PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4793, 2 August 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, August 1. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at half-past two o'clock. MOTIONS. The Hon. Colonel BRETT'S motion—That the Government be requested to prepare and bring in a Bill to carry into effect the resolution contained in the report of the Petitions Committee upon the petition of Henry Smythies—lapsed in the absence of the hon. member. The Hon. Mr. WATEBHOUSE moved,— For leave to introduce a Bill intituled the Masterton and Greytown Lands Management Act Amendment Act, 1876. —Granted. WELLINGTON RESERVES BILL. This Bill was committed. On clause 2, the Hon. Mr. Watebhouse desired to know if the Waihenga bridge tolls were included in the lease for twenty-one years of the hotel mentioned in the clause. The clause was postponed. Progress was reported on the 4th clause. The Bill to be further considered next day. WAIUKU CHURCH OP ENGLAND CROWN GRANT BILL. This Bill was read a first time. Second reading fixed for Thursday next. AUCKLAND INSTITUTE BILL. The Ho,n. Dr. POLLEN moved the second reading of the above.—After remarks from the Hons. Messrs. Watebhouse ~ and Acland against the isecond readings a division was taken with the following result:—Ayes, 6; noes, 17. The Bill was therefore thrown out. CANTERBURY EDUCATION RESERVES SALE AND LEASING BLLL. This Bill was recommitted.—The Hon. Mr. Hall moved that the following proviso be added to clause B:—"Provided always that the college may from time, to time with the consent of the Governor in Council, invest any part of the said moneys, not exceeding the sum of ten thousand pounds, in the purchase of sites and the erection of buildings for the purposes of the said college."—Agreed to. REGULATION OF LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN moved,—That the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of erasing the following clsuse, previously inserted in committee : —"lt shall be lawful for any owner or owners of any property within any rateable district to authorise, under his or their hand, any other person resident within such district to exercise the vote or votes to which he or they are entitled, and the Returning Officer, on being satisfied that such person is duly authorised as aforesaid, shall allow him to vote accordingly : Provided always that no one person shall at any election exercise the proxies of more than two such owners."—The clause introduced an iinpertant principle, and one which had not hitherto been recognised in local elections. With two exceptions, Auckland and Hawke's Bay, voting by proxy was not permitted in New Zealand. In no existing Municipal Act was there any provision for such voting. It was therefore an entirely new provision. Now, there should be very good reasons shown for introducing such a system, and Colonel Whitmore, he (Dr. Pollen) contended, had not in introducing the clause advanced such reasons. He trusted the Council would not sanction the principle of proxy voting throughout the whole of the local elections in New Zealand. No unnecessary facilities should be given for owners of property, who ought to take, an interest in the conduct of local affairs, absenting themselves from these local elections. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE deprecated the re-opening of the question. He characterised the speech of the Colonial Secretary as calculated to set class against class. He (Colonel Whitmore) thought it was well that that Council should uphold the interests of property. He pointed to Costa Rica as an instance of the small value which land had where those interests were not upheld. Moreover, he considered that the small holders were more benefited by the system of proxy voting than the large ones, and it was the duty of the Council to look after the property of the poor as well as that of the rich. The Hon. _ Mr. WATEBHOUSE approved of proxy voting in a restricted sense ; that is, he would allow its exercise by some one resident on the property, in the unavoidable absence of the ratepayer. With such restriction there would be no danger. Under the clause before the Council he considered the system of proxy voting would be open to frightful abuse, the consequences of which might be disastrous. The very evils which the ballot was intended to remedy would be perpetuated under this system. He would oppose the clause. The Hon. Dr. GRACE coincided generally with the previous speaker.—The Hon. Mr. Mantell supported the motion of the Colonial Secretary, as did the Hon. Mr. Hall, who stated that the clause was not satisfactory to large property holders, and certainly, he thought, was not wanted by the smaller ones. The Hon. Mr. Menzies also opposed the clause, and the Hon. Mr. Robinson supported it, repeating the assertion of a previous speaker that the remarks of the Colonial Secretary were calculated to set class against class. The Hon. Captain ERASER moved the adjournment of the debate, which was carried, and The Council then (5 p.m.) adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, August 1.. The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o'clock. PETITIONS AND NOTICES OF MOTION; Severf petitions were presentedand:notices of motion given. QUESTIONS. , ■ Mr.TAIAROA asked the Native Minister, — If the Government are aware that certain land; at Wairewa, belonging to Maoris, has been sold by the Provincial Government of Canterbury ? Sir DONALD McLEAH said the land had been sold by the provincial authorities iu inadvertance, and the Superintendent of Canterbury had promised that every enquiry should be made so as to remedy any wrong done. Mr. STOUT obtained leave to postpone his question—What provision the Government intend to make for the Otago Museum, in the event of the province of Otago being abolished ? ■On the suggestion of the Hon. Mr. Richardson, Mr. Button postponed his question'— If it is the intention of the Government to open a telegraph office at Goldsborough, in the Waimea district, in the province of Westland ? Mr. LUSK asked the Minister for Publio Works,: —(1.) Whether the Government has received a petition from settlers in the Upper Maungatawhiri district, praying for the construction of a bridge over the upper river ? (2.) Whether any engineer has been instructed to report upon the question ? (3.) Whether, in the event of the report being favorable, Government will be prepared to carry out the work without delay ? The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said a petition in reference to the erection of the bridge had been received. The affair was a purely local matter with which the Government could not deal. