THE WASTE LANDS ACT AND THE NEW PROVINCES ACT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 2, Issue 91, 18 June 1859, Page 3

THE WASTE LANDS ACT AND THE NEW PROVINCES ACT.

Lettee fbom James E. EitzGeeaid Esq., io John Haxli Esq. (From the Lyttleton Times, June 1.) London, March 12, 1859. My dear Hall, — You will learn by this (or last) mail that the Crown has disallowed the Waste ' Lands Act of 1858. This will increaso or rather prolong the confusion and uncertainty in which the laws for the disposal of Crown Lands in New Zealand are involved. It may be of some use therefore if I call the attention of your friends to the state of the land question with a view to future legislation. In doing so, lam guided by the aspect which the question bears, not only in the colony, but to its friends and to intending emigrants on this side of the water. To commence from the beginning. The Constitution Act intended that the power of disposing ' of the waste lands should rest in the General Assembly. When that Assembly first met in 1854, we found that the Governor, under the Constitution and Boyal Instructions, was vested- with a power of "making regulations 0 for 'the disposal of the waste lands (a power which Sir G-. Grey had already exercised) pending any action of the General Assembly ; but we found two additional facts — First, that there was was not a uniform law in existence for all tho'Colony. Sir G. Grey's new regulations of 4th March, 1853, were in force in the Northern Island and Nelson, whilst Canterbury and Otago had each their own system. Secondly, we found that there was a very 6trong — I may say universal — feeling, that no one set of regulations would bo found applicable to six different settlements, whose history, origin, circumstances, and opinions, were as distinct as if they had been separated in different parts of tho world, instead of being accidentally thrown together in one colony. The Assembly did in my opinion pass a measure which, considering the state of excitement existing, and tho party struggles going on, reflects great credit on its judgment. It passed the Waste Lands Act of 1854, by which the power of making regulations which it found vested by the Crown in the Governor was continued in his hands, limited only by one condition, namely, that ho should make no regulations for any Province contrary to the wishes of the Superintendent and Provincial Council of that Province. This law substantially effected all that the Colony required. I am at a loss to, imagine even now how it can be amended. There were, however, some who thought that it was a mere evasion of the Constitution, Act; that it virtually placed the power of legislating in tho hands of the Provincial Councils, and that it would be better to do so directly. They thought too that the Crown would disallow our Act. Tins party therefore drafted a bill called the Provincial Wuste Lands Act, 1854, by which the General Assembly gave itself power (the Constitution Act notwithstanding) to empower the- Provinciul Legislatures- to make laws for the disposal of the Waste Lands. I was always of opinion that 6uchan Act was contrary to the Constitution Act, and therefore illegal; but as it was to be reserved for the consent of the Crown it could do no harm to pass it, and I voted for jt. It was an experiment; and, if legal, other advantages which I cannot now mention would spring out of it. This then was the legislation of 1854: The Waste Lands Act, 1554, and the Provincial Waste Lands Act, 1854; the former to come into operation at once, the latter reserved. The Crown did not disallow, that is, sanctioned, the first, and positively assented to the second. Under the first Act eomo of the Provincial authorities suggested to the Government the regulations they wished, and the Governor issued them accordingly. Nothing could work better than tho Act where the people availed themselves of it. The Canterbury and Otago, and, I believe, one set of the Auckland regulations were put in force under it. So far, there was little complication ; but the fate of the Provincial Waste Lands Act, 1854, the twin-brother Act, was the first occasion of perplexity. To our amazement the Colonial Office assented to this Act. It is not to be wondered at that the colony, finding that the Act was assented to, concluded that in tho opinion of English lawyers the Act was valid. And then the As-embly proceeded to legislate on the assumption of its validity. Accordingly, in 1856 the Assembly passed a 'Waste Lands Act, 1856,' formally and linaily handing the waste lands over to the Provinces ; that is, enabling the Provincial Councils to legislate generally for the Crown Lands. The Colonial Oineo disallowed this Act on the ground that it was contrary to the Constitution Act . Row, would it not have saved us much trouble and perplexity if they had made up their minds on this pomt two years before, and not assented to the reserved Act of I'Sai ! E*?a)Jy all the present confusion is baoud on this one infatuated Act of generosity of the Colonial Office. Observe what follows. On the passing of tfce Act of 1856. the Provinces began to legislate. Canterbury fortunately and wisely used her power only to make some unimportant alterations in the wording of her well-considered regulations, but other Provinces were compelled by circumstances to pass whole new codes. Auckland, as you know, especially introduced a new system, that of giving away sections of land to all new comers. The Auckland scheme has been advertised widely over the whole United Kingdom; shiploads of emigrants have sailed to the colony with the promise of land on arrival in their pockets. . In the midst of all this the Act of 1856 is disallowed, that 'is to say, the law giving the Provincial Legislatures power to make laws is declared to be repealed. Therefore the Provincial legislatures have no pow.er tormake laws for" the wasto lands, arid it becomes a question whether the laws they have already made are not invalid. At this moment' no man can say for certain whether any valid title to any land in New Zealand can be derived under a -Provincial' Act. I am clearly of opinion that those titles are invalid an.d must be made the subject- of ex post facto Legislation. At the same time I admit there is an argument, though afeebio one, to be made on the other side. But, when the whole country is placarded with promises to give land to immigrants, it is in my opinion the bounden duty of the Colonial Olfice, for the public

