Untitled

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5006, 12 February 1878, Page 2

To say that Mi- Ormond's speech at Waipawa was a very able one is hardly necessary once we have said that it was delivered by Mr Ormond. He passed in review the events of the late session, and described correctly in the main the causes that led to the change of Ministry. Neither side deny that the Middle Party did not intend to put Sir George Grey in office, and neither side can deny that once he was in, he played a trump card which assured him a decided majority, the colonialisation of the land fund. As to the adoption by the new Government of the bills and estimates of their predecessors so recently denounced, no doubt it seems, to a mind unsophisticated by politics, highly reprehensible. . The best that can be said for it is that it appears now-a-days to be coming rapidly to be recognised as an ordinary part of the game. Mr Disraeli almost uniformly adopted his predecessors' programme. Sir Julius Yogel, in opposition the strongest of then extant provincialists, when in office initiated abolition, which Sir George Grey and Mr Macandrew, provincialists of still more vigorous growth, have carried to completion. In reference to the above, as well as to sevei'al of the other indictments brought against the Government by Mr Ormond, such as the Premier's certainly unconstitutional action in regard to the Land Bill after the close of the session, all that there is to say pro or con has been said already in our columns more than once. With reference to the Canterbury leases, we may recommend those who wish to hear the other side of the question to read the portion of Sir George Grey's speech at the NeAv Plymouth meeting which refers to the subject ; and on the Native Land Bill we may refer them to Mr Sheehan's speech on that question, on the same occasion.* Mr Ormond, we observe, speaks as if the withdrawal of the bill were the great crime with which the Government were charged. Due deference to constitutional practice would, no doubt, have led them to resign instead of withdrawing their measure. That is a small matter, however, as compared with their having, in the first instance, permitted Mr Whitaker to introduce a bill of so objectionable a character. If the present Government can, as Mr Sheehan confidently hopes, make the native land market, as well as the Crown lands market, a market open to all, that alone will cover a vast multitude of their sins. We may remark, however, that it is rather the new Liberals, such as Mr Bryce and Mr Ballance, than the old Opposition, as represented by Mr Sheehan, who deserve the credit of the initiation of a sounder native land policy.

The weakest points of Mr Ormond's speech throughout are to be met with where he touches on land questions — we do not refer at present to the local land question. He follows, we observe, in Mr Sutton's wake in talking of the cruel wrong done to settlers in the North Island by the inez % ease in the price of land open to selection to £2 per acre, by the Waste Lands Sales Bill. Before the passing of that bill it was open at 10s per acre in Hawke's Bay, and who benefited by it ? Messrs Rhodes and Co., perhaps, and other settlers, if they may be called so, of the same type. It is they, we suppose, who have suffered the cruel wrong. It is preposterous, it seems to us, to defend the sale by free selection of the Crown lands while still inaccessible, at 10s per acre, on the ground of affording facilities for settlement. If it can ever in any case be defended, it must be on revenue grounds only.

In regard to the District Railways Bill, we are glad to see Mr Ormond take up the line that he has taken, and wo hope he will follow it up in the House next session. He points out, us we pointed out about a month ago, that the bill was a much better one as introduced by him (Mr Ormond) than as it eventually passed both Houses. As introduced, it could have been brought into operation by a majority of the ratepayers, while, as passed, it would require a majority in value, a very different matter. Nothing, we believe, would be so effective for the promotion of settlement as the bringing into operation of this measure, and we trust that, on Mr Ormond's initiation, it will, next session, be so altered in form as to facilitate that result. The Government, we suppose, must be held responsible for the bill which they adopted. The alteration made by the Lords may, however, have passed unobserved by the Premier as well as by Mr Ormond, though we admit it could

not have escaped Colonel Whitmore's notice, who, when a private member suggested it, though lie modified his tone when in office. We gather, however, from Hansard that the gentleman primarily responsible for it was Mr Hall, Mr Ormond's old colleague and ally.