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. . The House went into committee on this Bill. In clause 170 a provision was inserted allowing Municipal reserves in Auckland, Westland, Canterbury, Wellington, Otago, and Taranaki to be leased for 66 years. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said that the Government would subsequently ask for the recommittal of the Bill, in order to reconsider the decision just arrived at. Clause 203, providing for levying tolls on streets, was struck out on a division by 32 to 26. The consideration of clause .204 was postponed, also of clauses 228 and 229, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278. At clause 308 the usual adjournment for dinner was taken. . • MR.'WHITAKER's RESOLUTIONS. . At 7.30 p.m. the galleries, were completely crowded. . > ; ■ .<■. . ' Mr. WHITAKER then rose and moved;— That.clauses 6,7, 8,9, and 10 be omitted, and in lieu thereof that the following clauses, to come into operation on the 29th September next, be inserted:—"!. All revenue arising

from the waste lands of the Crown is part of her Majesty's Consolidated Revenue of the colony. 2 All sums of money and expenditure heretofore charged on revenue arising frpm waste lands of the Crown are hereby charged on and made payable out of her Majesty s Consolidated Revenue. 3 All assets and liabilities of the several provinces are assets and liabilities of the colony. Provided that cash' in hand, on the 29th day of September, 1876, received from waste lands of the Crown, shall be- expended in the province in which it has been received, on such public works (not otherwise provided for) as the General Assembly/; shall determine." He said that in bringing forward this motion he felt he had undertaken an onerous duty, and he desired to that he had entered upon all seriousness. He treatf'the subject, not from any technical or legal standpoint, but as a matter of argument and reason. For along time past they had heard a great deal about repudiation of compacts, and so forth, and it was right that the House should inquire exactly how the case stood, so far as its merits were concerned ; and he should endeavor to place before the House the whole matter in the light in which it presented itself to his mind. First, however,, he desired to clear away a misapprehension. It had been said that these resolutions would prejudice the question, of abolition. He denied it. Abolition, had nothing whatever to do with the matter. Whether the provinces were abolished gr whether they remained as they were previoug, to last session it mattered not one jot. fFhis question must have cropped up, and must have been dealt with,, whatever, the ..jorm"~bf*r government. The question they had to discuss was broadly this —the question of localisation : that was, could boundaries in the colony be arbitrarily fixed, andthe people within the boundaries so arbitrarily fixed, become entitled to special benefits,to the injury of those who were without the boundaries. Was not such a course contrary to all precedent in the past, and opposed to the present practice of co-existent States ? Wherever they chose to look the land fund belonged to the State—the people of the country or the colony—and could not, or should not, be applied to the particular advantage of particular individuals in particular localities. He set out with this maxim, that the land of a country belonged to all the people of the country, and that particular individuals had no right to it whatever beyend that common right which all enjoyed. The hon. member then proceeded to sketch out the history of the land legislation of the colony since its settlement in 1840. At that time it was made an appanage of New South Wales, and it was noticeable that immediately New Zealand became annexed to that colony, the question of the disposal of the waste lands of the Crown of this colony was raised. A long discussion took place, and a celebrated speech was made about that time by Sir George Grey showing that the waste lands belonged to the Crown, and an Act was passed by the New South Wales Legislature affirming that principle. In November of the same year New Zealand was detached from New South Wales, and one of the first questions decided by the Legislature of New Zealand was to enact a similar law to that passed by New South Wales. He traced the legislation by the Imperial and local Legislatures down to the year 1852, when after some changes the new Constitution was granted, and power given to the local Legislature to deal with the waste lands of the Crown for the benefit of the whole colony, and he referred to the conditions contained in the Constitution Act, viz., that debts to the New Zealand Company should be paid, and that other moneys arising from the land should be devoted to the extinction of the native title in those districts in which it still existed. But it was specially provided that the General Assembly alone (and not the Provincial Councils about to be established) should deal with the waste lands of the Crown. In 1854, when the General Assembly met, there was a good deal of discussion about the waste lands of the Crown, but there was no alteration in the law ; neither was there in the following session, that of 1855, but the next year, 185 S, was the important epooh. The policy of the,General Assembly was indicated by, first, certain financial resolutions, and secondly, a Waste Lands Act, which were passed. These resolutions had ever since been known as " the resolutions of 1056," or, as many preferred to call them, the compact of 1856. Now, how was it that these resolutions were passed ? Thev were passed by a majority of 19 against 10, and the minority felt, so strongly that an impropriety had been committed—that something had been been done which ought not to have been done—that they appealed to the Secretary of State, and sent Home a protest which received some consideration, but of which nothing came and, as a matter