The Government for a long time did nothing, pendulating between the Conservative section from whom they were receiving support, and the democratic multitude with whom they sympathised. At length Mr. Brooke struck what proved to be for a time a successful popular coup. He believed he had discovered in the existing Land Law power to grant licenses to new tenants of the Crown for as few as forty acres, and he proposed to employ this power largely wherever settlement was desired. To baffle the squatters who had resisted the Nicholson Land Bill was a very natural desire in the popular mind, and the people were too angry to be scrupulous as to the method. The scheme of these licenses, however, on examination proved to be altogether illusory, and I took occasion to unmask their deficiencies in Parliament. In the first place, I insisted that the Occupation licenses conferred a miserable tenure. The Minister might withdraw a license at pleasure. Any miner might enter upon the petty allotment to pursue his industry. The Supreme Court might order the lessee to be ejected as being in illegal possession. He could not sell or transfer either his license or his improvements. If he died, his right, title, and interest died with him. He could not quit home on any of the industrial pursuits which attract men hither and thither in a new country, as non-residence forfeited his license; and when his license expired the land which he was accustomed to consider as his must be purchased at public auction, there being no other possible method of obtaining it. Were these conditions under which a national industry could be planted? I insisted that what a popular Government ought to do was to renew the attack on the obstructives in the Upper House, and obtain a settlement which would have the security of law. The question was: Were we to base our public policy upon law, which is the solemn consent of the people, or on the caprice or prejudice of a Minister?
The danger was much more serious than the inexperienced would understand. There passed under the control of the Executive Government every year a larger amount of national property than was distributed under the votes of Parliament. If we set the example of allowing the Executive to exercise their own discretion without the assent of law, and contrary to
