PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2916, 12 June 1871, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Friday, 9fch June.

We continue our report of the Debate which took place on Friday evening on

MR CUTTMT's LAND RESOLUTIONS.

Referring to the question of Hun. dreds,

The Hon. Mr BELL said that if honourable members would state that what they required was that purely pastoral land should not be proclaimed into a Hundred, he believed there would not be three men in the Assembly who would object to the repeal of the Hundreds Regulation Act. Would they do sol—(No response.) Of course they would not. It was all very well for honourable members to talk, but the thing was, what did they mean? Again, the pastoral tenan»s were called upon to pay 7d per head for sheep, yet honourable members claimed the power to do that which Major Richardson had said the Act did not contemplate, and would not be proper for them to do. It was to preI vent thi3 being done that the pastoral tenants had asked for the enactment of the Hundreds Regulation Act; that, in fact, there should be some authority to declare what land was fit for settlement. That was done because the system of Hundreds was grossly abused. If honourable members wanted to return to the Act of 1866, they should propose a resolution with the addition he had spoken of, or if ttey preferred that, in consequence of tbe difficulties referred to, they should return to the eld licenses, and were prepared to return L2ft),ooo or L 280,000 received from the pastoral tenants, with reasonable interest, let them make the offer. Of course circumstances were different now to what they were some years ago. Sheep were not worth so much at the present time. He wished to make a few remarks in a moderate spirit regarding the land in Shag Valley. Some time ago the Government told him that they wanted a lot of. land in Shag Valley before the pastoral lease was issued to him. They said 15,000 acres should be given up without compensation. The Government had the right to make that condition, and he acceded to it. Ultimately the land was thrown open for sale ; and, as the Provincial Government well knew, he had never been averse to, bat had always facilitated, settlement. They afterwards told him that in addition to what he had done he should give a grazing right without compensation. He replied " Very well,'* and he then became a party to a second covenant to give the land without compensation.

An II en. Member : What was the extent of the grazing right ? The Hon. Mr BELL said he did not recollect the exact extent, but it was in proportion io the quantity of land, and extended over the block.

An Hon. Member : Wbat number of cattle ?

The Bon. Mr BELL: Kofe exceeding twenty head. Whether that was a wise undertaking on his part, or on the part of the Government, he was not prepared to cay ; but he was determined there should be r,o mistake as to the way the Government viewed Ihe matter. He consequently requested that the understanding should be expressed in -writing; and it was admitted that he acted liberally in the matter. He thought himself when he consented to give a giazing right as well as land, without compensation, that, at least, he had not acted illiberally.—(Applause ) He then referred to an agreement between himself and the laieGovernment to the effect that if he did certain things they would not proclaim certain land into a Hundred, but said that when he went to England they proceeded to do so. The Provincial Secretary, however, knew, and many other gentlemen knew, tiiat as far a3 he was individually concerned he had always wished to see the country settled, believing that it was as much to the interest of the pastoral tenants as to that of other colonists that the settlement of the country should re proceeded with. When the Car&ilj Government were in office lie reminded them that he wanted some record of the withdrawal of the land,, fox:, when at Wellington, he was asked about the matter, and he sta'ed that he would Hot give information respecting it, adding that he was pecuniarily interested, and that they might arrange -with the Provincial Government as they pleased. Well, when he asked for some record, Mr Haughton said "Very well, what will you do about the rest of the laud?" He (Mr Bell) told them to take another lot out of the Shag Valley run, to provide that people should settle upon it, and that they would then be welcome to it without compensation. —(Hear, hear.) It was really a mistake, too, for people to say that the pastoral tenants were opposed to settlement. Mr QJ.LL,£g§;; I?|ie honourable mw j

ber will recollect that I did not say so. I stated most distinctly that 1 was aware that there were squatters who had displayed very great liberality, and that they had shown a disposition to further settlement.

The Hon. Mr BELL said honourable members would find that only a very small number of squatters had set themselves up against the settlement of the country. —(Bear, hear.) And having admitted this, let them, like sensible men, instead of hoisting the flag of repudiation, do their work in a manner which would tend to benefit the country generally. An Hon. Member : What do you propose ?

