HOUSE OF COMMONS.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 378, 28 November 1849, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TCI URSDA V.—JULY 12. THH SV.VT ZEAL/YNO LAND CONVEYANCBS BILL. Mr. Aglionby moved that tliis bill be read a second time. Sir J. Graham asked his lion, and learned friend to state the object of the bill. ! Mr. Aglionby stated that the New Zealand ComI pany had soldjupwards of 300,000 acres of land in New Zsaland to various persons, who had been inpossesiion for the last leven or eight years, but in consequence of various circumstances the Company had not been able to give a title to the purchasers. The grant from the ' Crown, havhg, however, at length been obtained, it was desirable to make the necessary conveyances ; but the expense of doing so in this country would be so great, besides the difficulty of giving a proper description of the premises, that it was thought advisable to t introduce a bill to enable the Company to make tbe grants in the Colony by mean* of a power of attorney authorising parties there to affix the senl of the Company to the deeds. Sir J. Graham wished to know whether the bill had received the sanction of the Government; because theie existed, he believed, an arrangement between the Company and the Government that upon certain teims the Crown might resume all its former rights over the land granted to the Company. He observed also that theie was a clause in the bill which relieved the parties from the payment of stamp duties on the conveyances, Mr. Aglionby said the bill had been submitted to the Colonial-office, and it did not interfere in the slightest degree with the airangements entered into between the Government and the Company. With regard to the exemption from the stamp duty, the precedent of the North Canada Act had been observed in tli is case. Mr. Haytbr. said the exemption clause had been considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and j lie thought it just and fair that the same advantage should be extended to New Zealand as had been granted to Canada. Mr. Goulburn did not admit that the existence of a bid precedent was any reason for continuing it. Mr. Hayter did not urge the case as a matter of precedent. The same reasons that existed in the caso of Canada operated in the case of New Zealand. Mr. Gladstone suggested that the second reading of the bill should be postponed till Monday. It was a question affecting titles to land, and ought, therefore, to be considered by the legal members of the House. After a short conversation, in which Mr. Mangle i, Mr. Goumiurn, Sir J. Graham, and Mr. Rounbell Palmer took part, Mr. Aglionby consented to postpone the second reading of the bill till Monday next the 16th.