of course, nothing might have been expected to come of it. These resolutions dealt with the debt and other matters but more especially with.the waste land of the Crown. Now, the resolutions had been for a long time talked of as a compact—a something which the General Assembly was for ever • bound to observe—a something whichfor ever prevented the General Assembly from dealing with the waste lands of the Crown ; the waste lands of the Crown which had been committed to the charge of the whole people of the colony. But what was the meaning of a compact ? He took it that a compact meant a .solemn engagement' between two or more parties; by which certain things were agreed to be done. By whom was this compact made ? For what was it made ? There must be parties to a compact; and who were the parties to this? Was it a' compact between the majority and the minority ? Certainly not. The minority did not agree ; thev protested against it. He was not talking law, he did not want to talk law; because it was entirely out of the question—beyond a doubt the General Assembly had a perfect right to deal with the land so far as the present was concerned. But he wished to look at the matter from a common sense point of view and to ask by whom the compact was made, and for what purpose it was made. It was never in those days talked of as a compact in any shape or way, and there was never any talk of a revocation of the resolutions being a breach of faith. At that time there was a population of 50,000 peopleinthe colony, and how were the representatives of those fifty thousand, people placed in the position of making a compact for all time ; how could they bind future Assemblies ? No one then supposed, nor was it hinted, that the- Assembly was so binding the Legislature. The action then was regarded as the solemn act of the Assembly so far as the present was concernedj but which might the next day be altered or amended.. It was to remain so long as the Assembly thought fit to allow it, and changed when the Assembly desired it. But at the time theseresolutions were passed a Waste Lands Act was also passed, and in order that the arrangements now made might be given more stability, it was decided to ask the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act assenting to the arrangement come to. Considerable discussion attended the proposal, and the point was raised : supposing the Imperial Parliament ref ÜBes, what then will be the result, and as a consequence of this discussion a special provision was made, to the effect that if an Act were not obtained from the Imperial. Parliament, the entire scheme should be open to revision, but that, inasmuch as the provinces might in the meantime enter into arrangements under the resolution, it was further resolved, to .patentee to them any moneys: which they might Veceive. Now, he wanted to know what could be the nature of a compact or engagement which was from beginning to end subject to be revised by the - General Assembly in the event of the Imperial Government refusing to pass the Act required. He contended strongly that the Assembly of 1856 could not bind the Assembly of 1866, or the Assembly of 1876, any more than it could have compelled the Imperial Government to pass the Act required. , He was at a loss to know why the word compact had ever been used; and he would ask any member of, the House how in the name of reason or justice any resolutions which neutralised .the resolutions of 1856 could be, .called repudiatory resolutions. The Imperial Parliament; had washed its hands of the whole transaction, and refused to pass such 'an Act as was required, and disallowed the Waste Lands Act—an Act which had been passed to give Provincial Councils the

power of legislating in respect to waste lands. Reviewing all the circumstances, was it not open to the General Assembly to revoke the resolutions. If the resolutions had been binding upon the General Assembly, why was the provision made for guaranteeing _ to the provinces the money they' received, _ in case of the Imperial Parliament declining to pass the Act ? The words were surplusage if the resolutions were binding. The next point of importance come to was the meeting of the General Assembly in 1858, and it must be remembered that a 3 there was no session in 1857 that was the first meeting after the resolutions had been sent Home. It w.i3 very interesting, in view of this unchangeable compact, to notice that at this session the Wellington members, with the exception of the "entleman who now occupied the Speaker's chair, were absent. Then they had got this far —the Imperial Parliament had refused to pass the Act they had been asked to pass in relation to these resolutions, and further, had disallowed the Waste Lands Act, so that the essential elements of the compact were completely gone. Then came the session of 1858, at which the representatives of one province were not present ; and what was done ? Did the Assembly, in view of the refusal of the Imperial Parliament, declare that the resolutions of 1856 should have the fall force and effect of an Act of the General Assembly ? No ; nothing of the kind. They were not mentioned in the Acts which were passed—these resolutions, which had provided for their own destruction in case the Imperial Parliament did not jjpass an Act, were not even referred to. '"""" As the Waste Lands Act had been disallowed, Tie administration of the waste lands now became a part of the colonial policy, and in ISSS an Act called the Apportionment of Debts '/ Act was passed. Under the resolutions the three Middle Island provinces were to be equally dealt with ; but the Assembly did not consider itself bound by these resolutions, for this Public Debt Apportionment Act imposed •upon Canterbury £77,500; Otago, £77,500; and Nelson, £45,000. Thus in 1858—the very next session—an alteration in the terms of the resolutions of 1856 was made. Then, with regard to the North Island provinces, provision was made under the Public Debts Apportionment Act for taking one-sixth of the land fund for purchasing native lands. That was another alteration in the arrangement of 1856. Then the Waste Lands Act of 185 S was passed. This reversed entirely the whole of the proposals of the previous session, providing that the General Assembly, not the Provincial Council, should deal