GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 366, 14 August 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [By Electric Telegraph.] {From a correspondent of the Press,') Friday, August 13. The Speaker took the chair at 2 30 p.m. Mr Reeves asked whether under the provisions of the Act for the Abolition of the Provinces, the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works will continue in possession of its present privilege, whereby 25 per cent of the gross amount of the land revenue raised within the district is secured to it by the Act of the General Assembly ; and if so, whether the Road Boards included in the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works will receive the same grants in aid of rates out of the general land fund of the provincial dis tricts as are promised to the other Road Boards. Ministers replied yes; and as to the second part, any inequalities would be regulated by a special vote. ' Mr Swanson asked when the House may expect the Bill for the Re-adjustment of the Representation. Ministers replied that it would depend on the progress made with the other business when the Representation Bill would be brought down. CONFISCATED LANDS. In asking for leave to bring in a Bill to enact that all Orders in Council in relation to the confiscated land which may be hereafter issued by the Governor, or which may have been issued since the 20th of July last, shall be null and void, Sir G. Grey asked the Government if he would be allowed to proceed in the ordinary course to the second reading of the Bill.

Sir D. McLean said the motion was of such a character that the) were bound to oppose the introduction of the Bill. Sir G. Grey —Then he was at liberty to offer a few reasons for asking leave to introduce the Bill. In the first place it had been stated a few days before by the Native Minister that the time had now come when the confiscated lands should be handed over to be treated as ordinary lands of the colony. He also understood the Minister to make a statement to this effect—that the Government, while they admitted committing one illegal transaction, were about to issue Orders in Council to render that transaction lawful. That was the point to which he especially objected, for he considered that there was too much secret legislation existing in the colony. When they admitted that an illegal transaction had taken place, a full inquiry should be made by an impartial tribunal, and should be set right by the House or the Courts of the Colony. He objected to any private arrangement by which any individual bestowed on himself or others a most valuable property in breach of the law. He objected to the General Government doing anything in a private room, because such it really was, and the Governor could know nothing upon the subject —sanctioning that which was contrary to law. He believed sincerely that if he was not convinced that such was the case, he would not say that most unlawful transactions had been committed by the present Government with reference to the public lauds of the colony. He believed that in a large number of instances, the land was being held without any lawful title. A new Parliament was about to be returned, and it would institute a full, fair, and open enquiry into those unlawful transactions. This measure he introduced was intended to prevent giving any individuals legal titles until they had established their claims to the land. He believed a new Legislature always dealt liberally with regard to private individuals. Every case would be separately examined, a full and careful enquiry made, and the country would have a perfect knowledge of these unlawful transactions, which had been of magnitude. The truth was, at the present moment the Government had, he believed, without the knowledge of the country, but with the acquiescence of the House, though not with its knowledge, provided two means of dealing with the public lands in a manner that really took the transactions from public notice. The first of these means was by Orders in Council, so the Government became their own legislators upon subjects, and afterwards, admitting having broken their own laws, proposed to proceed to make new laws to ratify what they themselves did, instead of taking means of dealing with the public lands so that the public had a full knowledge of what the transactions were. The House had absolutely allowed laws to be made to enable the Government to legislate in favor of individual persons, and not for the public good. He would give a notable illustration of what he meant; under one law of the colony it was enacted that the Governor might by proclamation declare that any land acquired by means of the £700,000 at the disposal of the Government, should be waste lands of the the Crown, subject to being dealt with under the provisions of the Waste Lands Act in force in the provinces in which the lands were situated. That law was confirmed by another law, passed on September 30th, 1873. Into that Act a clause was introduced, of which he was satisfied the House had no knowledge, which the Government intended to use, as had been done. In point of fact, on August 31st, 1874, a clause was introduced in the Bill by which the Governor was authorised by proclamation to hand over to any province the lands purchased out of that £700,000, and to revoke that proclamation without the knowledge or consent of the provincial authorities. On September a proclamation was issued in reference to a block of land in Auckland. The block in question was of considerable magnitude ; but two or three individuals, whom the Government wished to favor, had taken out of the proclamation that portions of the block their property, and by that means their timber licenses were in point of fact placed in different position to the lands of any other persons in the province of Auckland. He contended that the Government should have no such power. There should be one fair land law in every province, open to all the Queen’s subjects—one law for the rich and poor—one for the supporters and opponents of the Government. [Opposition cheers.] All should possess equal rights. When Orders in Council were issued under the regulations for the disposal of the confiscated land without warning to the public at large that they would be given upon other terms than those contained in the Orders in Council. The Government should not give to any individual or party property which he had heard valued at a quarter of a million. That land should not have been obtained on such terms, It was an unjust act, and means