The Hon. Mr BELL said thafe if he f were in the Provincial Government, he would propose that the runholders should be invited to give up whatever laud was required for settlement in the original spirit of the law of 1866; in the same spirit that the Hundreds proclamations originally devised by Sir G. Grey were devised ; and that, as regarded the rest of the land, they should understand that they would be properly secured. If lie were the community he would say: " You give us the land for agricultural settlement, and we will secure you in the occupation of the remainder subject to a fair rent. We want land to cultivate, with a reasonable grazing right but we do not want to take the right of pasturage from, people who are paying rent merely for the purpose of handing it over to others." If they would be prepared to meet the exigencies of the case in a somewhat similar way, he believed they would soon get rid of the difficulties by which the country was now beset. Mr GILLIES remarked that Mr Bell had told his (Mr Gillies's) party to put their opinions on the land question in. black and white. But, however plausible and gilded the honourable gentleman's speeches^ were, he had taken goed. care not to put his own opinions upon the records of the House. In order to show that his (Mr Gillies's) party did not act in an illiberal spirit, he would mention that they had even voted grants not provided for hy law to pastoral tenants. Again, if Mr Bell had been willing to act fairly, he would have read hia (Mr Gillies's) evidence. In support of his statement thafe the views and. actions of hia party were not as Mr Bell had stated, he would read the replies which he made in answer toquestions proposed by the Select Committee on Hundreds, which were printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the. Council in 1868. The following are the questions and answers read by the honourable member:—

Do you consider that under the new Land Act there is a greater difficulty in the way of the declaration of Hundreds than formerly 2 I should think it was so intended. Does the increased rent paid by the ronholdere afford them any farther protection than formerly from the declaration of theirruns into Hundreds ? An increase of payment would imply an. increase of advantage. Euna were held subject to being proclaimed into Hundreds for honaji'de. settlement. These runs were held at a nominal rental. An increased rent was agreed upon—for what ? for greater security from the only risk that was incurred dming the currency of the original risk. Of courser other advantages- were given also as a quid pro quo tor increased rent, after the termination of original lease. I was opposed.to the policy of the Act; but however wrong' I n:ay consider the policy, the Act having been past, it ought to be carried out in its integrity. If the Act interposes no legal restraint ia the way of the declaration of Hundreds as formerly, does the policy of the new law da so ; and if so, in what way ? It was never concealed, during the discussion of the policy of the Land Act, that the object was to prevent the Hundreds being proel.vimed for the mere purpose of taking out of the hands of one squatter a block of country, to give into the hands of perhaps five or six parties to become in reality tqnatters on a smaller scale, and with less advantage to the country as a whole. Not having the Act beside me at present, nor leisure to. go icto the question more minutely, I cannot answer the question "In what way" ; more definitely. Suppose a run to be declared into Hundreds duriag the period of the old licence term, when by the Act no compensation will require to be paid, do you consider there ia any obligation to return part or the whole of the iLcreased rent paid ? If required for bona fide settlement, Ido not contider there is any obligation to return any of the increased rent thafehssbeea paid. If Hundreds are to be proclaimed merely for the purpose of multiplying the number of squatters, then it would babufe right that compensation should be paid, such compensation to be paid or charged by an assessment on these obtaining the advantages, so that the general revenue of the couDtry should not suffer by giving individuals increased advantages. Taking into consideration the interest of the runholder in land leased for pastoral purposes, what circumstarces do you consider would justify the declaration of such, land into Hundreds? If it quired for hona fuU settlement. I understand by that—an agricultural population, a mining population, or a manufacturing population ; in fact, a population engaged in some distinctive pursuit other than squatting, but to whom the advantages of a commonage to depasture stock would be. betefieial. What circumstances do you consider make the declaration of a Hundred politic ? Theße must be judged of as they present theaiseives. The question is of so general a. character, it is difficult to state what might be the circumstances, a3 what might be applicable in one case might not apply ia another. While giving every facility and ecco-iragement to settlement, I think great care should be taken to prevent the clamou? < f a fi-w interested perscras doirig injustice to. existing •i. hts. The fullest and moßtminute enquiry, if fairly and honestly carried out, can only result in arriving at the true etate of ahe circumstances in each case, when the Council would; have reliable data to go upon. There was, a fallacy (continued L'r Gillies) which lay at the root of all the honourable member (Mr Bell) had said regarding the proclamation of Hundreds, in that from the first Land Act that was passed ta the present time the term used was ': buna,Jl\le settlement" and not tc-agricul-tural stttlement." He understood by "bonafide settlement" the settlement of an agricultural, mining, or manufacturing population ; the settlement, in fact, of s, population engaged in any pursuit other Ithan squatting, and who, While carrying lon their other pursuits, would require ;a commonage wherein to depasture stock. The question of proclamation, of Hundreds should not be confined j,to whether there weie so many acres [in the block to be proclaimed fit fos | agricultural purposes. The real question, was : Is the land required for settlement* He would ask tho honourable gentleman (Mr Bell) to submit that the pastoral t&nant should give up his right to the land when proven that it was required for lotict pie : settlement, which might not necessarily be agricultural settlement. He maintained that the cause of the decrease m the energies of the province arose from, the circumstance that lard had not, as required, been opened up for settlement He knew that parties were prepared to j purchase in the Crookaton Hundred lately thrown open for sale, but were deterred from purchasing because afraid that i£ i they occupied the land th© runholdee