with waste lands. Here was another infringement of the so-called compact of 1856. The hon. member then referred to further deviations from the compact. In 1861 Canterbury complained of having too much of the debt, and the share of that province was reduced from £77,500 to £74,000, while the share of Otago was increased from £77,500 to £BI,OOO. In 1867 an Act was passed repealing portions of the Act of IS6I, and some special charges were put upon the land revenue. In 1868 the Act of 1867 was altogether repealed. Then what had become of the "compact" all this time —this binding encasement which nobody could break. Had any of the gentlemen who now bandied charge's of repudiation risen in 1858, in 1861, in '1867, or in 1868, and said, "You are repudiating." Why there was not a rag of the compact left. It -was all gone, all cone. The hon. member then referred to the circumstances under which the compact was made. He said at the time the compact was made the native title had in the Middle Island been extinguished, or at any rate ninetenths of the land was free of native title, and this had been done at the expense of the North Island provinces—(No, no)—at the expense of the' whole colony, the North Island provinces bearing their fair share. (No, no.) Hon.members might say "No, no," but he challenged them to prove that he was not stating lads. It might be true that there had been grants from England, but the money had been granted to assist the whole colony in its difficalties, and not for the purpose of forwarding the interests of particular provinces. The object of the compact, then, was that money should be spent in the North Island, so that the North Island provinces might look forward to having a land revenue, and it was provided that the North Island provinces should have the right of pre-emption over the land. But what wa3 done in 1862 1 The General Assembly at once annihilated its previous action, by passing an Act which ia its preamble set forth that it was necessary for the peace and settlement of the country that the right of pre-emption should be foregone. This was for the purpose of relieving the Southern provinces of contribution towards war funds ; and so the North Island provinces lo3t all the consideration for which they had entered into this compact, for the purpose of giving the South Island its land fund. On the sth May appeared a Gazette, setting forth that the Act of 1862 having rendered unnecessary the Land Purchase department of New Zealand there was no longer any use for that department, which wa3 thereby abolished. Where was the compact now ? where was the value the North Island was to have received from the compact ? Had the compact been kept by both sides? Had it not rather been broken year after year, through a long series of years, by the Acts passed by the General Assembly? From 1856 to 1866 Acta had been passed gradually destroying it, till there was at last only the mere shadow of the original compact left. Then, as to the fairness of the compact. It had . been in force for twenty years, from 1856 to 1870, and during that time the land revenue of the North Island had been £1,049,189, for the South Island provinces, £6,152,582. Then, what had Auckland, for instance, gained by the Southern provinces takingover the debt? If Auckland had had topay a fair proportion of the debt, estimated according to revenue, she would have had to pay during the twenty years £3500 ; Taranaki would have to pay £350 ; Hawke'a Bay, £13,835 ; Wellington, £17,000 ; making in all £34,000, out of the £240,000 which had been mid on account of the debt to the New Zealand Company. According to the revenue the North Island provinces would have had to pay £34,285, and the Southern provinces £205,715. So that the North Island had been saved a payment of £31,000, and as against that had given up to the South six millions; and if it went on for the next ten years at the rate it had gone on for the past twenty years, the whole, payments would be—by Northern provinces, £51,000 ; Southern provinces, £310,000. Now he thought on the ground of expediency this unfair system should done away with. It was about time the ™f .d fund was returned to the original owners; it had been long enough in the hands of one part of the colony, and there should be a change. He thought the expediency of {he change must be apparent from a study of the Financial Statement. The Treasuror had several times in his Statement referred to the necessity for simplification in the system of finance, and no one who had read the Statement could disagree with the remark. He had tried for a couple of days to understand the finances of the colony, and he was afraid he knew very little about the matter. _ There were so many mysteries, so many thimbles, that it was impossible to say under which the pea was found—the whole system was so thoroughly complicated and so completely jDoisunderstandable, that it was about time some arrangement was made for tho simplification of matters. The only remedy was to make the land revenue colonial revenue ; and really it would not make much difference to the Southern provinces. He referred to the proposals of the Government to take contributions from the land fund for railway and educational purposes, and said the Treasurer might as well take £750,000 as £75,000, tho principle was the same, and once introduced would bo worked out. In fact, it was absolutely necessary that money should be forthcoming Many estimates of the Treasurer would not be reached—such for instance as the estimate of land fund from Auckland and, ho (Mr Whitaker) expected, not to.seo a credit balance at the end of the year of £29,000, but a deficit of ten times that amoant. He referred to the" inclusion in the financial Statement tables of .the provincial'. land fund receipts, which Had "beeri'donoj so that the out-' lay might compare favorably with other colo-

