Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2061, 12 August 1875, Page 2

One of the principal objections urged against the Abolition Bill is the proposed mode of dealing with the land fund. In our remarks on the bill when first submitted, we-referredto this point, and said that the proposed settlement of the question was a prominent weakness in one respect, but that it constituted its strength in another direction. This has been demonstrated by subsequent events. There is no question but the adhesion of many of the southern ■constituencies' is duo mainly td%he proposals to localise thejand fund expenditure. Had the Government attempted any other scheme, a'decided opposition would have arisen, and members of the House, as well as the people would have been in arms; so that our estimate of the provisions of the Bill regarding the land fund is more than verified by the opinions which have been oxpressed since the Abolition Bill was made public. The Government, the House, and public opinion in the South all tend in one direction—that the compact which deprived Auckland of any participation in the land fund-of the Middle Island must be respected. And although it is contended that,the Constitution of the Colony may be reconstructed or amended, this famous compact, it appears, is, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. Although not prepared to concede this point, and still adhering to (he

position we took up in a recent issue, that Ministers should have grappled with the question and at least attempted to make the land fund a part of the consolidated revenue, we feel that the edict has gone forth, and that the North must accept the dictum of the South, namely its exclusion from all participation in^thc land fund.