should be taken to prevent it being completed until a full and fair enquiry was made into it. He proposed to do this. He would have the laws so that all people should be equally liable. These confiscated lands are dealt with according to the ordinary land laws, and the Government should not have the powers to make new laws to ratify unrighteous acts. Let them wait until a new Parliament, which would be unprejudiced and make a fair enquiry into all the circumstances. With that object in view, he implored the House to pass this Bill, which was just in principle, fair in itself, and could inflict injury upon no one. [Loud Opposition cheers.] Sir D. McLean had a few evenings ago intimated that the confiscated land would be placed under the ordinary land laws of the colony. That intimation was clear and distinct. The time had passed away for maintaining laws which at a critical period were necessary in connection with the confiscated lands. He would take exception to the remarks of the member for Auckland city west, wherein he stated that private arrangements had been made by the Government in private rooms about a public estate of the colony. Such assertions were not borne out by facts. He could answer that every transaction by the Government had been open and fair, and was open for the inspection of anyone. He invited the hon gentleman to name any particular case he had in view, and the Government would give every explanation, and consider it before passing any proclamation giving legal effect. Why should they wait for a new Parliament. Why not dispose of the matter at once. [Ministerial cheers.J If such imputations were made, it it was due to the Government that there should be the fullest, careful, and immediate enquiry. The Government were acting legally and constitutionally in refusing their consent to the Bill, and he was satisfied the House and country Would, after enquiry, find they had taken ample care of the public estate in every transaction. If the hon gentleman desired an investigation the Government would give him every assistance. Mr Fitzherbert said, to hear Sir D, McLean speaking one would have thought the present Government were the very embodiment of innocence, but he had heard a promise made two years ago to introduce a Bill handing over the confiscated lands to provinces in which they were situated ; but when he applied for the redemption of that promise in respect to’ Wellington some months afterwards, and when he had taken care to ascertain the amount of the land sales within the province amounted to £20,000, the Provincial Exchequer only received £53. Therefore he placed little reliance on Ministers’ promises. He referred to rumors of large dealings in the North Island. These should be set at rest. The management of the vast estate in the North Island which equitably belonged to the provinces had too long remained a mystery, and if the provinces had been put into something like legal possession of it, much of the existing discontent would never have occurred. The administration of that estate had been smuggled by the General Government. No one in the House knew anything about it, and he welcomed the appearance of the member for Auckland who had courage to speak his mind. Mr Stafford had objected to the administration of the lands by’Orders in Council, but he quite remembered the exceptional reasons why the confiscated lands had been so administered. It must have been patent to the member for Auckland West ; he himself was a party to the Act by which those lands were so administered. At that time the lands were liable to claims whether equitable or not, but it was politic to be in a position to entertain the claims of the natives to the lands of which they had been dispossessed during the war operations, whom it was nec n ssary to conciliate by giving back portions of the land to induce them to come and settle upon them. But he wholly refused to accept the assertion of the member for the Hutt that they equitably belonged to the inasmuch as if there ever was a purely colonial estate, which provinces had nothing to do with, it was these very confiscated lands. The very serious charges of the member for Auckland West against the Government amounted to a direct want of confidence. [Ministerial cheers.J If he meant anything at all, it was. not becoming a gentleman holding his high position in the country to bring such charges* in an indirect manner without at the same time giving an expression of his entire want of confidence in Ministers, and desiring that the House should be tested as. to whether his feelings were shared in by a majority of the House. [Cheers.] He did not conceive any gentlemen reogniising what was due to their position, who would submit, especially under the observation with which hon gentleman accompanied his motion—accusations which he should not be allowed to make without testing the House as‘ to how far it agreed with him in the course he proposed to take. The position of the member for Hutt to the member for Auckland West was like that of a. Newfoundland dog— The Speaker called Mr Stafford to order, Mr Stafford submitted, but reminded the Speaker that Lord Fortescue used exactly the same expression in the House of Commons, yet he was never called to order. The member for Hutt tried to induce the House to believe that the object of the member for Auckland West was to get an immediate and searching investigation—but it was nothing of the sort. [Cheers.J He had listened to Sir George Grey’s remarks, which were a direct insult to the present House. He had said that the matter should be referred to the next Parliament, as a fair and impartial tribunal. He had also heard the member for Hutt once say that it was only since the advent of Sir G. Grey to the House that it was competent for a member to express his opinions —that before they were a parcel of cowards, afraid toj express] themselves, or speak out. He (Mr Stafford) had sat in the House continuously since 1858, but had never seen the attitude such as described. He denied that members were so dastardly and cowardly as the member for Hutt instanced. He remembered an occasion when that member himself remonstrated for three days with expressive graveness. From beginning toend, the observations of the member for Hutt were an insult to the House and his old colleagues. He knew nothing of the transaction alluded to by Sir G. Grey,, hut he could conceive it possible that the effect of such a Bill as proposed, if carried, would be to occasion claims for compensation, and do a great injustice to individuals. The House should not be lightly asked, in absolute ignorance.of the effects of the Bill, to destroy