nies, and objected to such a course being token. However, he did not desire to pick holes in the Treasurer's coat. What he desired was to show the badness of the system, and to suggest that the remedy for the confusion was the adoption of these resolutions. And not only was the colonisation of the land revenue necessary to do away with the confusion, it was absolutely necessary for the sustenanceof the creditof the colony. They wanted two millions of money, and what was the state of the market so far as New Zealand securities were concerned? His private advices told him that New Zealand securities were much lower than any colonial securities, and the reason of this was obvious : we had gone to the length cf our tether, even beyond it perhaps, and capitalists saw the position in which we were—that if the slightest check occurred, we should not be able 'to pay our debts. The only remedy was to make the land revenue colonial revenue. Were this done, the Colonial Treasurer could show that the revenue was three millions a year, and the expenditure a little over two millions. That would be a sound condition to present to the lender, and money would be forthcoming to us on the same easy terms as it was to other borrowers. _ He knew that no one would be more relieved if the motion were carried than the Treasurer. He thought he had shown that a change would not be inequitable ; on the contrary, that it would be scant justice, and that it was expedient, for the purpose of giving New Zealand one common puree, one expenditure, one debt, and expedient for the sake of our credit. (Cheers.) The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL rose and •said he felt somewhat at a disadvantage in answering the well-digested and carefully thought-out speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and he ti-usted therefore that he should receive the indulgence of honorable gentlemen in the remarks he was about to make in reply. The hon. gentleman had objected to the word compact, as referring to the arrangement of 1856. He was quite willing himself to make the hon. gentleman a present of the argument he had used as to that term. But he thought he was correct in saying that the hon. gentleman was a member of the Government from the year 1856 to 1858, and was therefore clearly as much responsible as any other member of the then Government for all that had been done during that time. The speaker then proceeded to state the facts of the case, namely, how the compact of 1856 came about. The hon. gentleman, he proceeded to say, had laid a great deal of stress upon the uncertain wording of the resolutions, not being such as to show that the colony was bound bodily by them, and also that the resolutions had not been placed in the form of an Act. He (Sir Julius Vogel) thought he could show out of the mouth of his own colleague that the compact had been entered into after earnest consideration, and that it was giving effect to the policy of the Government. (He then read from Hansard in support of his assertion). He did not think they should treat this question from a quibbling point of view. With regard to this arrangement, he did not see how anything could be clearer than the 7th clause of the Land Revenue Appropriation A.ct of 1858, which was as follows : "After and subject to the payment to be made under the provisions hereinbefore contained, all the revenue arising from the disI posal of the waste lands of the Crown in the several provinces of the colony, shall, in pursuance of warrants to be from time to time granted by the Governor, be paid over by the Receivers of Land Bevenue to the respective Treasurers of such! provinces, for the public uses thereof, subject to the appropriation of the respective Provincial Councils." The hon. gentleman was at that time a very able lawyer, and a number of honorable members of the House placed great reliance in him • and it could scarcely be imagined that there was not the most perfect confidence among those members that this subsequent legislation wa3 giving full effect to the compact of 1856. But he ventured to say that a number of members were deceived ; they thought the guarantee was obtained ; that the law was made as firm and as binding as possible ; the intention of the resolution of 1856 being that the land fund should in future be provincial revenue. He could scarcely conceive that any hen. gentleman wouldhavebelieveditpossiblethitthemember for Waikato would stand forward at this tima and attempt to upset entirely his own work. The arrangement was considered particularly favorable to Auckland, and when the Hon. Mr. Fox proposed that instead of such an arrangement there should be simply a charge of half-a-crown per acre for all land sold in the Middle Island, tho Ministry declined, [considering that it would be too favorable to the Middle Island. Considering all the circumstances, he thought it would have been much more reasonable if a proposal to alter this compact had come from any other than a gentleman who was in the Ministry at the time these resolutions were given effect to. That gentleman had laid great stress on the proposal made at a subsequent period to relinquish the pre-emptive right of the Government to purchase land. Years had passed since that time, and he was not aware of this question ever having come before the House in a set form until that evening. He had no right whatever to attempt to upset the compact of 1856 on the ground of the relinquishment of the preemptive right of purchase at a later period. (The speaker quoted Mr. Kichmond on the subject.) He must say this, that he believed the colony, that House, and everyone concerned, would much rather see the compact of 1856 upset on it 3 merits solely, than by attempting to make out a case to the effect that that arrangement was not intended to be binding at the time it was made. The hon. member for Waikato had attempted to make that out, but he had failed because the real effect of that compact was that it should extend over a long period of years in order to give full effect to its provisions. In 1858 a ratification took place, in the Land Bevenue Appropriation Act ; and if that was not a complete ratification, it was not so understood by the members of the House. What he contendedjfor was, that this compact had survived for 20 years, and the effect of coming down with such a resolution that evening was not calculated to benefit the colony in the slightest. He thought it would be very much more desirable to argue this question from a broader point of view than one of a technical charactor. He was not going to pretend that it was not in the power of a Parliament which does, to undo ; but he thought they should look at this question from an entirely different point of view. These