On the question of manhood suffrage we observe that Mr Ormond remarks that the late Government's Bill — or rather Sir Julius VogePs — proposed an infinitely better system than that which Sir George Grey contemplates. There is absolutely no difference between them, .so far as we can learn. Both contemplate making registration and a year's residence in the same electoral district a condition of voting. That was the account Sir George Grey gave of his proposal at the meeting in Clivesquare, and that was Sir Julius Vogol's. Manhood suffrage, we imagine, will pass without much dissent. On the remission of taxation Mr Ormond advances views which would shock the Melbourne Artjus, and indeed are really protectionist. He is afraid of the name — very unnecessarily . we should say. We most fully concur with him in thinking that it would be the height of folly to nip the wool manufacturing

*• The speeches of Sir George Grey and of Mr Sheehan at Taraiiftki', referred to in the above, are unavoidably held. o,yer..'

industry of the colony in the bud for the sake of the altogether invisible cheapening of woollen goods that would result from a reduction or abolition of the duty. On the Proudfoot case we have already remarked. It looks certainly very bad. We have yet, however, to hear what the Government have to say for themselves. It may be that they dropped the prosecution because they were advised that, in the circumstances, there was no chance of obtaining a conviction.

In regard to the local land question, especially the Pourerere Block, the really salient point is one on which it is difficult to get absolutely reliable information, namely, the character of the land. People make very different estimates as to what sort of land is fit for agriculture, and what is not, — the popular party, in regard to any given block, maintaining its fitness, and the squatting party the reverse. If it were not for the Rev. S. WHliams's recommendation that the Te Auto Estate should be cut up into blocks suitable for farming purposes, it would be stoutly maintained to this day that there was not an acre of it that could be so used. It must be remembered that 20,000 acres represent a district that it would take weeks thoroughly to explore. Mr Ormond's, perhaps/was j but a cursory inspection. "We , must j say, at any rate, that we have very j good grounds for saying that a great proportion of the block sold for 5s per acre was infinitely better suited for settlement than most of the Makaretu land, or of the land about Norsewood. Mr Ormond, we observe, makes another objection to the suggestion that the land should have been utilised for settlement, besides its alleged unfitness for agriculture, viz., that it would have cost more to make roads into it than the land would, at the time, have realised. That is an objection of a very different character. There would be no such thing as settlement at this day in Otago, if, at an early stage in the history of that province, all the agricultural land which it would not pay, at the time, to make roads into, had been sold at low prices, to the squatters who occupied it. The special merit of the Otago system has been that it withheld the agricultural land froui sale till such time as it would pay to open it up by roads. In regard to the waste lands administration generally, — excepting in the case of the Pourerere Block, — we have not expressed the opinion that Mr Ormond was more to blame than the other members of the Provincial Council of runholders and their dependants, of the results of whose administration there is so very different a tale to tell from that which can be told of the administration of some of the other local legislatures of New Zealand. He desires to date his responsibility from 1869, when he took oflice as Superintendent, and no doubt it must be admitted that he was not technically responsible before that date, though liis name and that of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Government were looked upon as synonymous much earlier. He alludes also to some efforts which he made to bring about a reform in the land system, but which proved abortive. We do not doubt that it would have been impossible at the time for any one member of the Council to bringabout any reform worth mentioning. The root of the evil lay in the handing over of the lands to such bodies as these small Provincial Councils to deal with. One question Mr Ormond did not touch upon, which requires notice, that is why no reserves for public purposes were ever made on land occupied as runs. The fact that none were made speaks volumes in regard to the sentiment of prescriptive right to lands held under pastoral license, that has been at the bottom of so much mischief.

In conclusion, we may say that, while even Mr Ormoncl's opponents will admit that he has capacity sufficient to render him a most valuable public servant, his best friends will hardly deny that he is likely to do better service to the public if all his actions are watched with, lynx-eyed vigilance, than if, as was too much the case in former clays, the wisdom and patriotism of his administration was taken for granted. In regard fco a portion of his past career he j^eads youth and inexperience, and we should be the last to disalloAv the plea. If he hopes to be anything of a power in the country in the future, and not to sink, at the best, into a second Stafford, he will have to break many «f bis present connections, to revert to his old line of action on such questions as the Te A.\ite estate, and, in short, to outbid the Liberals in Liberalism. Whether lie will be equal to the exertion, and no doubt also the sacrifice, time alone will show.