Lyttelton, and adjoining districts, make laws for the settlers of the Province of Canterbury, who reside at a great distance, even so far as on tbe frontier of Otago ? Act on the principle without limit, and you come to District management. Therefore my hon. friend does not carry out his own principle. Of course he sees that it has limits ; but he does not perceive one limit which to me appears of the last importance — that these are interests too local, too close, too personal, to be rightly entrusted with uncontrolled power in local matters ; and that, as a rule, power ought never to be localised to the extent of placing it in the hands of those who, in using it, will probably be more guided by their own individual interests, than by a legard for what would be best /or the public. Such is my principal limit to the localising principle, and I confess that I anticipate serious evils from the disregard of that limit which the bill exhibits. Tbe Constitution Act specifically excludes this subject from Provincial legislation. Why? For what reason ? For the same reasons which led to the exclusion of twelve other subjects by the means of an absolute prohibition as to subjects not deemed fit for localised legislation. Look at the Bank of England, which is placed in the city of London. The bulk of its shareholders reside in tbe country and various parts of the world. They care about nothing but their dividends, and are commonly quiet-going people, not having tbe least interest in the city operations of the Bank. But all round the bank, in its immediate vicinity, there are shareholders and others, who have the deepest interest in all its proreediugs. Now supposethe bank managed by these local and highly interested" persons, what would

he the effect f Having the command of the bank parlour, they weuld raise and lower the rate of discount and interest to suit their own purposes, without regard to the welfare of the public, or of the careless: bulk of the shareholders ; and in a •hort time the twenty millions in the bank coffers would evaporate. The same principle holds with regard to Hawke's Bay and the Bluff. In my opinion, it holds with regard' to some of the Provincial Councils, which I think would be actuated by a strong personal in cutting up the lands amongst themselves and their friends. And I say this wi'hout intending to reflect on any one ito particular ; for I say that we should all be apt to do it, because we are all human. Who would not ad mit it if talking in private confidence, and knowing that what passed would not be repeated in public? ("No, no.") I have frequently heard it myself from the most respectable people, who apologised for having themselves taken part in the scramble, by saying' that if they had not done so, all the land would have been taken up by others, and that, by acting, in self-defence, they got taned with' the same brush as the speculating monopolisers. Sir, I believe the intention of Parliament was to vest this great power in the body which might be expected to comprise the highest intelligence and patriotism of any in New Zealand ; the body the importance and dignity of whose functions would make them the least apt to be swayed by considerations of personal interest as opposed to the interests of the people. The idea of localising waste land management, ■o as to bring it under the influence of narrow and personal local interests, never, I believe, entered into the head of any statesman. Observe the United States, where the great business of life is to make war upon the wilderness, where that war is carried on with admirable success, where the voice of the people prevails more than in any other country, and where the Con»titution itself framed by such democratic and sagacious politicians as Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington — a constitution which cannot be altered in the slightest particular except by a convention of the whole people, specially elected for that purpose — lays down the law that the entire management of the waste lands shall be in the government of the Union. I fully admit, however, that there are peculiar circumstances in this country, which may make it wise to invest the proviuces with legislative power over the wastelands. I would do so as soon as possible when convinced that it could be done withoat serious risk. Even now, I am clear that the whole administration should be in the Provinces, because I am persuaded that, with our deficient means of communication, however good the laws or general rules might be, they would be badly administered by officers responsible only to a too distant General Government. As to administration, I wish for a closer responsibility, because the close local interest would be concerned in an efficient administration of fixed general laws framed for the general good of all, and with which' local personal interests could not mUchievously interfere. 