resolutions of the hon. member for Waikato raised up very different questions, of a very important, and he might say embarassing nature, at such a time as the present. It wa3 well known that they had been made the starting point of the discussion upon the subject of separation, and they, affected very much that large question which had now been been before the country for nearly two years, viz., that of abolition; and another important question, that of the outlying districts. The Government would strongly oppose these resolutions therefore, on the score of their merits, and their inopportuneness ; and ho should be very much surprised to see gentlemen who undertook last year to support the Government beiDg carried away by such proposal. He was not going to say that there would be any singular breach of faith on the part of honorable members who last year thought fit to uphold the Government, if they abandoned them by supporting the resolutions of the hon. gentleman; but there would certainly bo political bad faith in such a course. If all those gentlemen who undertook to follow the Government in carrying out abolition last year should now vote for the resolutions before the House, and thus virtually shelve tho question of abolition this session, and afterwards come to members of the Government and say to them, " We promise to do this, that, and the other if you decide to propose certain things," he thought tho Government would bo entitled to say to them, " While wo do not question your personal good faith and honor,- yet it is very evident to us that so temporary and shortlived are your political opinions, that it would be uusafe to embark on a political course of that land, as we, could have no guarantee that you would riot alter your opinions in two month's.".,' He wished to trouble the _ House as little 'as possible with dry details and figures, but he should like to show the House

how the resolutions of Mr. Whitaker read in the light of the Government proposals. The simple meaning of them, as against those of the Government, was to take £217,000 of the surplus land revenue of Otago and Canterbury, and spend that amount on other parts of the colony. With respect to the resolutions of ■ the hon. member for Geraldine, he might say that they went in the same direction as those of the hon. member for Waikato, although their effect would be slightly different. He did not think, however, that the colony of New Zealand had come to such a pass that it would be called upon for the sake of £200,000 to carry out a measure which it deemed to be unjust, inexpedient, and impolitic ; and he unhesitatingly applied all these terms to the resolutions of the hon. gentlomen. With regard to Mr. Whitaker's reference to tho Financial Statement, he said there was no doubt that they were entering on a year of some difficulty ; but he did not think that was any reason why hon. members should endeavor to run down the financial position of the colony. He was opposed to the suggestion to increase the taxation of the colony. Times such as the present had occurred before, and it had not been thought necessary or desirable to increase the taxation ; it would be far far preferable to do as they had done before, and resort to a floating debt. If these resolutions were carried, tho effect would be a total revolution in the Constitution of the country. For years and years it had been a favorite admission that the outlying districts were not fairly treated by the large centres of population, and it was only now that they had a" reasonable prospect of being made to alargeextentindependentby the changes the Government proposed to make ; but if the colony took over the land fund these districts would not be any better off than at the present time. The proposed county system gave to the country districts the power of working out their own destinies. It would be far preferable, in his opinion, to continue the present form of government, than throw upon that House the difficulty of dealing with the public works of the colony. If the House were to be made the arena for discussing the construction of roads here and bridges there, and other works in different directions, it would be better to continue the present form of Government. The Government proposed to leave to the outlying districts themselves the prosecution of such works, while the General Government would undertake such works a 3 main lines of railway throughout the colony. Mr. WHITAKER said the Premier was laboring under a wrong impression. He did not propose to do as was stated ; on the contrary, he proposed to tack his resolutions on to the Counties Bill and make them part of it. Sir JCJLIUS VOGEL said he had quite recognised that such was the hon. gentleman's intention, but he contended that the two were incompatible. He was of opinion that tho resolutions, if carried, would so revolutionise the state of the House that either one of two things wouldhappen.anewGovernmentwouldprobably be formed, who would abandon abolition altogether, or possibly carry out abolition without making provision for the local government of the country. He would undertake to express the opinion that if the land revenue were to be taken from one part of the colony as proposed, it would have the effect of making tho land fund Consolidated Bevenue. As to what Mr. Whitaker had said about the public accounts, he said no system of accounts could be devised to be comprehensible to persons who would not take the trouble to master their particulars. The Government proposed that the expenses of dealing with the land such as they had should be paid out of the land revenue ; next the interest on the provincial liabilities in respectj to land surveys, which was a reasonable charge ; subsidies to road boards and counties, which was also a legitimate charge. Lastly, there was the charge of the cost of education, which perhaps might be open to more exception than the others. He did not know if hon. members had taken the trouble to examine how reproductive the expenditure on education was. If they looked at America, they would find in the United States two distinct classes of people—the educated and the uneducated—and they would include in the educated class nearly all nativeborn Americans, and their position was vastly better in life than that of the immigrant