PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2905, 18 July 1882, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

: Wellington, July 17. HOUSE’OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 7,30 p.m. NEW MEMBER. Mr Pilliet was introduced by Sir G. Grey and Mr Wynn Williams, and took the oath and his seat for Stanmore. THE LAND BILL. Mr Pyke resumed the debate on the Land Bill. He complimented Mr Rollestb’n on introducing this excellent Bill, which showed he possessed the courage of his opinions. He had the noble audacity of advocating opinions which, if not popular, were at least noble and just. The main principles of the Bill were in accord with the tendency of modern thought, although noLegislature had ever endeavored to give them practical effect, The. principle was that the land was, and must always remain, the . property of the State, no matter how disposed of. The Bill would benefit individuals by enabling them to go on land without first impovershing themselves by the expenditure of purchase money. The advantage to the State would be incalculable. What would be the condition of the colony if it sold all its land ? To sell land was really not to raise revenue, but to destroy tfap source: from which revenue should be Raised. There was really no limit to tlm transaction which land might bear, although there Was a limit to the power of indirect taxation. We were flinging our patrimony to the winds in selling onr lands and allowing large estates to accumulate in the hands of a few, regardless of the lessons of the history of other countries all the world over. _ The majority would in turn make the minority pay when they found.them, selves shut out from'the land. He entirely concurred with the caution shown by the Government in proposing first to try the experiment on a limited scale. He laughed to scorn the idea that people would not take up leaseholds. The sales of pastoral leases in Otago, which had realised £70,000 a year showed this. He believed twothirds of Dunedin were let on leases. There wus a great deal of sentimental nonsense talked about this question of freeholds against leaseholds. Did. not people as a matter of fact lend money on leases ? He preferred the State to the money-lender as the owner .of the freeholdc,. In-India. thcusom of sixteen millions was annually raised by the rent of lands. Ho entirely differed from the Minister of Lands in reference to the lands on goldfields.: He thought at the least' a ,30 years lease should be given, and that it should not be limited to 21 years; The outcome of the ballot system was that the wealthy man got the bulk of the land, for so many dummies were put in. He considered the landlordism of the private person was the worst sort, and not that of the State. This Bill would be a death-blow to land sharks, and' therefore they would oppose it. He complimented Sir John Hall on his masterly speech bn Friday night. The deferred payment system was originated by the speaker (Mr Pyke) in 1862, and not by Mr Donald Reid, as stated by the Hon. Mr Rolleston.- At tbe present time the (agricultural- lease system was; preferred; to the deferred payment system. Section 3 was, he thought, one of the harshest ever introduced in such a BUI. It should not be allowed to pass in its present shape. He regarded clauses 46 downward with great fear. We would _ lose our reserves for primary education by this Bill. He would try and have these clauses struck out in Committee. He was perfectly sure the clauses for relief of deferred payment settlers would never be availed of. He thought; the Bill introduced by Sir George Grey to be better for deferred payment settlers than the one introduced by Government. He congratulated the minister of Lands on tbe clause referring to pastoral leases. He hoped that no party feeling would influence members in dealing with a measure of' this importance. Mr Hursthonse had listened oarefnlly to the speeches on this Bill, and had come to the conclusion that the law to settle the people on the land must not be cast-iron, bat very elastic. It was the duty of the Legislature to place the people on the land. He did not think the deferred payment settlers required relief at the present time, but thought they should work out their own destiny. He held that the peace and contentment of the people was of more importance than theoretical deal* ings with land. Mr Fergus would like to see a number of alterations made in Committee. He thought the time of the leases should in some cases be greatly extended. He complimented the Minister of Lands for introducing tbe measure.

Mr Weston said the measure was one of the most serious the House could dispose of. Not one of the advocates of the Bill had gone into it thoroughly. The Minister of Lands said the Bill was not to interfere with the tenure of land at present held by private individuals, but he thought this limitation a mistake. The question of the deferred payment settlers had been brought before the House over and over again. He thought whether the deferred payment settlers paid or not, they must be left on the land. The most that could be done was to give them time to pay the money. They could not be turned off the land. He thought there was some justice in the remarks of Sir George Grey on this

j Bill. The deferred payment settlers were given the ground, and there was no! guarantee that the land would be | properly tilled, or the conditions fulfilled, He condemned the condition of; the lease proposed by the Bill, which' provided that only one-fifth of the land \ was necessary to be cleared and that J the rest might thus remain in a state of nature. The Hon Mr Kolleaton had said the Government did not wish to encourage the borrowing of money by the people, but it was necessary for farmers to borrow. It was provided that the people were not to hold more than 640 acres. He could not agree with the limitation. To say that a man was not to buy land to any extent he pleased was stating what could not be done. This measure would check the proper use of money, and would result in a quantity of land remaining in a state of nature. It was preposterous to think a man would take 640 acres of bush land for 21 years. The system of arbitration proposed was unfair, the Crown nominating one of the arbitrators, the settler the other, and the Crown a third should the first two not agree. It was very unlikely that people would come here for a leasehold when they got a freehold cheaply in America and elsewhere. Hon. members who approved of the Bill had killed it with faint praise. The Hon. Mr Eolleston bad the said he wished to encourage the goldmining industry, but he had not evinced that in the least degree this session. When members went to see him about anything, they only got evasive answers, but here be came down with this Bill as a universal panacea, and in reply to all complaints said, “ take s lease and be happy !” The goldfields did not want this Bill, and it was not adapted to their requirements. The Hon Mr Rolleston really knew very little about the Bill and did not understand its effect. He (Mr Weston) was very doubtful whether the Minister for Lands was really the parent of the Bill. However, as Government had brought iu this Bill they should stand or fall by it, and not allow it to be mangled and changed in Committee. The only way to check the abolition of large estates was, be held, the abolition of the law of entail. Ho expressed the utmost disappointment at the weakness, the want of policy, and the procrastination of the Government this session. They .sat on the Benches letting members scramble over wretched private measures There was a great contrast between their conduct this session and that of the late Premier. Now nothing could be got at all from them. He felt it his duty to say this openly—although he said it with pain, as many of the members of the Government were his personal friends. It was now the duty of the House to see the right men put on the Government Benches, and that the work of the country was done, or else they would all go back to their constituents like fools, and not like wise men. Ho did not say how he would vote if a vote of want of confidence was proposed, but unless they brought down a real policy at once, and proceeded to deal with it in a business like way, he would do his best to turn them out. Mr Duncan could not vote , for the Bill. Speaking from experience in his district, ne believed the leasing system proposed would not answer. Mr Stewart said the colony could not afford to say to people looking out for a new home that wo could only give them leases while other colonies and countries offered them freeholds. We could not be content with our present population. Tea years he' nee there ought to be a population of a million, and to attract this there must be a possibility of acquiring freeholds. What with nationalism of the land and compulsory insurance, people would be drawn out of the colony instead of being attracted to it. If a class of crown tenants were created here there would soon be a no rent agitation as there was in Ireland. Mr Levin supported the Bill generally. Mr Levastara and Mr Feldwick opposed the Bill. Mr Hobbs supported the Bill. At 12.55 p.ra. the House adjourned.