aaight purchase all the land roundabout them ; would so harass them, in fact, that they would have to sell out at a great disadvantage. It was only by having always in the market land in quantity sufficient to meet the demand, that they could prevont the monopolising of large _..J>locka. He trusted the honourable member would tell them definitely whether he 4 would agree to give land, -whenever re- | quired for bona fide, settlement, not alone | for agricultural settlement. This was the \ view of his party, and while they held it, | they also recognised that they had no I right to take land from pastoral tenants > of the Crown, merely for the purpose of giving it to other pastoral tenants. They wished to take the land for bona fide set- " tlement, by which he meant the settlement of 1000 men where only ten or twenty had been tefore. It was with this desire for settlement that he would support the proclamation of Hundreds. Mr REID observed that during the debate honourable members had looked back a long way. He recollected what took place when the Act of 1866 was passed, and also the speeches of Mr Bell. That gentleman had previously urged that the pastoral tenants did not wish to keep the land a single day after it was required for settlement; that they would "retire as fast as it waa required. It was also said by others that they were in a state of uncertainty, owing to their leases expiring in a few years from that . time, and they said " Sa isfy us that you will not submit these leases to auction •within several years, and we will give you a largely increased rental." They also urged that with longer tenure they could " make improvements on the runs for their proper working. These representations •weighed with the Provincial Council

of the day, and the consequence was ; • that the Act of 1866 was passed. i |\He (iVfr Reid) subsequently referred to ! | the remarks made by the honourable | I member (Mr Be 1'; regarding the alleged ~. * breach' of the covenant concerning the | s land, which he had said was not to be | I proclaimed into a Hundred, and pointed I | out that he had explained to Mr Bell the i | nature of the circumstances under which, ; by an oversight, the recommendation was ; made; (After-Mr Bell had intimated

I | that he recognised the fairness and i l straightforwardness of the conduct of I | the Provincial Secretary) Mr Reid, | | in reply to what Mr Cargill had t '* said, that he (Mr Reid) having been a party to the passage of certain resolutions, occupied a rather strange position in asking for a repeal of the Hundreds Regula- . tion Acts, referred to the circumstances

under which the resolutions were agreed i to, conditionally that a compromise was | effected. ~ The compromise was agreed 1 to, but it was done witha view of preI venting what was considered would I tend_ to inflict greater injury on the | province. He was not aware that he i had done anything dishonourable in I that respect. A compromise having been I agreed upon, he considered it was his duly * amorally and in all honour to see that it