class who arrived there from different parts of the world, and this contrast in position arose simply from the difference in education. It was not too much to say that by giving a boy seven years' education you fitted him for the rest of his life, during which he might, with health and strength, earn £SO a year more than he would otherwise earn. He regarded this charge of education, therefore, upon the land fund a 3 perfectly legitimate. He then referred to the position of Otago and Canterbury, and alluded to the tunnel in the latter 'province, which he said was an,undertaking more daring in its nature than the Public Works policy entered on a few years ago. It was a bold proposal, and showed a vast amount of energy and determination on the part of the settlers there. The ability of the province to undertake such works, and its general prosperity, wore owing to the manner in which its waste lands had been administered, and the high price put upon them. Otago had acted in the same manner, and the hon. member for Duuedin, Mr. Macaudrew, had devoted his life in the interests of the province. In Auckland, however, the administration had taken quite a different turn. The question was, whether it would be well to sell Canterbury and Otago lands cheaply, in order that lands in Auckland might fetch a high price which had previously been disposed of for next to nothing. The effect of carrying these resolutions would be to totally upset the machinery which had grown up over a long period of years. It was unreasonable to propose a uniform land fund in the colony until there was a uniform land law. Ho was _ not going to commit himself to any expression of opinion on the subject, but he would say that whenever there was to be a uniform land fund a uniform land law should precede it, the difficulty in dealing with the land throughout the colony being so great in consequence of the provinces having different modes of administration. He repeated that it was highly undesirable to raise the question of the compact of 1856 at the present time. It had been a landmark of Legislation for many years. Wherever changes were made in the mode ©f dealing with the revenue the arrangement of 1856 was kept in view and jealously guarded. The spirit and intention of the compact had been carried out up to the present time faithfully, and he thought the House should not lightly commit itself to an expression of opinion to undo the work of so many yeai's. The resolutions might be carried, but he felt confident that they could not be made acceptable to a large portion of the colony, which deserved great consideration. He alluded to Otago and Canterbury. As to the discontent felt by Auckland with regard to its land fund, that discontent was very different, and deserved less consideration than the discontent, which would bo felt by Otago and Canterbury if these resolutions were carried, and by which they would be deprived of that which for nearly a generation they had been taught to look upon as inalienably their right. He wished to touch upon one other point, and to express himself upon it very clearly." He had heard a good deal said about separation, which simply meant that instead of there being nine provinces, as now, there should be two, each province to have its own land revenue. If they were going to make the land revenue cease to be provincial revenue, then those hon. mem-, bers who went into the lobbies in favor of separation, renounced plainly the right to tho compact of 1856. With regard to the position of our loans at Home, at the present time he admitted thoy were not saleable, on the ground that an impression prevailed that the colony had boirowed very largely considering the size of its income, and also because the credit of tho colony had been damaged at the hands of those who should have adopted a very different course. The rapid manner in which public works had been pushed on might havo the effect of compelling us to pay a little moro for tho loans than under other circumstances would have been the case. But ho saw nothing in tho position of our loans at Homo to make us feel tho slightest. sentiment of regret on account of tho Public, Works policy as carried out during the last, few years. He then read the following statistics, as showing the present position of the country;

The population (exclusive of Maoris) amounted on the 31st December, 1870, to 248,400; on the 31st December, 1875, to 375,856, with an increase during the period of 127,456, or 52 per cent. Increase of cultivation. —The land in cultivation in February 1870 (exclusive of land in sown grasses) amounted to 347,980 acres ; the same in to 557,612 acres; showinganincreaseduring the period of 209,632 acres, or at the rate of 60 per cent. The land in sown grasses araountedinFebruary 1870 to '649,524 acres ; February, 1876, 1,819,801 acres; increase, 1,170,277 acres, equal to 180 per cent. Increase of holdings. The holdings of one acre in extent and upwards, having cultivated land, including sown grass land,- increased from 13,476 in February, 1870, to 17,250 in February, 187,6, an increase in number of 3774, or 28 per cent. Increase of crops. The total land under grain and other crops amounted in February, 1870, to 250,979 .acres ; in February, 1876, to 416,187 acres; an inurease of 160,208 acres, or at the rate of 64 per cent. He then proceeded to dwell upon the time lost by these motions having been brought for- ' ward, most hon. members having come to the House under the impression that they would have to discuss the abolition proposals. He had clone his best to show that the resolutions were entirely inexpedient ; and notwithstanding the temptations which the hon. gentleman had so eloquently adduced in favor of them, he hoped hon. members would by a large majority throw them out. In conclusion, he thanked the House for its indulgence ; and if he had not done justice to his subject, hoped hon. members would make allowance for the difficulty under which he felt himself to labor. Sir GEORGE GREY said that as all hoB. members had made up their minds on this subject, he would say as little on it as possible. But a further consideration prevailed to make him be brief. The country stood on the brink of a precipice, and the remedy proposed by Mr. Whitaker was merely palliative. He would, however, remark briefly