THEGOLDFIELDS SECRETARY AND THE ROXBURGH PROGRESS COMMITTEE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 349, 22 April 1874, Page 2

THEGOLDFIELDS SECRETARY AND THE ROXBURGH PROGRESS COMMITTEE.

There was a Committee meeting held at Mr. J. Beighton's Commercial Assembly Rooms on Friday night, the result of which was the following :—: — " Mr. Bastings is reported to have said in a curiously inaccurate speech, delivered at the laying of the foundation stone of the Town Hall of Naseby : ' That he had been getting into disgrace at Teviot because he said that one of the Committee had stated an untruth in saying that the Government had sold a 1000 'acre block of land to the runholder for £1 per acre, and had given the people 1000 acres of bad land.' "In a previous speech, delivered at the

opening of the Deborah Bay tunnel, the same gentleman Baid with reference to the action taken by the Roxburgh Committee : ' That men holding respectable positions had not hesitated to say what was a lie, and to publish to the public of this colony and the' people of England that the Government of this country are not desirous of settling the people on the land, but that they were as eager as others that it should pass into the hands of a few capitalists. This,' he said, ' was untrue. He could say for himself and for those gentlemen connected with him that their earnest desire was to facilitate the advancement of this country in every way in their power. It was therefore wrong for men who knew better to circulate what they knew was not true,' &c. Mr. Bastings is this time more explicit, and qualifies his statement by saying that only one of the Committee told an untruth. With reference to the foregoing imputation, the Committee individually and collectively desire to given an unqualified* contradiction. " What the Committee stated was that the Government (had arranged to sell privately to the runholder 2000 acres of land on Millers Flat Station at 20s. per acre, which comprised some of the best available land on the run, on the condition that the runholder would give up 2,500 acres for settlement without compensation. For this statement the Committee have the authority of Mr. Bastings himself among others. It is somewhat singular that the surveyor was instructed to lay off a rocky, shingle block of 2500 acres into sections of 100 acres utterly unfit for agricultural settlement, and at the same time survey 2000 acres of good land in one large section for the runholder. The Committee now challenge Mr. Bastings to refute the accuracy of their statements ; they fail to see any argument in abuse. They have stated what they believe on good authority to be facts. Will Mr. Bastings be able to refute them ? Facts are stubborn things and not easily refuted, even by men of the stamp of the Secretary of the Goldfields. " The Committee would also ask : How and in what way he can reconcile his assertions by stating at first that the Committee were guilty of a lie and not restricting Ids accusation to only one of the Committee, and how he has ascertained that only one is guilty of falsehood, seeing that all the Committee concurred in the address issued by the Committee ?

" The Committee naturally ask, Why cannot land be opened in the Mount Benger District, as in other places, without the runholder first getting the pick of it ? Cannot the Government open land on Millers Flat without sacrificing 2000 acres of good land ? Is Mr. Bastings ignorant of the fact that 5000 acres were covenented by the lessee of the above run to be given up without compensation ? In the face of facts like these, the Secretary for Golclfields says the Government ' had to make what terms they could with the runholder ; and that, under the 33rd section of the Goldfields Act, they were allowed to open up land by payment of compensation or arbitration, but if the blocks opened were not taken up, no more could be taken,' &c, &c. If he said that, under the 33 rd clause of the Goldfields Act, one half of any block opened under it would requh*e to be taken up previously to any more being opened, he would be nearer the truth ; but if shingle blocks only are given to the people, can the Government expect one-half of them to be taken up and occupied ? "Recently, on the inhabitants asking for another block of land to be opened above Roxburgh, they, were informed that as one half of the blocks already opened were not taken up, no more could be opened* " Let us state what are the facts ! The one-half of the block in question was withdrawn at the instance of the runholder, after being surveyed and instructions issued to the olicer representing the Government not to receive applications for that half, while the other half has, with the exception, of about 200 acres of worthless land, been taken up and occupied years ago, at the same time the runholder was allowed to select a portion of his pre-emptive right within it. In reply to this, the member for the district (Mr. Ireland) requested the Secretary of Lands to point where the half of the block in question was not taken up, to which there has been no reply. " It is really high time these absurd attempts to throw dust in the eyes of the public should be given up. It is nothing short of insulting to suppose that people are so densely ignorant as to swallow the nonsensical excuses put forward in defence of the action of the Government in persistently witholding land from settlement. " I am, Sir, " On behalf of the Committee, " You obedient Servant, "E. Morbison, Secretary."