what was the law, for the Orders in Council were as legal as any laws passed by the House. If it had been an improper action, if the Orders in Council had not been faithfully carried out, if any action had been taken in regard to the disposal of any confiscated lands except under the authority of the Orders’in Council, then it was a fair subject for inquiry and investigation—[cheers]— which the Ministry could not successfully resist. [Hear, hear.] As was said by the Native Minister, that would be the time for Sir G. Grey to approach the subject. If he moved for a committee of inquiry he (Mr Stafford) would have been bound to support him. That House was a sufficiently impartial tribunal. [Cheers.] Why wait for a new Parliament if they were anxious for the earnest investigation which the member for Hutt had led the House to believe; why postpone the investigation, and in meantime let float over the colony against the Government accusations, which if the Government were guilty, amounted, to saying they were virtually guilty of jobbery. [Cheers and noes J Sir G. Grey did not use those terms, hut that was what his insinuations meant. At no time could the Government allow such imputations to remain, and still more in view of the impending general election, when it would be urged and repeated at the hustings that the Government was corrupt. Let the charges be brought forward, and, if proved true, the Government instead of being supported would be opposed at the hustings. He would support the Government in what he considered was the proper action. If Sir G. Grey would move for a Koyal Commission, or select committee, or any other way he might consider an impartial tribunal to investigate the matters — he would have his (Mr Stafford’s) cordial support. [Loud cheers.] Mr Sheehan would not take upon himself to say anything wrong had been done, but he knew the public mind in the North had been greatly disturbed in reference to the transaction. If the Government courted enquiry, why oppose its initial stage. [“ Oh.”] The proper course was to oppose the measure on the second reading. [“ Oh.”] The present course was without precedent in the colony, and the Government were really playing into the hands of the member for Auckland West by refusing the inquiry. [“ No.”] It was quite true the motion might have the effect of stopping dealings with the confiscated lands ; but if the Government would undertake not to issue any Orders in Council ratifying these transactions until the House had time to inquire into the matter, he thought the House would be satisfied, and on that assurance the mover would withdraw. [Opposition cheers.] Hon Major Atkinson charged the last speaker with trying to mil lead the House. The mover had not said a single word about an inquiry by that House. It was an attempt to condemn the Government before an inquiry wasmade. [Cheers.] Had the Government not come forward at the first moment 7 So long as the present Government occupied the Treasury benches, they would never submit to such an open declaration of their unfitness to occupy their seats. [Cheers.] There was no mistaking the meaning of the motion, whatever the member for Hutt’s opinion was. He stated that the Government did intend bringing down a Bill to give effect to his statement in the final statement re the confiscated land. Let the member for Auckland West name