The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 3, 1875.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 4619, 3 December 1875, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DEC. 3, 1875.

Having, in our yesterday’s issue, reviewed Mr Stevens’ opinions on the Abolition question, we proceed to notice the views he expressed on the other important topics of the day. To begin with the Constitution of the Upper House, Here Mr Stevens so far agrees with the views which have been advocated in these columns, as to say that he shall be prepared to support a Bill providing for an Elective Legislative Council. Some of the candidates before the public prefer the present system, though many of them give no reason for its continuance ; indeed, the only one that they mentioned is that such an arrangement might lead to collision between the two Houses, and they instance, in support of their argument, the dead-lock that occurred in Yictoria about eight years ago. No doubt a dead-lock is a very sexious business, but this is the only instance of any great consequence that can be quotedj and the circumstances -under which it arose had nothing whatever to do with the fact that the Upper Chamber is in Yictoria an elective one. It arose from the attempt on the part of the Ministry of the day to force a certain Bill through the Upper House, by tacking it to the Appropriation Bill, a move that probably any Upper House would strenuously resist, whether elected or nominated. Returning, however, from this digression,we. notice that Mr Stevens has one fear —viz., that the result of having a.n Elective Legislative Council would be that some of the best men we have would then be weeded out from the House of Representatives, and he doubts whether we can afford to allow this to be jloue. In the first place, this is so sarcastic

a criticism on our present Upper House that it supplies a strong argument for the necessity of reform. There, too, we think Mr Stevens’ fears not very well grounded. We do not see that it is absolutely necessary that the two Houses should have co-ordinate powers if both are elective. The Lower House, as being the more popular branch of our Legislature, might fairly retain its powers of originating money Bills, and the Upper might, as at present, possess merely the power of assent or veto, without the power of alteration. On whatever principle the Members of the latter were elected, they would not be elected by the entire taxpaying public, nor, as they would hold their seats for a longer term of years, would they be so amenable to the control of their constituents. If the power of the purse be retained by the House of Representatives, the more active and aspiring politicians will always prefer to seek a seat in it, rather than seek the calmer regions of the Legislative Council.

Mr Stevens’ broad and liberal views on the subject of Education will commend themselves to the good sense of the constituency he seeks to represent. He regards the Education of the people at large as a national duty, and, if we understand him aright, he is prepared to make it compulsory, though on this point he has not expressed himself quite so clearly as the importance of the subject demands. Thus far, as to primary Education. By the retention of our present system of Scholarships, he would also place a higher Education within the reach of the ablest boys and gii’ls of even the poorest parents. The reason he gives for advocating this system is, that “ it will give us, one of these days, some of the most valuable, tbe most practical, and tbe most disinterested public men whom we could possibly wish to have.” The question of Education must occupy, a permanent position in. the debates of the new Parliament, it ought therefore to be one of the test questions of the present election; therefore, in a community which is so much in earnest on this important subject as that of Christchurch, the electors ought to ponder well over the enlightened views which Mr Stevens has expressed. Another strong point in his favour is, that he is a man who by natural inclination would make the important and difficult question of tbe Finances of the Colony a favourite study. Considering that we have gone in for borrowing to such ah extent as to make the subject complicated, in addition to its being of first-rate importance, and that we may find it necessary still further to increase our indebtedness, it is of great importance to secure tbe presence in tbs House of men who will pay due attention to finance. When, however, he -expresses an opinion that it would be a piece of good Colonial Finance “ to place all our loans on the Consolidated Fund, without apportionment,” we can only say that it may be so, but there is not much chance of its being carried into effect, on account of the difficulties surrounding it. By putting a further tax on the Consolidated Revenue, tbe already wealthy Provinces of Otago and Canterbury, which have a substantial Land Fund, would be benefited at the expense of the poorer ones. But if these poor Provinces are to be allowed, as under tbe Abolition Bill, to inaugurate an era of Treasury Bills, which are to be renewed ad infinitum, according to Mr Micawber’s plan, then perhaps Canterbury and Otago might before long find they had very much the worst of such an arrangement. We entirely agree with the opinions propounded by Mr Stevens regarding the terms on which tbe “ licenses to occupy ” of the pastoral tenants should be renewed in 1880. A variety of schemes has been before the public. One party wants the runs put up to competition by auction; another wants to do away with large holdings altogether, and to cut the runs up into comparatively small blocks ; a third to have the value of the runs assessed and the rent merely raised to a fair amount, so that the present occupants could stay at the increased rent if they chose to pay it, or go elsewhere. Mr Stevens belongs to the latter class. The auction system would lead either to the formation of a squatters’ ring, in which case the public would not be likely to get a sufficient value for its estate ; or if not, many squatters would be driven out of that line of business altogether, large quantities of stock would be forced into tbe market, and a general depreciation in the value of sheep and cattle would ensue. This, of course, would ruin many squatters, but they would not suffer alone; no one very large interest in any community, especially if that interest be a wealthy one, can he destroyed or permanently injured without all classes of society suffering with it. Let any extreme democrat, who thinks it would be a fine thing to annihilate the squatters, reflect how the temporary depression of that, class in the years 1867,1868, and 1869, caused every branch of trade to languish, and he must see the folly of doing or attempting to do any such thing. Pretty much the same argument applies to the proposal to cut the runs up into five thousand-acre blocks; unless a man could secure several blocks together, and that would be contrary to tbe spirit of the proposal we are considering, the expenses of management would be so great as to drive large numbers of men out of that line of business. We cannot see much serious objection to the opinions Mr Stevens holds on this point; it is time we cannot expect to get the full value of the land if the squatters get only a renewal of their present tenure. But the land will be kept open for selection and purchase so that the country will not be in any way impeded.