PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3015, 14 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Per PsEsr Agency.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WELLINGTON

Friday Evening. SPECIAL POWEBS . AND CONTBACTS BILL—

THE BBOOMHALL CONTBACT,

The House went into Committee on the Special Powers and Contracts Bill. In lieu of clause 4 in the schedule, a new clause was inserted to authorise. the Waiuku Volunteers to exercise land scrip.; The Attorney-General proposed to insert a new clause, to enable the Government to carry out an agreement with Mr Broomhall, for the sale to him of land at Te Aroha. He strongly denounced the sale to Mr Broomhall, stating that thousands of miners had left the Thames because they could not obtain, land,, although thdy were prepared to pay four times as 'much, as Mr Broomhall had undertaken to pay. The Attorney-Ge-neral contended that the credit of the Colony *was at stake, and the bargain conld not be repudiated. , The-Premier strongly opposed the now clause which, he said, would inflict injustice on the people pf the Thames.. He urged the committee to reject the clause moved by the Attorney-General-Mr Pjke denounced the schedule as containing a succession of swindles, for which he was called to order by the I Chairman. He concurred with the remarks of the Premier, and could not understand the Attorney-General acting i against the advice 1 of his chief, or how , the Government of the country >ooald be ' satisfactorily conducted under such circumstances. , Mr Murray-Aynsley said he would support the view of the. Attorney-General. • Mr Sees said he believed the AttorneyGeneral had not carefully considered this question, which was exceptional. The opening of this 50,000 acres would be an inestimable boon to \ the .people of Auckland. The Waste Lands Board had sold the land without legal authority—they might just as well have sold land at Waimate. The thiDg was a fraud on the face of it. ■ *

The Attorney-General referred to the power given to the Government in the Waste Lands-Act. The Crowd had not completed ita titfe when it sold to Mr Broomhal]; but was it to be repudiated, | now that it was completed P Major Atkinson said it was almost inconceivable that the Government should differ on a matter which the Attorney General held to be one of public morality. The 'House was distinctly aware when it authorised the sale that the land had not been finally acquired by the Government from the natives. He contended that the public faith- was pledged to the fulfilment' of the contract, but it that would injure settlement at the Thames, the straightforward course would be to empower the Agent-General to negotiate with Mr Broomhall to re-purchase the land, paying him fair compensation. Mr Whitaker contended that when the Act was passed by the Assembly, Mr Broomhall was unaware what land he would obtain. The hon. member for Waikato went, on to suggest that the written contract should be examined before the House finally provided for the ratification of the bargain. The Minister of Works said he believed no action had been taken in .England by Mr Broomhall.

Mr Montgomery suggested that all correspondence in connection with the

alleged contract be printed and circulated, and pending this that the clause be post* phoned. Mr Moss said Mr Broomhall had come to Auckland in the guise of a philanthropist, and not as a speculator. He made philanthropic speeches, but had a remark- ' ably good eye for land. He considered it would be wrong to pass the clause' before negotiating with Mr Broomhall as to compensation. The affair should be ' left by the House in • its present form, pending steps (o be taken to ascertain the exact terms of the bargain. ' - When the House resumed, at half-past 10, after the adjournment,' The Attorney-General asked leave to withdraw the amendment to ratify, the contract.

The Native Minister said the negotiations for Te Aroha block nerer had any actual existence until the Court sat at the Thames. The Waste Lands Board of Auckland sold Mr B.roomhall land oter which the Crown possessed not a shadow* of title, and they might as well hare sold private estate.. In 1874, the Provincial Government of Auckland made distinct promises that the land should be reserved for Thames settlers, and the Gjiieral Government subsequently made srarilar promises. There was no evidence that Mr Broomhatl had taken any steps to confirm lihe contract, but he had endeavoured to form a speculate company, from whom he was to receive £5000. He(MrSheehan)had looked into the contract in 1876, and found ; that it was wholly illegal. He would not be a party to a breach of any fair contract, but, on the other hand, either contracting j party must shew that it intends to adhere I to the conditions to which it was bound; bat nothing had been done,by Mr Broomhall to shew that he intended to carry out his part of the agreement in a bonafie man* ; ner., fie had not even sent anyone to spy out the goodness of the land, and take back the Scriptural bunches of grapes. -; He would advise that the amendment be withdraWn and a special bill be introduced* and if it were found that Mr Broomhall had been riding a waiting race for merely speculative purposes, Government should refund him whatever, money he had paid, with fair expenses, and keep the, land. It was absurdtosendeettlersoutpfthecokray - because they could not obtain land. He believed there'was not a single Broomhall settler representing the. company. - „ The clause was withdrawn.- : •. ; ■;