THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1875.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4358, 1 November 1875, Page 2

THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1875.

One of the most remarkable debates in the late session of the General Assembly, and at the same time one of the most important, was that which occurred on the motion made by Sir George Grey, on the Bth ultimo, respecting the purchase of native lands by the Government. On the occasion referred to, Sir George proposed two resolutions on the subject of purchase of native lands, the first of which was as follows : —" That the purchase or leasing of native lands, directly or indirectly, for their own interest or advantage, or for other persons, by Government 1 officers or agents, whose duty it is to purchase native lands for the public, is contrary to the public interest." Not a single member was found to contradict this principle. Everyono allows • that the purchasers on behalf of the Government have singular opportunities of becoming acquainted with lands of the best quality and purchasable, so that, if they are allowed to buy for themselves at the same time, or as private agents, they and their private employers obtain enormous advantages over the rest of the European population, and obtain them at the public expense. Nobody denies also, that by this means the grand purpose of acquiring a substantial landed estate for the North Island provinces or districts is capable of being, and has been, seriously intefered with. It was also proved by Sir George Grey, who cited for the purpose, a variety of the very highest legal authorities in England and America, that it is absolutely unlawful on the part of an agent commissioned to buy or sell a specified commodity that he should purchase or dispose of that commodity, or any part of it, except for his employer; and that, in fact, if he does'so purchase, the properuy is merely held in trust. And yet Sir George Grey's motion affirming this principle was opposed by the Government, and was defeated on a division by 36 to 22. No pretence was made, or could be made, that the manner in which the resolution was brought forward was such as to provoke opposition. On this point Mr. Fitzherbert said, "I do not think that any plainer principle has ever been brought oefore the Legislature than fie one brought forward by the hon. member for Auckland City West; nor do I think that any plain principle has ever been brought forward in a more temperate manner." The Superintendent of Wellington, however, it may be said, is an out-and-outer, and Ms testimony in favour of his ally and brother Superintendent may require confirmation. The best confirmation would be for the reader to peruse the speech for himself, and wo will answer for it that such a perusal would elicit a coincident opinion. Another Superintendent of a largo province, Mr. Rolleston, of Canterbury, who has not been looked upon as so determined in his opposition to Government, expressed a similar testimony. His words are :—" The motion was submitted by the hon; member for Auckland City West in one of the most temperate speeches I have ever heard in tliis House ; and the principles were as good as the manner in which they were laid down." But the most remarkable feature in the debate was the circumstance that some of the staunchest supporters of Government, who had steadily advocated Abolition, felt themselves constrained on this occasion to support the resolution proposed by Sir George Grey. Mr. T. Kelly, the representative of New Plymouth, said, " I regret that on this occasion I cannot vote with the Governn>ent, to whom I have given my support since I have been in the House." And he added, "I do not consider this motion a party question at all. It was introduced in a temperate speech, and I made up my mind to vote for it." Against this resolution, so introduced, there voted, notwithstanding, six representatives of constituencies in the Aucklandprovince, viz., Messrs.Buckland, Jackson, Munro, William, Kelly. May, and Williams. Not one of the six addressed the House upon the question. The following seven Auckland members supported the resolution :—Mr. Dignan, Sir George Grey, and Messrs. O'Rorke' Sheehan, Swansn, Von der Heyde, and Wood. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Creighton were absent.

But the debate was not thrown away. The Government found it expedient to promise, before the division was taken, that, for the future, instructions would be given to the land purchase agents, that while employed in that capacity they should not purchase for themselves, nor for any private employers. This promise is on record, though the principle was not affirmed, as it ought to have been, by the House of Representatives. But at the same time the Native Minister announced, that for a year or two to come it is intended that native land purchases shall be discontinued. This is like pro-misingtoshutthestable-doorafterjthe steed is stolen, and when it is not intended that any other quadruped shall take his place. It is not denied that largo purchases for I private parties have been made by the Government agents, to such an extent as j seriously to impair the value of the public estate. While making known the intention of discontinuing, for the present, the public purchase of native lands, the Native Minister, at the same time, declared that of the whole amount which was set apart for this purpose out of the proceeds of the loans, viz., £700,000, one-half is still unexpended; while six millions of acres have been obtained. It is certain, however, that this statement of Sir Donald McLean is not correct. Mr. Sheehan, in the course of the debate referred to the financial statement by the Colonial Treasurer, from from which it appears that what now remams of the fund does not exceed £129,000; and Mr. Sheehan's comctln was not contradicted. It is certainly rather extraordinary that the Native Minister, the Government leader in the House, should on so momentous a question, and one pertaining to his own department of the administration, have so egregiously erred. Even if, however aftersettlingallnegociationß,nowpending there is a balance left of not much more than a hundred thousand pounds, great good may be effected by the judicious and honest outlay of this money in the direcwSfaj t* l ** l * . has been appropriated. Placed fl ? r^ haU the »™>™* wer * Kif 4 *o_ disposal of the present Superintendent of Auckland, with the