% Was given effect to. A second session | tj^place before the Council met, and he I was most anxious"to see the compromise | annulled. They could have rejected it, 5 but lie/felt that he would have adopted a I dislionourable course if he had taken a I ■ course different to that which he pursued. J Regarding the remarks made by Mr Bell as to whether the Government would decide that no land purely pastoral should betaken for Hundreds, he pointed out that what was purely pastoral to-day might be purely agricultural in a short time. At any rate he would not be a party to 3uch an arrangement. He would like the honourable member to define what was purely pastoral land. It was admitted that the Hundreds Regulation Acts had not worked well; the delay caused by them ; could not be denied. Moreover, from the fact of the administration of them being in the hands of the General Government—that could net be denied. They had had an example of this in the case of the Hundreds recently proclaimed. When were the Commissioners who were to value the land appointed ? When were they required to proceed to value it ? Why, only two days before the last day on which the work could be undertaken, and it was well known that if the Provincial Government had not been able to make an amicable arrangement with the runholder, the proclamation would have been invalid, and a fresh proclamation would.. have been necessitated. There were other and weighter objections to the Acts ; to those he need not refer. Nor did he think it desirable to refer to the remainder of the resolutions. It would be quite sufficient $0 take them as they came on for consideration. He hoped the Committee would be able to come to a decision on the first resolution that evening. : Mr REYNOLDS. did not believe any runholder would place obstacles in the ■vrayof the Government.—(Criesof "Oh!") He waa not connected with runholding in any way—(Mr Bauton : Then how do you know so much about it I)— yet such was his opinion. It had been stated that it had" been admitted on all hands that the.Act han not worked well. Well, he (Mr Reynolds) admitted that; but at the same time he would say that if it had been administered by the Cargill Government, it would have worked well.—(Cries of "Oh/!") He felt perfectly satisfied that such would have been the case. If the Act had been properly administered, and the Assembly been asked to pass an Act remedying the defects that adminis.tfation pointed out, he did not believe for a single moment but that the Assembly would have passed a measure for what they considered and what was known to be right. From his knowledge of the Assembly, he would have been disappointed if there had been a change in that body, or that it would be worse than previous ones. The Assembly would take care not to perpetuate injustice to any class in" the community. He should reserve his further remarks for another place, and would simply intimate that he intended to vote against the resolution. Dr /WEBSTER, in a speech that ■created much amusement, moved that progress be reported, in order to allow of an explanation being made as to the ■financial condition of the province. After giving a couple of racy stories, he proceeded to explain the reasons that had induced him to leave the privacy of his liome to enter the arena of politics. He was dragged there to see justice done to himself and other settlers in his neighbourhood, who had come to the province to make it their home. In consequence of the Hundreds Regulation Act of 1860, he was induced to purchase a few thousand acres of property in a Hundred, thinking, of course, that he would receive grazing rights proportionate to the acreage he possessed. In one year that Act was done away with ; and the consequence was that he bad to get his friends to come forward with money •sufficient to enable him to live. The effect of this constant system of altering the land laws of the country was to prevent settlement.—(Mr Bartok : Hear.) Frequently he had been consulted by persons inclined to come here and invest their small thousands in the province, and he had invariably recommended them to desiatj and to refrain

from coming here until there had been a final settlement of the Land question. He was an unfortunate example ef these

confounded Hundreds Acts.—(Laughter.) The province was in debt to the extent of L 97 3 000 ; aDd before they deprived themselves of a measure they should have a settlement of accounts—they should be just before they were generous. The motion to report progress was negatived on the voices. Mr DUNCAN said the Hundreds Regulation Act had had a fair trial, yet out of 200,000 acres applied for, they had only got 40,000. Unless 200,000 acres were put into the market every year, it would be impossible to do justice to the whole province, and go on with public works. Having fairly tried that Act, and as it had entirely failed to meet the wants of the people, they should at once abandon it, even if they had to fall back upon the Act of 1866. •