1 would place the appointment and removal of every officer in the Land Department in the Provincial Executives. And I hope that ere long some ! matters of regula'ion may be safely handed over to the Provincial Councils ; even now, perhaps, 1' repeat, at Canterbury and Otago, where there has bteu no compensation land scrip — no Proclamation of the 4th March — no land plunder, to corrupt the probable law-makers. At NelsoD, nearly all the land is gone. There, and In other Provinces, if in other Provinces the land should be similarly mouopolised by a few, the people will soon find out that the land has been disposed of without any regard to the industrious classes of settlers — has got wrongfully into the hands of monopolists or speculators — and then the people will take the land back sgain for the public by means of confiscating lawi. I wish to record my conviction of this inevitable result. It may not happen, though I think it will, till many of us are dead and forgotten ; but that this measure, which parts with the waste lands without a single precaution to guard the interests of the great majority of the people, will lead to a confiscating democracy, I feel very sure — I have not the slightest doubt. The subject of price might perhaps be safely left to the Provincial Governraeuts. As to the subordinate legislatures which it is proposed to create, I would ask why, in proposing.to create them, no precaution is taken to keep them to their duty by means of publicity and record 1 . Let us compare this measure, in this respect, with the new Eriglish Poor Law. Under the old law, which localised management according to the extreme principle of my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzgerald), by placing all management in the several parishes, the rate-payers — the persons most interested except the ignorant, helpless peasantry, who could not take cate of themselves — deviled a system of management — that of paying wages out of the rates — which, though highly beneficial to themselves, because it kept wages very low and turned the labourers almost into serfs, ended in pauperising and utterly degrading the working classes through the greater part of England and Wales. (Hear, hear, hear.) At last, .this evil, arising from excessive local management, grew to such a height that reform became indispensable. Of course it was resisted by the local interests ; but Parliament — a general authority — prevailed against them, and a new law was made. That law adopted fully the principle -of general regulation with local administration. Parliament could not be always laying down rules for the management of the poor. So it created a general legislating power — the general Poor Law Board, to which it delegated the functions of framing general rules to be administered locally by the Parish Boards of Guardians. Did Parliament leave this subordinate legislature to perform or to neglect its duties as it pleased ? No, but Parliament prescribed its duties with .great care and minuteness, and bound it to the due performance of them by the most stringent and miuute rules for the guidance of its proceedings. And what was the effect ? By slow but sure degrees^ through the operation of law-mak-ing by a carefully constituted general authority, with local administration of the general rules, the slavish paupers of England and Wales have been taught 1 to rely on their own exertions for their bread,, and so converted 'into freemen. (Loud cheers.) I come now to what appears to me the worst feature of this measure ; namely, its defiance of the .very principle of free institutions. Freedom without law is only a license lo wroDg one's neighbour at pleasure ; and true liberty consists of a state of things to wnicb the law points out what may and what may not be dove —a state of things in which "according to law"

is the rule of Tight in all matters, whether of a personal or public nature. This bill lays down no law except the minimum price of ss. per acre. (Hear, hear.) With that single exception, nothing is fixed by law, nothing is settled by the supreme legislature 5 but the General Assembly, on which the Constitution nominatively imposes the duty of defining what shall and what shall not be according to law, makes no law but that by which, subject to a ss. minimura,the whole subject is handed over to other authorities to be dealt with by- them at they shall please, without a single couditioo or obligation provided by the law. (Hear, hear.) In short, it coraes to this — the j Government says to this house, let us delegate our whole authority to others— let us shuffle off upon others a troublesome responsibility. We want to get back to our Provinces; let us, by a few lines, tell somebody else to perform cur duty. (Hear, hear.) The whole law-making power of the Assembly is to be handed over to the Governor aud his Executive Council ; to an authority which a month back was utterly irresponsible, tad which may be so again in a month or a week hence. Is that true, or ia it not ? It i« true. Such is the bad principle of our legislation in this matter; a principle which degrades this boose as part of the General Assembly by setting aside its moot important functions. (Hear, hear.) And if with this matter of the waste lauds, why not also with the rest of the thirteen measures which are specially preserved for our legislation. Ido not pretend to