any particular cases he wished inquired into, and the Government would give him every possible assistance. He asked the House to refuse the motion. Mr R. Wood said a great deal of strong language had been used over what appeared a very simple affair. He could recollect no single instance of a member being refused leave to introduce a Bill. It was without precedent in the colony of an attempt of the kind being construed into a vote of want of confidence. If every question, however trivial, was to be considered as a want of confidence on which the party strength was to be gathered, without reference to the merits of the question, there would be an absolute stop to anything in the shape of enquiry—["No” )—or freedom of investigation. [“ No.”J The first step to enquiry was to give leave to introduce the Bill. On the second reading it would be fully debated, the accusations made and the defence heard on both sides. In committee every clause would debated, and a decision arrived at. What the member for Auckland West asked for was a full enquiry by the House, and the Government were trying to burke that. A gentleman holding a high position in the colony told him the House of Representatives was unlike any other House. He (Mr Wood) could tell the reason why. In the English Parliament men spoke their minds and took an independent course, but this Parliament more resembled the old French Parliament of the ancient regime which registered decrees, than the great Parliament of England which defended the people’s liberties. [Loud Opposition cheers.] Mr Reeves thought the Ministerial supporters were trying to throw dust in the ey< 8 of the House. Mr Stafford must have forgotten the distinct charge made in the other House on a matter bearing intimately upon the present. If no one else would, he would state the charge. It was that the Government, in contravention of the law they themselves made, and of the regulations in ' Council, sold a valuable estate in the centre of the North Island, containing 80,000 acres, to Messrs Russell, Charles Taylor, Murdoch, and others, for 2s 6d per acre, virtually. [Cheers.] Certainly, it was said 5s per acre was given for it, but it was an express stipulation, that half the amount was to be returned for making a road to enable those gentlemen to make their estate valuable. That charge demanded investigation. What was the answer given in another place. The Premier admitted it was d«ne contrary to law, but in spite of that the Government confirmed their act, and gave the people a title to the land. That transaction was not only unlawful, but an unwise and wanton waste of the public estate. [Opposition cheers.] Not only was the capacity of the Government at stake, but their honor. How were they met on taking the first step in bringing in a Bill to stop the ratification of an illegal transaction, so that there might be a full enquiry 1 Why! with a process never before attempted which effectually burked enquiry. Such a step reflected poorly on the judgment of the Government and their supporters. Mr Montgomery said if it was intended to bring forward a want of confidence motion, Sir George Grey would have consulted his party, which had not been done. He hoped, seeing the manner in which the matter was taken, that the motion would be withdrawn —[“No”] —in order that a full enquiry might be made. After what had