Mr CAKGILL said that what he complaitied most of in the Government and their supporters was their making so much of this one point—the repealing of the Hundreds Regulation Acts. It was assumed that these Acts had a strong leaning to one class ; that they stood in the way of the proclamation of Hundreds, and of everything that might have been done to promote settlement during the last two or three years. He did not think either of these positions was true. He did not see that those Acts had conferred such large benefits on the pastoral tenants. Hia honourable colleague for Dunedin (Mr Bathgate) had trot?ed out upon his hobby on this question, and predicted dire consequences to both the Council and the Assembly, if his opinions as to the proper course to be taken were not adopted. He (Mr Cargill) represented the same constituency, and he thought the City of Dunedin was equally ! interested in every class in the community. It was to the interest of the citizens that the alteration in the land laws should disturb existing interests as little as possible. Be did not know how far the honourable member (Mr Gillies) represented the opinions of the Government. He would like to know whether his peculiar views on this question were participated in by the Government. He thought that honourable member deserved credit for manfully getting at what he (Mr Cargill) considered to be the very kernel of the question—that was, ihe interpretation to be put upon the terms "bomfide settlement" by the Government and the Council. What was the nature of that settlement to which the pastoral tenants were expected to give >lace without complaining] That was the question which led to the passing of the Hundreds Regulation Acts, and which it was endeavoured to set at rest to ja great extent by these Ac's. The honourable member (Mr Gillies) said it was a mistake to consider hona, fide settlement to mean agricultural settlement. He (Mr Cargill) was confident he spoke correctly when he asserted that the interpretation put upon the terms " bona fide settlement" by the entire Council in 1866, was that it meant settlement for agricultural purposes, and not for manufacturing, for gold mining, or for pastoral pursuits.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the honourable member's viewa in that respect were somewhat peculiar, and he could not think^they were entertained by honourable member's on the Government benches. There was another curious statement made by the honourable member (Mr Gillies). That honourable member asserted that he did not think Hundreds should be declared within the limits of the Goldfields. If they took away from the operation of their Acts all the land within Goldfields, what would there be. left to argue about? How much land was there outside of Goldfielda about which any question could arise in the administration of the land laws 1 Again, the honourable member at the head of the Government said that one of the worst features of the Hundreds Regulations Act was that it confines the proclamation of Hundreds to a small extent of land, and that the proclamation of .15,000 or 20,000 acres was absurd, as it would be insufficient to meet any demand existing for the purchase of land. Did the honourable member consider 20,000 acres too small to declare in the Wairuna

Mr REID said the honourable member was in error. He (Mr Reid) was replying to an argument used by the honourable member for Oteramlka, that they required small Hundreds. He replied that small Hundreds would not meet the requirements of the country, as they would be purchased by the pastoral tenants. Mr CARGILL thought there seemed to be little consistency in the views of those honourable members; and without having had any part in the passing of those Acts, he would say that the party opposing the action of the General Assembly had shown a far less desire to settle the land question than to resent a supposed insult to themselves and the Council. He contended that the experience they had of the Hundreds Regulations Act was the strongest possible proof of the necessity for such regulations. Referring to the statement of Mr Duncan that 200,000 acres of land must be thrown open every year, he would like to know where all these lands were to come from ?. And if the land waa dealt with in that haphazard fashion, how long would they have the land revenue ? What was the policy proposed by those members who were so hot about the repealing of those Acts 1 To go bade to the old state of things j and wipe out every compromise; to go' back to 1866, and go over_ all the fights again. But in his opinion every sensible person in the province would be extremely disappointed if no better solution could be offered. He would not offer any factious opposition to the Government. But when that Government came down with a resolution of this kind, and after asserting that no Government should be worthy of siting in those benches who would not pledge themselves to the immediate repeal'"of the Hundreds Regulation Acts, they were bound to show that they were not acting in a factious spirit. It was the duty of the Council to consider the question reasonably and fairly. After replying to some remarks made by Mr Ba'hgate in his speech, Mr Cargill concluded by saying that he would not vote against the resolution. He had given his views on the question, and would leave the Government to act on their own responsibility.

The Hon. Mr M'LEAN said he would vote against the repeal of the Hundreds Regulation Act, believing that the continual alterations in the land law were prejudicial to the best interests of the province and the colony, and to the interests of those in the eld country who looked forward ,to New Zealand'as the future home of themselves and their families.

