AUCKLAND WASTE LANDS BILL.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1852, 8 September 1874, Page 3

AUCKLAND WASTE LANDS BILL.

(Extracted trom Ilmmrd.)

The Hon. Dr Pollen thought it was a subject of regret that at this particular mbmenfc there should be before the Legislative Council three Waste Lands Bills, each of them differing in their provisions, and each of them relating to the disposal of lands which in point of soil, character, and general conditions, might be pronounced to bo absolutely and entirely alike. There was no reason, that he knew of, why at this moment there could not be one waste lands law for the whole of the North Island. There was no local condition that he knew of to prevent it. Unfortunately, there were political conditions which rondered such a uniformity impossible, but he himself had hopes that the day was not far distant when they might arrive at that desideratum. The intending emigrants would not then be puzzled, in choosing the locality in which they should set themselves down, to understand the many land laws in force in this island. Auckland had its Waste Lands Bill, Taranaki had its Waste Lands Bill before the Council, and he believed ; Wellington had its Waste Lands Bill before the Assembly. There was an annual crop of these Waste. Lands Bills. But to return to the Bill: the principal objection with respect to its policy related to the system of deferred payments'. Tho Oounoil was good enough to permit him to give his opinion of the subject upon a very recent ocoasion, when tho Otago Waste Lands Bill was before them; but the system of deferred payments in this Bill was entirely different from that which existed in the South. His objection to that particular system of. deferred payments was presented in its best aspect in the Bill, for there was no alteration in the price of land: in Otayo there was. . A person who took up land under the Bill would have to pay at the end of the term the full I price, and would have to perform certain | acts which were spscified. lfe had no 1 very grout faith ia the rigid execution of

the terms in -those matters, but the person who got the land had to pay 5 per cent, interest during his tenure of five years, to make certain specified improvements on the land, and was required at the end of that time to pay the full price. He still maintained his general objection to the principle, but in deference to the strong desire of those who were charged with the administration of public affairs in the province, he was willing to give way, and to allow the expression of the opinions of the legislative bodies in the provinces to have weight. He had no great faith in it, but would not put his individual opinion against that of those who were interested, and honestly interested, as the Superintendent of Auckland was, whom he was glad and proud to call his friend, and who had taken, in the cause of colonization, as loyal an interest 8S any man he ever knew. The Hon. Mr Johnston was good enough to answer the objection which the Hon, Mr Waterhouse made as to the character of the Bill, and to his (Dr. Pollen's) negligence in not having stated what necessity there was for it. He did not state the necessity, but-left, it to be inferred. One object of the Bill was' the classification, the codification, and the simplification of the waste lands laws of the Province of Auckland, reducing into one Act laws that were now scattered over a dozen. Next was the classification of land, which had never been attempted before in that province. Those really were the only reasons for the Bill, and they were quite sufficient, considering the purpose in view now of making, the provisions of the Auckland waste lands laws known, beyond the boundaries of the colony, for he believed that was the real purpose of the legislation. It should be of itself a sufficient reason to induce the Council to consider this Bill. His honourable friend Mr Holmes and others had strong objections to clause 78, with respect to depasturing cattle on the roads. This was a subject with, which, at thia time, it was hardly necessary for the General Assembly to concern • itself. Ihey had relegated the management of all those matters to the Highway Boards, who were supposed to know what was best for the interests of their immediate localities, who had complete power to deal with this question, and when the depasturing of cattle on the roads became a nuisance," to absolutely and entirely put an end to it. In his own part of the colony there had been a perpetual battle for a very long time, on the part of the small holders, for their rights in depasturing cattle on roads. The last victim, he thought, to a determination to depasture - cattle on the streets of Auckland wa3 a woman, who, after many contests, had found it necessary to . surrender and'go out of town. She was a countrywoman of his own, and bravely suffered the pains and; penalties of the law, until they became go severe that she was obliged to withdraw. As soon as depasturing cattle" on roads became a serious nuisance, which required to be suppressed, the good sense and force and power of the people in the district would very soon put an end to it; and honourable members might leave the matter to the looal authorities without concerning themselves about it. Clause 78 was the subject of a very fierce battle in the other House, where there were, very strong opinions on the question of trespass, and as to what was a substantial fence., There were persons who held that where land was not fenced no one had aright to complain of trespass, but he was not of that opinion at all. When a man acquired private property, he had acquired rights that ought to be respected. If he choose to leave his thousand aores of land unfenced, he did not think his neighbour had a right to trespass without hiß permission. He had no sympathy with the cry that was raised in that direction. With respeot to " what is a substantial fence," he would point out that almost all the : Highway Boards and the Provincial Councils had legislated upon that question. In some provinces it mmt a stone wall four feet six inches high," a four-rail fence, a hedge and bank, or a fence with six or seven wires; and persons of the character he had referred to, who ignored everything but their own will, would have no'difEculty in ascertaining the meaning of the - words " substantial fence." "As to the objections made by the Hon. Mr Holmeß, it was to be regretted that, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he had not made himself sufficiently audible, but he then said he proposed to invite the Committee to erase clauses 76 and 84 from the Bill. His honorable friend Mr Bonar objected to the to the Superintendent in clause 79". That was simply a conaolidation of the laws which now existed in the province. It was a provision contained in the Act.of 1867, and had remained inforceeyer since then. .Q]ape 80 was a new clause, and it was an odd one, no doubt. He imagined it was intro-. duced to' prevent litigious persons from getting into disputes and giving trouble to other parties. Honorable' gentlemen who had dealings with waste lands in an administrative capacity, knew very well how irritable and unreasonable people often were upon the subject of dealing with waste lands. Disputes might arise between rival claimants whicli might require to be settled on the spot, and this clause gave the Superintendent the power to adjust them. It was provided that £10 should be deposited, probably, with the view of preventing frivolous complaints. He would not at all insist upon the retention of the clause. What was to be done with the sums that were not returned to the disputants he did not know. . There seemed to be no difference of opinion except as to the details of the Bill, and he was very glad to think that it was going to be read a second time. Ho hoped it would have all the beneficial effects upon por-_ tions of the Province of Auokland which' its promoters desired it to have,

Bill read a Becoad time.