INVERCARGILL : TUESDAY, OCT. 7, 1873

Southland Times, Issue 1803, 7 October 1873, Page 2

INVERCARGILL : TUESDAY, OCT. 7, 1873

The debate upon the motion for the second reading in the Upper House of the Southland "Waste Lands Bill, demands at least a passing notice on account of the peculiar line of argument adduced by honorable members in opposition to" it. "Whether the Bill itself were intrinsically good or bad, does not appear to have been the matter of con sideration with certain members, judging by the small paina taken by them to conceal the true grounds of their opposition. The motion for the second reading was made by the Hon. Mr Campbell, who introduced it by a reference to the conditions under which reunion between Otago and Southland was brought about. He eaid "a few years ago it was the desire of Otago to absorb the small province of .Southland," being " at that fme in great financial distress. . . Enormous pressure was brought to bear, aud large inducements held out, and a majority of the province of Southland consented to re-enter and become again a portion of Otago." After reference to the circumstances which had made an alteration in the land law necessary, the hon. member stated the object of the Bill to be toj " provide that henceforth pastoral land should be open for sale at £l per acre, and agricultural land at £2 per acre." Keferring to the really important feature in the Bill, being clause 5, providing for the setting aside of " lands for sale on deferred payments," Mr Campbkll thus delivered himself: — " Deferred payments really meant a proposition that land should be sold at 13s lOd per acre, when it would sell at £2. That would be another opening for the speculator. . . . . He felt it his duty in order to carry the Bill to state that he* would consent to that clause being expunged in committee. . • • He hoped the Bill would pass the second reading, and it could be altered in the direction he had indicated when it was before the Waste Lands Committee." The Hon. Captain Feasek appears to have spoken at least honestly, and to have been at no pains to disguise his meaning. "He hoped the Bill would not pass. They might let the country lie fallow for another year. They had plenty of money in Otago, and it would be better to wait and see how much of this land would be purchased at £3 per acre. : , ■He was of opinion that a great deal of it would be." The Hon. Mr "Watebhouse thought " the action proposed to be taken in this Bill was to eiiable the poor man to obtain a freehold which the grasping runholders would not now allow him to obtain. In the interests of the poor man he hoped ( the. Bill would pass, and in consenting to the second reading, the Council would show they were riot desirous to oppress the poor man,, as, from the remarks of the honorable gentlemen who had spoken against the Bill, might be thought was the case. It 'seemed to him that the honorable gentleman who proposed the second reading was not in earnest in his action, a»d- really disapproved of the measure itself. ~lf this Bill should be th'rowh; out, it would not be from ardent opposition, but from tho lukewarm character of the speeches in support of it." The Hon. Mr Stokes concurred with the previous speaker, as did also the 1 Hon. Mr Holmes, in so far as expressing a determination to support the Bill, but taking care to give proniineuce to the view of the mover as to the reduction under the 'deferred' payments system of -the price of land ,to 13s lOd per acre. " He wished to see the settlement of the] country progress ; he took no exception whatever to those who purchased laud in large quantities, 'lor those who bad capital hail as. much right to use it in that as in any other way\ ' He' would never be. a. bar to acquisition of land in small, quantities, by those, vehp; wished to acquire! *if for agricultural purposes/' The lion,'. Colonel Bbett said "if they passed" thi s ', Bill they' woulid be-legislating for thepoo r

Ito the detriment of the rich. Was that right or just ? He contended it was very unjust. The poor must do as they had done. They must stand the brunt of hardships, and must work as many honorable members had done. They would not be doing justice to those small farmers who held 50 or 100 acres, for which they have paid as much as £4 per acre, if they allowed a man to get it at 10s. It would be a gross injustice, and legislation in a wrong direction. They ought to keep up the value of their property." The Hon. Mr Paterson " thought the Bill would require to be materially altered in committee. He would vote for the second reading." The Hod. Mr Mastell " had hoped that the Hon. Colonel Bbett would, before he resumed his seat, have moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months." He said " the great objection to the Bill was that by a system of deferred payments they would reduce, the value of the population, and debase the settlers. It was important in a new \ country like this, where any man would get the capital which would enable him to buy land at the current price, to maintain the dignity of labor, but if a man became indebted as a landholder-at the very commencement of his career, he would be debased. If laborers who were imported had that stamina and independence that made them fit to be colonists, and to be worthy citizens hereafter, let. them work soberly and steadily. Wages were high, and let them acquire money to purchase land, and be independent of any political influence whatever. But if when a man came out, he got his ten or thirty acres, and paid a shilling an acre a-year, or something of that sort, he would become one of the most despicable specimens of the community that could possibly be found in the worst States of America. If this system of deferred payments were carried out, a large number of the population would have peculiar relations to the Government, and at the same time they would have a vote. He had seen formerly in Otago what political pressure was brought to bear under such a system. Any man after he had been imported into the Colony, and found that a pecuniary profit was to be gained by being politically corrupt, would have an influence on him for evil, and that might cause great wrong, as he might; rise ta a high position in the State. He thought that system would also unduly interfere with the labor market. He had no sympathy with those who adopted the poor man's cry on those occasions, yet if he 'did not believe that it waa in that branch of the Legislature that the interests of the poor man would be protected, and most carefully looked after and impartially cared for, he would pot hold a seat iu the Council for another day. He would move as an amendment that the second reading of this Bill bo made an order of the day for that day six months. If he received an assurance that the oKjeciionable clause would not be insisted upon, he would ask leave to withdraw the amendment." The assurance having been given, the amendment was withdrawn by leave. Comment upon the foregoing is utterly unnecessary. The debate haa, however, served the purpose of conclusively establishing the inevitable fate in the Upper Chamber of New Zealand of any measure possessing the slightest claim to liberalism.