taken place, it should be left to the Government’s sense of what was due to the public to take any further action in reference to the transaction alluded to.

Mr Rolleston and Mr Bunny urged that Hie Government must, after what had occurred, move for a full enquiry. Mr Murray moved as an amendment—- “ That there should be a full enquiry into all matters connected with the sale of the confiscated land.” Messrs J. B. Brown, Shepherd, Joseph Shephard, spoke in support of the action of the Government, and Mr Thomson against it. [Press Agency.] Wellington, August 14. On the House resuming at 7.30 yesterday evening, Sir D. McLean moved that the debate on the Abolition Bill be postponed until Sir George Grey’s motion be disposed of. Mr Reid opposed this, saying that the question of abolition was more important. Mr Rolleston opposed the postponement of Sir George Grey’s motion as the question of the administration of native lands was too important to be shelved. Mrs Fitzherbert thought that the Government sheuld give some good reason when they proposed to intercept the ordinary business of the House. It was only adopted by Ministers when a vote of want of confidence was under discussion. Such was not the case now, and it was not fair to pervert and torture the words of Sir George Grey’s motion into such meaning. The question was put and decided on the voices that the debate on Sir Geo Grey’S motion be continued. Mr White moved as an amendment—- “ That the question be referred to a committee of the whole House.” This was ruled by the Speaker to be out of order. Mr White then moved—“ That leave be given to introduce the proposed Bill that day six months.” Mr Reid blamed the member for Timaru for making this a party question. Unpleasant rumours, which might be baseless, were afloat respecting the disposal of certain confiscated lauds, and should be disposed of, and the Government should not have derogated from their position by refusing leave to introduce the Bill, Recollecting the strict enquiry made into the sale of certain lands in Otago, he wondered why the same course should not be adopted now. Mr May considered the introduction of the proposed Bill would be tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, and if the Government permitted it they would virtually admit having committed wrong. He said the block of land referred to had been open for sale for several years, and that the purchase of the same and the formation of a road to it had been of very great benefit to the district. Messrs Gibbs and Pyke thought the motion necessarily involved a vote of want of confidence.

Mr Kelly said the land referred to was only third class; there was plenty more of the same kind he would be glad to see given away to enterprising companies to utilise. Much as had been said about the value of this swamp land, he believed it not improbable that the purchasers would lose £IOO,OOO over it. He would vote against the introduction of the Bill. Hr George Grey replied and said if the Government had complied with the resolution of the Legislative Council that the confiscated land should cease to be sold under orders in Council, his motion would not have been introduced. He had been shocked to hear the Native Minister say they intended to legalise an illegal act, by an Order in Council, His object would be obtained if the Government gave him an assurance that they would take no step to legalise the sale until due enquiry into the circumstances had been made. .

Mr Bowen said the Government were prepared to state what they intended to do but not until .the present motion is disposed of. Sir George Grey continued —He had never contemplated his motion as one of want of confidence, and had not consulted any of his party, and if he was forced to a division he should leave the House. A division was called for, when Sir George and nearly all of the Opposition walked out. The result was— Ayes ••• J Noes 42

Sir D. McLean then announced that the Government would move for a Select Committee to enquire into the whole matter. In the meantime no Order in Council in reference thereto would be issued.

The abolition debate was resumed by Mr T. L. Shepherd in support of the Bill. He considered that Provincial institutions were now quite useless. They were all very well in early days, when means of communication were very difficult, but now, with steamers and telegraph, the country can be easily and much more economically governed from one centre. He thought the outlying districts would fare much better when Provincial Governments were abolished. He was sorry Sir George Grey should allow Opposition members to take advantage of his “ honest simplicity” by making use of his name and prestige, for it was not under the banner of Provincialism they ranged themselves, but rather their cry was they were led by Sir George Grey. He believed the gold duty would have been abolished long ago -ibut for Provincial Governments, because it was Provincial revenue, but when the Provinces are abolished, and the gold duty goes to the consolidated revenue, the question would be treated as one of policy, without reference to Provinces, and it would then be found that gold mining was an industry to be enouraged and not exceptionally taxed. Mr Shepherd spoke for about an hour to a very thin House.

Mr Brandon spoke in favor of Provincial institutions.

Mr Jackson will vote for the Bill in all its stages, and endeavour to get it passed this session.

On the motion of Mr Rolleston, the debate was adjourned, and the House rose at midnight,

The following is the division list on Sir Geo. Grey’s motion:— Noes—Andrew, Bluett, Swanson. Ayes—Atkinson, Ballancc, Bowen, J. C. Brown, Bryce, Buckland, Carrington, Creighton, Curtis, Gibbs, Ingles, Jackson, Johnston, Katene, W. Kelly, T. Kelly, Kenny, Luckie, May, McGillivray, McGlashan, McLean, Mervyn, Monro, Ormond, Parata, Parker, Pearce, Pyke, Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, J. Shepherd, T, L. Shepherd, Stafford, Steward, Tribe, Wales, Webb, Williams, Wilson. Absent members —Bradshaw, J. E, Brown, Cuthbertson, O’Neill, Wakefield,