be a lawyer, but I will undertake, using this bill as t model, to draw one with the very same machinery of evasion, whereby the Governor and Council, and the Provincial Legislatures too, though expiessly forbidden, shall be enabled to alter the Supreme Court and the general law of the colony. (Hear, hear.) Is it so, or is it not ? I want a plain, straightforward, downright answer to that question. Without being a lawer, lam not an absolute fool ; and therefore I know what the answer must be, if an answer should be given. If we tear the Coustitution to pieces, bit by bit, if we adopt the legislative policy and machinery of this # bill, setting aside the thirteen prohibitions, or in any other way handing over the power of the General Assembly to the minister of the day, as we are doing now, this house will be degraded, and the best men in the country will not care to hold seats in it. (Hear, hear.) I have no hesitation in saying of this measure, as was said of another less palpably open to to the charge, that it is "a daring violation of the spirit of the Constitution." Can any one who has looked at Lindley Murray, and the 19th clause of the Constitution Act, who can form a sentence, who can write or speak a few words of English, doubt that we are asked by the Government to break through a positive prohibition of the Constitution Act ? I cannot admit, Sir, that those who object to this bill are bound to be ready with some specific and complete alteration. '(Hear.) But there are many alternatives by means of which the colony would be satisfied for the present, without any infringement of the Constitution. I would at once give the whole administration to the Provinces, and without evasion by disguiße; that is, directly and I openly. (Cheers.) Then I would enact some few general but stringent rules for insuring publicity, record, perfect equality and fairness as between applicants for land, with some most careful provisions for enabling the working class of settlers on land to be sure of obtaining land in spite of speculators and monopolists. (Hear, hear. I would not, in any degree, adopt the bad old plan of placing high legislative power in the hands of the Governor with his Executive Council, but would rather create localboarda ac- ' cording to the proposal of my honourable friend (Mr. Stwell) before he was a minister — (laughter.) And in order to have lawful authority for vesting a land-making power in the Provincial Governments ai soob as that shall be desirable, I would pass an act for that purpose, and send it home for approval. Some sach course would, I believe, be perfectly safe ; and I think that it would be satisfactory to the Colony. It is my intention to vote against the second reading of the bill. Unlike the honourable member for Motueka (Mr. Picard), who wound up bis : eloquent and conclusive condemnation of the bill, by saying that he thought he should vote for it, I am not going to vote against myself (hear, hear). I have to take care of my own consistency. Wken I promised in this house to support and endeavour to strengthen a government which should present to us but a small modicum of ministerial responsibility, of course I had in my thoughts, not members of the Executive Council, holding opinions generally agreeably to my own, but a piece of the old system, trying, in a limping way, to get on, with responsible government; and I engaged to sustain and aid even so feeble an attempt by the bestlbeansjin my power. But when myhon. friends came into office, I expressed something very different — a general and special confidence — general on account of a general sympathy with them in what relates to the public affairs of New Zealand, — special by reason of a personal intimacy with them, which led me to rely on their personal dispositions : but even then I said that my confidence was more personal than political, because two of them, at any rate, had not been long enough New Zealand politicians to inspire absolute confidence. They and the house will not fail to remember, that on that occasion, I guarded myself by a critical review of the ministerial arrangements and policy. Well, a month has elapsed ; and instead of seeing reason to withdraw the strictures which were uttered then, I observe several things which suggest fresh ones. This measure and the Empowering Bill are contrary to my fixed ideas of a sound policy for New Zealand. Such a state of thiogs dangerous as it has become by the lapse of time, absolves me, I think, from all obligation to support the Government. So far as his Excellency and this house are concerned, I am not at all afraid. Neither have I lost confidence in the house. As I said once before, I believe that if the call should -be made upon them, they would not be found incapable of furnishing his Excellency with' a Gojvernment. (Hear, hear.) Let us know where we iare. If we are to stop here let us know it ; and then that anxiety to get home, which is nnwortby of the high spirit which brought Southern members . here, will be generally exchanged' for the temper of my hon. friends from Otago. from whom,great as is their distance, long as has been their absence from borne, I have never heard a word of complaint. I beg of ihe house 10 excuse the earnestness with which I have spoken, and to believe that in doing so I have been moved by • strong sense of responsibility' and public duty. Finally, I tiusi