Same 1 powers as possesses of' on the part he\flonld turn it 'to gojod arjcount; ; mvthe_w,ay l . tuting-, a' lancled\esta.te If theGbvernmenthow ceases to beSipurchaser, one result will be that large tracts ofdesirable.lan.ds will be. locked up in.the possession of speculators. It is also to be much-feared that, in,' the" iapproachtSg"comparative poverty of the General Government, if this money is allowed to- remain unexpended in the way indicated by its appropriation, desecrating hands may be laid upon it, and, after the expiry of the year or two spoken of, the fund may be found to have vanished. The question altogether is one'of the very greatest importance to this island, and it is to bo hoped that in the coming elections it will not.b© lost sight of.

The banquet at; Balelutha cannot be said to he an improvement upon the demonstration at Dunedin. There was a large company indeed, but the speeches did not rise above the level of those which were heard in the capital city of Otago. That a very large section of the people of Ofcago should be intensely Provincial is perfectly natural. They have been highly favoured as a province, and they have prospered while other provinces have become poor. But the cry of " Two. Island Provinces" with a federated Government, appeared to assume something of a more definite form. Perhaps, the most remarkable speech is that of Sir John Richardson, considering his position as Speaker of the Legislative Council. The meeting cheered the sentiment of one of the speeches, to the effect that the Legislative Council was opposed to the interests of the people. Sir John Kiehardson declares that the recent change was effected by a tyrannical, majority. This is plain speaking indeed.

Mr. Justick Gillies has more than once announced his intention to subject those bankrupts whp have-kept no books in their business to a rigorous examination. He has also, for the same reason, on more than one occasion,: postponed the operation of the certificate of a bankrupt where there was no apparent reason for complaint and creditors offered no opposition. Mr. Fenton, in the Besidenfc Magistrate's Court, has pronounced an opinion : on the conduct of dealers who sue upon claims of which they have not kept a proper account. When a tradesman keeps no books it raises the presumption of either mistake or fraud, and he must not be surprised if the Court hesitates to confirm his recollection of the manner in which the debt was contracted. Nothing is more common in the Court for the recovery of small debts than to hear a plaintiff declare that it was so long since the debt was incurred that he recollects the circumstances imperfectly. Such a declaration would be sufficient before somemgaistrates to invalidate the whole claim, for important particulars may have been forgotten which would favor the defendant's answer to the action. Petty litigation has a demoralizing tendency, and it is ' proper" and right that magistrates should do everything in their power to repress it. These suits are, for the most part, conducted;,with much personal acrimony by the parties to them, and it sometimes hap"pens that bystanders are shocked by the persistence of the conflict of testimony which takes place in the witness-box. It is well that tradesmen who neglect to keep books should know that they vitiate thenclaims by being obliged to confess that they have no reliable record of their transactions. The case which calls forth these observations was one which deservedly called for the opinion of the magistrate. The debt was trifling. It was contracted in a manner that admitted of a double interpretation. The'dofenoe was that it had been satisfied, and four years had elapsed between the contract and the action. The plaintiff failed to satisfy, the Court in respect to the proof of his claim. Had he kept proper books, it might have been otherwise, and he paid the penalty of his. negligence by failing to recover.

Lord Derby lately took a step which will greatly aid Mr. Plimsoll's efforts to deal with the question of unseaworthy ships in the . British mercantile marine. -The Foreign Secretary has written to all British Ministers accredited to foreign maritime powers to obtain the consent of the Governments to a Government survey of every British vessel agreed to be transferred to a foreign flag. The words of Lord Derby's suggestion are that the "consular officers of the (foreign) Government should be instructed to communicate with the Board of Trade whenever a British vessel is about to be transferred to the flag of their country, in order that a survey of such vessel may be made by the Government surveyor." The answers, with the single exception of France, either actually or practically accept Lord Derby's suggestion. The Duke Decazes declines to allow any inspection by a Government officer, on the ground that the Code Napoleon is sufficiently stringent with respect to unseaworthy vessels. From the answer sent by Italy it would appear that Great Britain is behind her in respect to legislation on this subject. The British Government, according to Italian law, must be informed before an Italian Consul can issue his certificate, and the purchaser must also submit to a survey under the Italian mercantile code, Mr. Fish, for the United States, says that foreign-built vessels are rarely registered, and no register can bo lawfully issued by a consular officer to vessels which are sold or purchased at a foreign port, whether American or foreign-built.