Daily Circulation, 1500. The Oamaru Mail TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1891.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 5085, 22 September 1891, Page 2

Daily Circulation, 1500. The Oamaru Mail TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1891.

The rejection by the legislative Council of the Land for Settlement Bill, under which the Government sought authority to resume possession of alienated lands for the. purposes of closer settlement, and to apply a sum of not exceeding L 50,000 annually to the purpose, affords further evidence, if sucli were necessary, that the Council is utterly out of sympathy with public opinion. Of all the policy measures of the Government, the Land for Settlement Bill met with the greatest amount of general acceptance in the House of Representatives and in the country. By leaders of the Opposition and by a large section of the Conservative Press, it was freely admitted that the time had arrived when, in the interests of settlement, the State should take power to resume on equitable terms such private lands as might be desirable. It was also generally agreed, too, that the Bill had been framed with a due regard to the dangers necessarily attendant, upon such a scheme, and that the re-pureha.se of private lands was hedsed around with such safe-guards that a complete check would be placed upon jobbery. The only prominent opponent of the measure in the Lower House, in fact, was Mr G. P, Richardson, the consistent opponent of bona fide settlement, and the advocate and ready agent- of the greedy land monopolists. But even he lacked the courage to boldly and openly challenge the passage of the Bill, which passed its second reading without a division, and went through its remaining stages without material alteration. It is a rare thing, indeed, that a measure embodying a distinctly new departure in an important matter of public policy passes through a representative chamber with so marked a general acceptance as did the Land for Settlement Bill._ Antagonistic as the Legislative Council is to the enactment of the public will, it might have been reasonably expected that the Bill would have received courteous treatment in that branch of the legislature, and that our colonial Lords would have given it their most serious consideration. But how did they treat the Bill, which had the almost unanimous endorsement of the representatives of the people, of the public Press, and of the people? Did they approach the consideration of the Bill—than which no more important measure has ever been submitted to the Parliament of New Zealand—with that calm and dispassionate deliberation which the advocates of the second chamber claim to be its distinguishing attribute ? No ; they cast it forth as a loathsome thing. They refused sbo give it any consideration, and threw it out with the least possible amount of ceremony. The only justification given for the adoption of a course which the House of Lords would not have pursued under similar conditions was that the Bill was not necessary.. Not necessary ! AVho said it was not necessary? Did the Minister of Lands, who armed with the return of the SurveyorGeneral showing the limited amount of land available for profitable settlement, is the highest authority upon the question, say that it was unnecessary 1 _ Did the Cabinet, charged with the all-important duty of checking the exodus of people from our shores and of promoting the growth of prosperity in the colony and the consequent lightening of the burdens of all classes of the community, say that

ic was unnecessary ? Did Mr Rolleston, the leader of the Opposition and a former Minister of Lands, suy that it was unnecessary ? Did Mr Fergus, a member of the last Ministry, insinuate that the resumption of private estates for settlement purposes was unnecessary when he complimented the Government upon taking up a measure belonging to their predecessors? Did Sir George Grey, when he claimed to be the real author of the Bill, convey to the Council any covert hint that the measure was unnecessary 1 Did they draw their inspiration from Mr Rhodes, one of the Conservative Party, who advocated the passing of the Bill, and expressed pleasure that it was to be proceeded with '? Surely, the agreement of all these representatives of the people should have been sufficient evidence that the passing of the Bill was desirable in the best interests of the colony. So far as we are aware, the only people who have declared the Bill to be unnecessary are Mr Richardson, the enemy of bona fide settlement, and the majority of the Legislative Council, a body that has long been a blighting curse upon this fair colony. For these a day of reckoning is at hand.