that the house may think that I have been successful in a very aiucere endeavour to avoid expressions at which any one can take offence, and to adhere, as closely at I was able, to the merits of the question at issue, and the consequences of my vote. (Cheers.) Mr. Sewble, after referring to TOterruptions' of the last speakers, proceeded as follows — Sir, I tm about to ask the house to agree to the second reading of this bill, because' 1 believe it to be founded on principles vrhich cannot be coafrd- | verted, and which I will undertake to show I have always maintained — and as I believed have always to the present time been maintained by my hou'. friend the member for the Hutt, and in strict accordance with the spirit of the Constitution Act. Should i fail in satisfying the bouse on thest points, I will no longer urge them to agree to the bill. Sir, before I proceed, I will' notice the 1 speech of my hon. friend- the member fot theHutt. I will- not indeed, follow him through all the wide field of matter in that speech, importing into it a variety of topics wholly irrelevant to the present question; I will notice briefly s«me' of the main points. I listened to that speech, I must say, with great pain. Four weeks ago, 1 and my colleagues undertook at the instance— l may almost say at* the request" of the housed — a very difficult and responsible task— that of forming a Government. (Hear, bear.) We did it upon assurances then made that we should receive the utmost support, and that our measures should be treated with fair and impartial consideration. (Phetrs.) Sir, this is, I may say, the first measure of importance demanding that treatment which we have bronght before the house. We ask the house calmly and fairly to consider it. I ask is the speech which has just been delivered in ac-. cordance with the spirit and the promise made to us when we undertook the Government? My hon. friend commenced his remarks by clearing himself from the charge of inconsistency. I may be permitted to follow his example. Sir, I also have been charged by the hon. member with inconsistency ; and a letter written by me to the Duke of Newcastle, published in the colony-— with which, no doubt, many members may be familiar — has been quoted as containing sentiments te variance with the present measure. I appeal to that letter itself to acquit me of the charge — and as the proof of my now advocating principles which I have always maintained. £The hon. member here quoted a passage, in which he declared his opiniou that " the whole administration and management of the waste lands should be transferred to the Provinces, subject only to • few general rules."]] Mr. Wakefiel» — Hear, bear. Mr. Seweli, — Yes, yes, — I will come to that pre&ently. Subject to a few general rules — those rules being publicity in the administration of land affairs, and fixed unalteiable rules. My hon. friend has charged against this bill that it is defective on these points. The fact is not st. This bill provides for both these objects. (Hear.) My hon. friend has omitted that clause in the bill which enables the Executive Government to constitute offices for the administration of land affairs, subject to such regulations ■• may bt thought right. In the constitution of these offices, provision .will be made for ensuring that principle of publicity. If the kousc should thiok it necessary to embody some express provision to : that effect in the bill, it will be competent to do so in Committee, and we shall readily agree to it. But on this point the house might be contented with the responsibity of Government itself. As to fixed rules, that ie one of the essential elements of this bill. The bill provides ibmt the system of laud sales shall be fixed, and shall not be altered except in certain ways, provided for by the bill. These are the grounds on which my hon. friend rests bis opposition to the bill ; but which is in fact meant to displace us from this bench, in order that others may take their seats here. (Hear, hear.) I trust I have vindicated | thus far my character for consistency. (Htsr, bear.) My boo. friend has said that till within the last month he was ignorant of my holding ray present principles. I became a member of this bouse, beißg sent here by the electors of Christchurch for the express purpose of carrying a measure of this kind. It was the avowed object put forward in my address to the electors. I feel bewildered by these statements. He surely must remember that when we were all working together in England to get the Constitution Act, our object then was to give the management of: therlands to the Provinces. (Eaar, hear.) My hon. friend the member for the Wairau (Mr. Weld), Mr. Fox, then in England, myself, and others — all differing on the subject of land price, all agreeing in the common object of getting the lands transferred in such manner that each Province might settle