The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1878.

Waipawa Mail, Volume I, Issue 8, 9 October 1878, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1878.

The debate on tlic Land Tax Bill was one of the most interesting which has taken place during the present session. Mr Wakefield, an avowed supporter of the Ministry, but who in reality represents the Canterbury runholders, made an attempt to have the Bill committed, so as to strike out what he termed the objectionable feature of classing leasehold with freehold land, lie urged that as the Bill stood pastoral lands and land leased from ’ the natives would be rated to the same extent as though they were freehold property. The Government were practically going to tax a very limited and struggling class out of all proportion to other people. It would amount to a deliberate breach of faith with men who had leased lands from the ftdVfher ~ had \Tiose ~wTioliad leased native lands any warning of what the Government intended to do in the matter. The tax would be a most unjust one. It was uiftvorthy of tlje Ministry to concur in a provision that would press most unfairly and unjustly on a certain class of people. Mr Stout considered there was no injustice whatever in the tax. The - pastoral tenants had to pay nothing . for improvements and stock, and they could well afford to pay the tax. lie believed that if the Land Bill had come on this year instead of last, the pastoral t emits would have been made to pay thirty or forty per cent, more n than their present rent. In reply to this argument, Major Atkinson made some capital points, lie was Premier of the Ministry which intro- _ duced the Land Bill, aiul still adhered § to his opinion that a fair and reasonable rent had been imposed. He , said : —“ I was then Premier, and the Attorney-General was then in a minority. Now he is in a majority, - and his Premier has been going all 1 over the country talking about the r pastoral tenants depriving the country 1 of a certain amount of rent to which it was entitled. It is a public scandal for any Government to repeat this statement without bringing in a Bill to impose a proper amount of rent, and even going to the country upon it. Let them either say that thev were laboring under a mistake, or not take credit for seeing this great monopoly going on, and at the same time slirink from a performance of their duty. If the Government believe that the country is not getting enough rent from the pastoral tenants, then it is their bounden duty to bring down a Bill to set the matter right.” There is a strong reason for the Government not adopting the suggestion made by the lion, member for Egmont, and one which he must fully i recognise himself. An Act passed 1 the Legislature last session which > gave the Canterbury runholders a ten * years’ tenure, and any effort now to annul these leases would be regarded j as an attempt at repudiation. On this question of the Canterbury runs e there is a great deal of misconception. * A number of people, otherwise well 1 informed on the politics of the 1 country, r un away' with the idea s that the land is shut up from o settlement. Mr Rolleston has y frequently complained of the mis- a representation on this question. n During the debate on Thursday last, , he said :—“ There were sections in the Act of last session under which the ( Government of the day might lay aside blocks of country to be settled ai on deferred payment, and the run- P ] holders had not the least power to | sa prevent it. The Premier knew full cj

well that the pastoral had no security of tenure. Tufit* tgDjire could be determined at jarfr' the land might be proclaimed iiKblbcks under the deferred p^pßSHjPß^fistem. Why then did not the Ffhpmifcr bring out his hundreds of set them down on the land instead ofAibsolutely neglecting the settlement--of the country. How much better it would be to do that than to hurl charges against a certain class, and to misrepresent the law to persons who knew nothing of the law, in order to deceive them.” Sir George Grey’s reply was characteristic. He denied that he was deceiving the Canterbury runholders, or that he was treating them unfairly ; and condemned the action which the House last year had taken in reference to the runs. Every child in New Zealand had suffered, and he challenged Mr Rolleston to meet him at Christchurch and discuss whether Mr Rolleston’s conduct had been fair to the people of Canterbury in reference to these runs and land administration generally. If the honorable gentleman did not like Christchurch, he would meet him in Wellington, or any part of the colony. Mr Rolleston is not likely to accept the invitation. "Whether his case was good or had lie would be no match for the astute Premier. The Government succeeded in defeating the motion for recommittal, and the Laud Tax Bill was carried in its integrity.