protection, to ascertain the legal 3tate of this question j and, should they be advised that these free grants of land are illegal^ to give that opinion the same publicity as the promise of land published by the agents of the Auckland Government, And I am bound to say that the Auckland Government has not acted a fair part by the English public in not, the very instant they knew that the Act of 1856, on which their legislation was based, had been disallowed, taking the opinion of counsel, and fully instructing their agents, either on the one hand to publish that opinion that their proceedings were legal, or on the other to discontinue at once all farther operations. To say the least, thoy have been very ill advised to simply go on issuing their promises this country, when there was recognised and obvious doubt whether they could tegally fulfil those promises by giving a valid title. We come now to the last act — that of 1858 : an act passed to set all matters at rest for ever. That act legalises all existing regulations, quoting thcin in a schedule. A very loose and mischievous piece of legislation, for it includes regulations undoubtedly valid with those invalid. However, it would no doubt have set the matter at rest ; it would have quieted the doubts about the A\ickland ffeb grants." But the act is reserved for the assent of the Crown, and the Crown refuses its assent j the whole question is therefore put into the same position in which it was before the passing of the last act. What is that position ? I desire to state this part of the case distinctly, in order to clear up doubts which are prevalent and hurtful to the Colony on this side of the water. The acts of 1556 and 1858 are repealed. The Provincial Waste Lands Act of 1854 is inoperative. The Waste Lands Act of 1854 stands. All regulations under this last act are valid, and the law of the land. And in those provinces in which no regulations were passed under the act of 1854, the lands are disposable solely under Sir George Grey's regulations of 4th March. That I believe to be the existing state of the law. I have not all the regulations with their dates before me, but I belivee that Wellington, Kelson and New Plymouth lands are disposable under the regulations of 4th Marcn, 1853. The Canterbury and Otago regulations stand as they were fixed in 1855 ; and the recent Auckland regulations are invalid, those being in force which were issued by proclamation of the government in 1855 the beginning of 1856. I come now to the question what to do for the future. Let us ask ourselves what do we want. The Colonial Office wants to have an immediate and absolute control over all the lands, in order to hold them as security for the guaranteed loan of half a million. The General Government too appears to desire to recover the control over tho waste lands which they were pledged to abandon, The provinces are resolved, and I hope never will abandon that resolve, that one get of regulations shall not be imposed by central authority to the sacrifice of local interests. The small-farmers of Auckland and Taranaki, the gold-finders of Nelson, and the squatters of Canterbury and Otago havo all an interest in maintaining this doctrine most essential to the progress of the- country. Now, let me ask you to consider what can be done more than is done by the act of 1854 to satisfy all parties. Tho Colonial Office by instructions to the Governor gets its ample security for the loan. Tho fact of the Governor being the author legally of all regulations vests the fullest power in tho Central Government, whilst the provinces are fully const! Lted by having the privilege of recommending or advising tho regulations to be adopted. The course I would then ventivre to suggest to my friends in the colony would be to resist tho passing of any fresh act whatever. It is true the Ministers said lust session that they would not advise the Governor to issue any fresh regulations under that act. But their act of 1858 being disallowed, and there being shown a strong feeling against passing any other, lam sure as sensible man they would perceive that they could attain ull reasonable objects by that act. Be assured of this, that any fresh act will curtail tho powers of the provinces, and take away their voice in the management of the lands. The tendencies of the Central Government become daily more centralizing 5 and the whole influence of the Colonial Office, with the screw of this unfortunate loan, will be in the same direction. To the act of 1554 the southern provinces owe the great strides they have made in colonization during the last five years. It is the only act which has Btood the test of lawyers and has satisfied all parties. It is the last bulwark of local government in the matter of the lands. Ido not mean to say that there are not many objections to it, but I am certain it is incomparably better than anything which the relalutioa of parties and the position we stand in to the mother country will enable us to obtain. And now as to Auckland. She ought to be at once, for her own credit and the honor of the colony, relieved from tho very questionable position in -which she stands. There ought to be no doubt about tho legality of her titles. I would suggest to her to have her present regulations at once issued by tho Governor on the recommendation of tho Provincial Council, and Superintendent, under tho act of 1854. Surely the Superintendent would be glad to accept this course, and the Government coiild hardly refuse it. It is the speediest, and not a day ought to elapso in putting an end to doubts affecting the integrity of her conduct towards her immigrants. And now on the general question of the aspect of the New Zealand land question, in this country. lam persuaded