that quesion for itself. Sir John Pakington and some other statesmen preferred giving the power to the General Assembly and insisted on that plan. We submitted. We said by all means let us take it in that form, because we know that the General Assembly will give us all we want. To show how strongly this was in ray mind, I will meution the case of Canterbury. There is a provision in the bill enabling the Canterbury Association to transfer its powers to the Provincial Councils. In discussions with the Colonial Office on matters connected with the affairs, of the Association, I held this language — I will not recommend the Provincial Government of Canterbury to accept the transfer of the Association's powers, clogged with such and such conditions, because I know that the Provinces will obtain far greater and more unfettered powers from the General Assembly. (Cheers.) The argument of tv quoque is a bad j one, but I remember when just before Lord Grey quilted office, a conference was held of leading men connected with New Zealand affairs — one of them my hon. friend — the heads of a measure were agreed on, and one of them was the actual transfer to the Provinces of the entire management and administration of the waste lands. So i lit is that my hon. friend charges us with inconsistency for trying now to get what we have been i aiming at for the last two years. My hon, friend, tin answering my friend here (Mr. Weld) who challenged him to state his opinions now as to 'what would be the best system for the disposal of i the waste lands, declined to answer the challenge. iHe said, " This is not the time. I have been treated unjustly — I have been refused my Committee. , If you had given me that, I would have told you all about it. I won't tell you anything now. Wait till lam in, and then I'll tell you." I differ from ray hon. friend. (Hear, bear.) I think now is the time when he should give us the benefit of his opinions — now, whec we are

called on to legislate on the subject— -more especially when be in seeking to displace us from these seats on the ground of- differences in principle on this m'eaiure. (Hear, hear.) I think my hon. friend ought to have placed before us his views in .a distinct form. We are brought together from' great distances, at great inconveniences, at great sacrifice of time—which we cannot afford to waste — we ought noW to understand how "my hon. frjend would- solve this difficult problem. . He T wi>uld destroy the bill.; Thewortof d'eitruciiotf j"s easy—the real difficulty, lies in the' work of construction, (Hear, hear.) If he gets rid of, this measure, let us, .have something in its stead. Oh, but we have h«d some, plans suggested — I should say shadowy outlines of plans suggested ,in the speeches of my hon. friends the member for the Christchurch Couutry Districts (Me E. J. Wakefield),- and for Nelson {Mr, Mackay). We- ought to have had those plans before us in' a 1 distinct form in the shape of resolutions or amendments — we should th'ea haye • had a' choice-'-we might have adopted one or the other, or .pieced them together. One of- these plans, proposed by my boni friend opposite (Mr. E. J. Wakefield) was to summon to the bar of the house all tbe.Crown Commissioners and all the Superintendents', andobfain from them vivuvoce — each speakingior his own province — their views as to the best system' fo be adapted to each Province. Having obtained the opinions of the Superintendents, we were to embody them in th» form of schedules to a Bill, which was to pass into a law. What is this but to adopt the' very principle against which the whole argument is directed— to stereotype, in fact', the opinions of the Provincial Governments represented by the Superintendents as the act of the General Assembly ? But ths Superintendents could not be taken to be the exponents of the mind of the Provinces. The Provincial Councils alone represented the opinions of the Provinces. (Cheers). Then there is the plan of my hon. friend the member for Nelson (Mr. Mackay). He proposed to constitute a Land Board, to be composed of the Superintendent, the Speaker of tbe Provincial Council, the Resident Magistrate, and the Crown Commissioner — (laughter). That is my honourable friend's plan — it is too shadowy and indistinct to deal with ; and I trust that my honourable friend will not accuse me of disrtspect if Ido not notice it farther. Between these two plans my honourable friend the member for the Hutt holds- an undecided opinion. *' How happy could I be with either." Turning to another point of my honourablt friend's speech-— in the course of his address, which we listentd to as to every thing he says, with great interest — which we should have been most glad t* listen to if we had had but a few more hours to spare-— he referred to the States of America, and tot Gantons of Switzerland — bis object being, as I understood, to liken them to the Provinces of New Zealand united on the principle of Federation. Ido net agree with my honourable friend hi that parallel. If I understand the principle of federation {it is tbii — It is, the combination of separate independent units uniting by