on one or two points. He denied that he, and hon. gentlemen who thought with him, were to blame for the delay in the transaction of public business which took place this session. The Government were to blame, for it was impossible to proceed with business until their plans were all brought down, and it was only within the f ,last fortnight that these measures had been brought down, and even now the 'important measure for dealing with native lands was not before them. To his mind, the Counties Bill should have been published in the Government Gazette a month before Parliament met, so that the whole colony might have been made acquainted with it. The Premier had admitted that the colony was in a serious condition, but had not proposed the real remedy —a reduction in the enormous expenditure now going on. The resolutions of the member for Waikato went some way towards relieving the difficulties of the colony, but as they did not go far enough, he would, before the adjournment of the House, give notice of the following resolutions, which he would bring down at the earliest possible opportunity, allowing, of course, the notice of motion of Mr. Wakefield to take precedence. Sir George Grey then read the following : That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the colony requires that its financial and constitutional arrangements should be reconsidered. That the unity of the colony should be maintained. That there should be two local governments; one for each island. ... That the Colonial Government being responsible for the colonial debt, for which the annual charge for interest and sinking fund is £815,000, the North Island shall be charged with £190,000 per annum, and the South Island with £625,000 per annum. That, with the exception of those matters of great colonial importance which must be reserved for the Colonial Government, each local government shall have the entire control and management of its own affairs and the disposal of its own resources. That the seat of the local government of the North Island shall be at Auckland. That the seat of the local government of the South Island shall be at Christchurch. That the seat of the Colonial Government shall remain as at present in Wellington. He thought that all the plans for local selfgovernment, which he had heard so much talked about that night, would be much better given effect to by his resolutions than by the scheme of the Government. Mr. MACANDREW would oppose the resolutions of Mr. Whitaker on the same ground that he opposed the Government proposals, because both would end in the same thing, one puree for the colony and the abrogation of the compact of 1856. That compact, stereotyped, ratified, and confirmed by 20 years of prescriptive right, must be regarded as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which changed not, and its abrogation contained elements of danger and disaster to the colony. He should be sorry to think that those who supported Mr. Whitaker's resolutions would support communism as regarded private property, yet the principle of the resolutions are communism. He said that he would. oppose both the proposals of Mr. Whitaker and those of the Government, but of the two he preferred those of Mr. Whitaker, as being open and straightforward. The proposals of Mr. Whitaker were like stabbing a man in open daylight and to his face ; the proposals of ihe Government would slowly suck away a man's life-blood, as it were. Mr. Macaudrew .drew attention to the fact that he and the "Speaker were tho only members who at the, time opposed the compoct of 1856, by which Auckland got the lion's share, and it was strange how the predictions they ithen made were now coming true. The hon. member for Timaru had supported tho compact, and it would now give him (Mr, Macandrew) pleasure to go into tho same lobby with Mr. Stafford, and support the vested interests which that gentleman had helped to create. No other gentleman being desirous to speak, and there being loud calls of " question," " divide," the Speaker called on Mr. Whitaker to reply. That gentleman waived his right, and the SrEAKER declared the motion | lost on the voices. Mr. Whitaker called for a division, which was taken with the following result :—Ayes, 21 ; noes, 54. The following is the division list: — AYEB. Andrew (teller) Macfarlano Tawitt Dignan Read, G. E. Tolo Douglas ' Bees Tonks Uibbs Richmond Wakefield Grey Eowe ' Whitaker(toller) Hamlin Sharp Williams Lusk Swanson Wood, It. G. NOES. Atkinson Hislop Pyko Baigcnt Hodgkinson Roid, D. Baliance Hunter Reynolds (teller) Barff Johnston : Richardson Bastings Joyce Rollcston Bowen Kennedy Seaton Brandon Kenny Seymour Brown, J. O, Larnach Shrimski Brown, J. E. Lumsden Stafford Bryce Macandraw(teller) Stevens Burns Manders Stout Button Sir D. McLean Taiaroa Carrington McLean, G. Toschemaker Cox Msntgomery Thompson flo Lautonr Moorhouso Tribe Fisher Murray Vogel Fitzroy Murray-Aynsley Wason Henry Pearco Woolcock The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL said that it -would be unreasonable for the Government to be expected to go on with other business until the resolutions of Sir George Grey were disposed of. If Sir George Grey would consent, he could, with the leave of the House, give notico of his resolutions to-night, and they could be brought on for discussion to-morrow. The next day being a private members' day, Mr. Reid could not see why Sir George Grey should be pressed to give notice to-night. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the Premier hadsuggested that if desirable he would support the suspension of the standing orders, in order that his separation resolutions might be given notice of, and he had encouraged the Premier to think that he would accede to this, but he now thought that by taking private business on Wednesday ho would bring on his resolutions on Thursday. Sir J. VOGEL objected to any business being transacted before the separation resolutions, but would take an adjournment of the House until Thursday, to give fcjir George Grey the time he required. After some discussion, and a motion for adjournment being lost, ' Sir GEORGE GREY gave notice of his separation resolutions for Thursday,and moved that the House 1 should adjourn until half-past seven o'clock on that day. The Eouse then adjourned at 12.10 a.m.