Mr CDTTEN" said it would be quite impossible for him to attempt to reply to the arguments made use of upon this most important question. He brought the resolutions down, without making anything like a telling speech, stating them as, clearly as he could, so that they might calmly and deliberately go into the matter, and endeavour to amend the land laws, and ace if there waa

any possible ground on which they could meet and settle their differences. But, from the scenes he had witnessed during the last few days, he was afraid that it was impossible, because honourable gentlemen would not look at the subject and avoid personal and other grievances. His honourable colleague (Mr Cargill) seemed to have an excellent idea of settling the country in every particular, but he never showed them how they were to get rid of the difficulty of hia friends the squatters. If he would only get those friends to be reasonable, the difficulty might be overcome, but he did not show them

how to do it. It had been said that Otago was constantly changing her Land Laws ; \ ut he would say that O ago did not alter these laws very much. The law passed in 1856 remained in force for 10 years ; and he would ask who changed that law ? It was changed in deference to the wishes of the squat'ers and capitalists. It was to suit their convenience that the law of 1866 was passed. All the alterations had been made by the General Assembly, and not by the population of Otago ; and it was the Assembly that had caused all the confusion. The honourable member for Oteramika said that this question about the Hundreds had arisen in conse pence of the Provincial Government yielding to the unreasonable demands for Hundreds—basing his remarks upon the Traquair and Stewart Hundreds. But he ought to have known j that long before those leases were granted the public said, "We want those lands ;" and he thought that the recommendations of the Government not to grant those leases was upon the records of the House ; and those leases would never have been granted if unfair influence had not been brought to bear upon the Executive. He (Mr Cutten) felt very strongly upon this subject of the land laws ; but he looked upon it as a very different thing to discuss this question on the steps of the Provincial Buildings and in that Council Chamber.—(Laughter.) If these members opposed to the Government upon this question would endeavour to assist in making the3e resolutions satisfactory to themselves, the Government would be most happy to receive their suggestions ; but if they did not do that, the Government would only have to go over to the other side. The new principle embodied in the resolutions of selling land upon deferred payments was one which must necessarily be discussed ; and he could assure the House that they were an exact transcript of the Victorian Regulations, excepting that the provisions relating to the Goldfields were framed to suit the different system of management. _ The first of Mr Outfcen's lacd resolutions was then put, and a division waa taken with the following result:—Ayes, 30; noes, 7. The resolution was therefore carried. The following is the division list:—

Ayes : Messrs Allan, Armstrong, Barr, Barton, Bastings, Bath«ate, Bradshaw, Brown, J. C. ; Browne, G. F. C. ; CantrelL Clark, Cutten (teller), Daniels, Duncan, Gillies, Green, Henderson, Hickey, Hutcheson, Lumsden, Menziss, Mervyn, Moliison, M'Arthur, Reid (teller), Robertson, Shand, Shepherd, Smith, and Sumpter.

Noes : Messrs Bell (teller), Galbraith, M'Glashan, M'Lean ((eller), Reynolds, Seaton, and Webster.

The second resolution, "That, as in many of the earlier proclaimed Hundreds the Crown Lands bear so small a proportion to the sold land as to render the amounts collected as assessment so small as not to pay 'he expense of a Ranger's salary, the Waste Lands Act Amendment Act be repealed, and other provisions made in lieu thereof, so that hi all Hundreds the rate of assessment be reduced when two-thirds of the said Hundreds have been sold, and shall cease entirely when three fourths of any Hundred ba sold," was then put, and carried on the voices.

On the third resolution being read " That it is desirable that the land laws of the province should be made more liberal, and that facilities should be offered for bonafide settlement and occupation of land by deferred payments of the purchase money, and by allowing the rents of land held under agricultural leases being placed to the credit of the lessee as purchase money, in the event of his becoming the purchaser," Mr OUTTBN explained, in answer to Mr Reynolds, that it was intended to fix the price of the land at 303 per acre ; and to make the clause relating to rents under agricultural leases have a retrospective effect.

A slight discussion followed, and as a large number of members had left the House after the division on the first resolution, it was resolved to adjourn the debate^ in order that the principle contained in this resolution might be fully considered. Accordingly, on the motion of Mr Hutcheson, progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again. The House then adjourned.