mutual compact, and surrendering portions of their respective powers to a kind of trusteeship for common objects. That is not the principle of this Constitution. Mr. WAKicriM.D — Mr. Gladstone's measure. Mr. Skwell — Yes, my honourable friend says that was tbe principle of Mr. Gladstone's measure, and my honourable friend wished to introduce that principle ; bat that is not the principle of the Constitution we are under — a principle on which all nature is founded, tbat of one comprehensive whole, embracing a variety of parts. Until the Censlitutioh Act is changed, ws cannot give up tbat principle. I point tbe attention of the bouse to this feature in the honourable gentleman's speech, because I feel confident that this notion of a federal principle iri the present' constitution will be found to be a fundamental vice running into every argument, and' affecting my honourable friend's views as to every measure brought before the house. I' would now ask the house to consider wiih" me the prinoiples-of the Billi which I mult needs say bavrbeen' perverted by my honourable friend ; and first, when we come to legislate practically, we have to consider the fixed conditions' of this case which we must needs keep iff view". To legislate on any. otter plan would-be as if; by steering into the harbour of Auckland, we were to ignore the existence of the island of Ra'n'ghtito. There* is at tHis time a system of Land Regulations actually in force, under Sir George Grey'-s proclamation. I wish specially to notice this,- because I am charged with inconsistency in giving; effect to these regulations. I believe them- to have been illegal and unconstitutional!, but- they are nevertheless an undoubted fact, and we cannot ignore them. "Fieri non debuit factum valet" is also an undoubted fact tbat Sir G. Grey's regulations are in favourin this Province (Auckland), as also in Wellington. (Hear, hear). Canterbury and Otago are still partially under their old regulations. But upon the whole the Provinces do not appear much dis<contented with tbe present state of things. (Hear, hear). Are we to tear all this to pieces ? Will my honourable 1 friend frame for us here a new scheme, < founded on plans peeled out of the Superintendents and Commissioners of Crown Lands, to be examined at the bar of the house. If he made such an attempt he would assuredly get himself into a mess. Sir, We propose to take our Btand,'adoptiog the state of things as it' iff, and then we have something to work on — a state which though' it ma/ encourage land jobbing, must be adopted, and can only be got rid of by legislation,. Then .we come' to consider who.aTe tbe necessary parties to- any alteration of the existing system? First, there s the Crown. The Crown and the New Zealand Company both have claims on the' Land Fund of the Colony. 1 The Crown j has its Civil List, and there -is the Company's debt, whatever tbe amount may be. We have no power to do away with" tb'esrer clairas-^-we cdnriot; i if We would, .surrender' out trusteeship to other! hands. Besides this, the General' Government has a strong interest in the disposal of the Waste Lands a'tf a mfatteV'of gerieral policy,' arid ought to be- a patty ta' any plan'- of administration. But' again, there' are 7 the Provinces* They have the greatest interest.- They are- interested in the pounds;' shilling's, and pence,— theyhave the surplus of the 1 : land fund. ■ Besides thisj they baVe local' knowledge and. experience, and* are the best judges as to what will be the proper plan of management according to local circumstances. Such are the relative positions of the different parties. Then comes my honourable friend* tbe member for the Northern Division (Mr. Forsaitb) full of

fear lest,, by the great powers reserved tfytH Bill to the General Government, vie should im-^ pose our Canterbury views upon the Province of Auckland. He tees no escape from this dangtr, and nothing' reconciles him to tbe Bill but Sir George Grey's regulations, to which effect will be given by the Bill, and upon which be may at a!l events fall back. On tbe other hand,- there is thi member for the Wairau (Dr. Monro), followed 1 by the 1 member for the HHutt t (Mr. Wakefield). They tee' nothing in th't Bill but a machinery for handing over the management of the vfaste lands absolutely and unconditionally to the Provinces. Both 4 are incorrect. The effect of the Bill will be to provide that 1 the terms* alod regulation of land sale will be, between the Geueral and Provincial Governments carefully considered,, bringing into play local knowledge and experience, and allowing the Provinces to express their opinions.