that it is no drawback there being six different codes for the six different provinces. New Zealand is one colony in theory — , and . in theory and artificial Government only. In fact it is, what it has well been called, "the six colonies of New Zealand." When a colonist is going from England to New Zealand, he has to go in a different ship to whatever part lie goes to. If he goes to Kew South Wales— to any part of it — he sails in a Sydney ship. He might indeed go in a Moreton Bay ship, but for this very reason that Moreton Bay is- becoming independent of Sydney and really a separate colony. The Government are just going to make it into a separate colony. But no one ever goes to "New Zealand" : ships are not laid on for "New Zealand." . We go to Auckland, or Wellington, or Otago, as avc have local interests. or sympathies in those places. There is then no more reason why .one uniform system of settlement should prevail in/these differ-

i ent coloniea than in any other. On the contrary, i the fact of having six different centres of colonil zation has the greatest effect in rapidly coloni- ■ zing the country. Viewing the question then , from this Bide^pf the water, I am persuaded that ■ the advantages to be gained by uniformity and • centralization are imaginary — advantages only to ; the eye of the red tapist ; whilst the feet of hay- , ing six engines at work to people the colony, with . six agencies in this country instead of one, is a i positive benefit, to be exchanged for no other system without positive loss. And recollect that uniformity and centralization in the disposal of ■ the wasto lands will result in uniformity and cen- ; tralization in the operation of colonising. I thercforo hope that the attempt being made to reverse the policy of 1854 may be steadily resisted by every friend of the colony. But there is an evil in the state of the land question which I will advert to in the hope that it may be remodied ; and that is its want of stability. It is not the number of regulations in the different provinces, but the ever changing sets of regulations in the same province, which do the mischief. lam really unable to say how often the Auckland regulations have not been altered in the last five years. This is most mischievous to the conduct of any regular emigration from the mother country. The land regulations ought to bo settled once for all in each province. How admirably this has succeeded in Canterbury. Canterbury fixed ita regulations in 1855, and they have not been altered since. The result has been a regular and large annual increase of tho land sales. And when the regulations are settled it is essential that there should be some means of knowing in England what they are. You would be surprised at the difficulty anyone has in finding out what are tho terms on which land can be bought in any particular part of New Zealand, solely because the provinces do not take care to send copies of their regulations to be published in England. lam sure you will join with me in rejoicing that the Crown has not sanctioned this last Waste Lands Act, and I hope the Provincial party, and indeed all friends of real local government and rapid colonization will oppose any further alteration of the act of 1854, which has been shown to be so well adapted to the wants of the colony. I regret I have not time to enter upon other questions. One only I -will mention — the act for making new provinces. I was delighted to see that the Canterbury members one and all opposed that most unconstitutional measure. Taking the example of the United States, we find that, although there ia a constitutional law on the subject, yet Congress had kept in its own hands the final act of declaring any new territory or state to be admitted into the Union. Why the General Assembly should have abandoned. ,that most important function and given it up into the hands of Ministers, who are sure to use it for party purposes, I cannot imagine. I read our Superintendent's speech on that subject with great pleasure. In the case of the Ahuriri especially, where its lands were pledged to the debts of the Wellington Province, the division, if necessary, on which I give no opinion, ought to have been made the subject of the most special and careful enactment by the General Assembly. And it is clear that each case ought to be dealt with separately. But on the whole question of new provinces I hold a very strong opinion : that these machines wore intended to be Governments and not Hoadboards or Vestries. If tho subdivision be extended beyond tho real natural separate colonies into which New Zealand is divided, the Constitution will have undergone a radical change. There were six colonies, all formed separately from England, holding direct communication with England, not.with one another or with any common metropolis. It was this fact which the Constitution Act meant to recognise and deal with. If every new settlement which is an off-shoofc ol'an existing colony to be made independent, the provinces must bocome parishes ; its goveroments must be enfeebled and curtailed, and the Central Government must result. And the result of the Central Government monopolising all the functions of the Provincial G-overnments will be one large metropolis — one centre of expenditure — of civilization of immigration ; one corner of the island fed into artificial magnitude at the expense of the extremities ; and consequently a far slower rate of general progression and of settlement of the country than must result from the co-ordinate efforts of the six Provincial Governments now in existence. I am therefore in great hopes the Crown will disallow thia bill for making new provinces, and that in future every creation of a new province will be a matter of special consideration by the General Assembly. If that bill indeed be not disallowed or repealed, the intentions of Parliament have been in my mind shamefully evaded and the Constitution entirely altered. Whatever weight my opinions may now have, I should be glad that my friends knew them on this matter. I am, my clear Hall, Yours very truly, James Edwabd FitzGeraid.