-, For my own part — considering that tbe General Government will be exercised henceforth under responsibility to- this- bouse — I cannot imagine a better scheme, even if we were i now contriving one according to our own notions. So far, theo, front admitting that this Bill is an evasion of principles, I consider h to be in the best form in which we could accomplish the object we have now in view. (Hear). As to this' charge of evasion, 1- know not how to deal with it. • I am surprised it should come from my hon. friend, I trust he will' pardon me for saying that nothing but the most perverse ingenuity could have raised such an objection. Let me first mention the doubts suggested by my honourable friend tbe member for Wellington — donbts which, coming from him, are always entitled to respect. He doubts whether tbe Bill may not be construed as contravening, the Constitution Act,- as giving the Provincial Councils power lo make laws affecting Crown lands. I cannot admit' the force of that objection. I may add that neither does tbe Attorney-General feel any doubts upon it. The reason of that exception in the Constitution Act is obvious. The Provincial Councils were debarred from making laws affecting Crown lands, because that power was expressly conferred on tht General Assembly, and could not be exercised by both. But tbe Bill did not propose to give tbe Provincial Councils power to make laws that is, propriojure, to inititta and pass measures of legislation — it gives them a power of assent only to regulations proposed to them by the General Government. No doubt tbat must lead to mutual consultation and agreement ; but the power of making laws and tbe power of assent proposed by this Bill were totally distinct. Her Majesty had the power of assenting .to or vetoing our Bill. Did that give her tbe power of legislation ? So the Superintendent had tbe power of assenting to or vetoing Acts of the Provincial Council. But in iact we have a rule of interpretation in this muter within tbe four corners of the Constitution Act itself. Canterbury and Otago were, as the house is aware, special cases. The Canterbury Association and the Otago Association were both expressly enabled by the Constitution Act to transfer their respective powers to tbe Provincial CounciU, and the Council* were empowered to assent to such transfer. That same Act which expressely forbade the Provincial Councils to make laws affecting Crown lands, expressly enabled these two Couscils to assent to systems of land regulations existing in these Provinces precisely in the same way as i« proposed under this Bill. We are charged with violating the spirit of the Constitution Act, — I say we are adhering to it strictly. What was there in the special cases of Canterbury and Otago which should entitle them to this peculiar privilege. Theirs were special cases, and Parliament provided for them 5 and if we could now get the mind of Parliament expressed in this Assembly, it would undoubtedly apply aiimilar rule in tbe cases of other provinces. That argument appears to me to be a sledge hammer for my honourable friend. Sir, I have stated clearly the principles on which this Bill is founded — principles by which we mean to stand or fall. (Cheers.) Ido not mean to say that the Bill is incapable of improvement. We are not so presumptuous, and we will readily receive suggestions of amendment when the Bill goes in Committee — but if you mean to legislate on other principles than these you will fail. If, in your legislation in this matter you mean, with my honourable friend the member for the Northern Division (Mr. Forsaitb), to ignore the General Government, and to take all power from it ; or if with my honourable friend tha member for Waimea (Dr. Monro), you would wholly ignore the Provincial Governments in these land arrangements, I, for one, will not be a party to any sach legislation ; and I trust, in tbat case, • you .will place others on this Bench willing to carry out your objects. (Cheers.) Mr. PicArd said — Having been so pointedly alluded to in the course of this debate, I trust that the house will allow me to say a few words in explanation. In reply to the honourable members who have demanded that I should " vote for measures and not men," and should not vote against myself, I would remind the house that I stated that it was my intention to vote for the second reading of this Bill, but that I should, do so with doubts, hesitation, and regrets, for reason* which I mentioned; and because I desired to see amendment's introduced when in Committee. Is there, I would ask, no one at liberty to vote for the second reading of a Bill becanse he has doubts, even grave doubts, on the subject or desires to see amendments introduced. Further, sir, I would state that with me pledges of .support are not, I hope, abstract propositions which I shrink from reducing into practice, and that for this and every other vote, I hate to answer to my conscience and my consiiments. (Hear, hear.) One word more, sir, on a matter of justice to others. I understood the hon. member for Cluistcharch to state that I had made a charge of land-jobbing against those persons who had purchased large quantities in tbe Province of Nelson under the proclamation of Sir George Grey. I beg to remind this house that I expressely avoided doing so, and laid all blame upon that proclamation. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I shall still vote for the second reading of this Bill. ,< On the question being put that the Bill be read a second time, the house divided. Ayes, 20. Noes, 10. The Bill was then read a second time. The house adjourned until Wednesday. .