PARTY DIVISIONS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1317, 17 August 1886, Page 2

PARTY DIVISIONS

The following 1b takan from the Hansard report of Mr Bolleston’s speech on the New Zealand Loan Bill: Mr Rolleston — .... Take the question of the Advances on Lands Bill, introduced by the honorable member for Port Chalmers. What took place here with respect to that Bill J In the Financial Statement we had had a lengthy paragraph explaining the deliberate views of the Government—a formal document, which, by the way, had to go to London, and therefore wn more c?«-efu11y prepared than it otherwise would be. The views there express d ware distinctly adverse to any such system as proposed by the honorable member for Port Chalmers, and the Hon. the Treasurer pave the country and the House to understand that Government would have nothing to do with it. But when the Bill came on in this Fouae, what wrs done I The Premier go .'p and, in a speech of very great power and clearness, expounded his views of the case. Members of this House had a right, I think, to expect that, in a question of public policy of that magnitude, the Government would load the. House and be of one mind. But what happened 2 The Premier went into one lobby by him elf; the Colonial Treasurer, who himself had expressed Iri opinion as distinctly adverse to the proposals, paired in favor of the measure ; and all the other members of the Government went into the opposite lobby. Never since I have been in Parliament

have X teen anything that reflected so much discredit on our institutions ai what took place that evening. I felt sorry that the honorable member for Port Ohaimora accepted a vote affirming the principle of that Bill from members who, r’l round the House, stated they simply votod out of compliment and respect to him. Is this the position cf the Legislature of New Zealand—that its members are on such grounds as these to lend their names to a principle of that kind, raising hopes in the mine’s of the farmers of the country, leading them to (he belief that they are going to be given relief which eve y one In this House knows will not be afforded ? Was that a proper position for this House to be led into by the members of the Government, and was it a proper position for the promoter of that Bill to take up, that the Bill shonld be allowed to be carried by the votes of Ministers who were bound, from their constitutoral position in relation to the Premier, to vote against the Bill '? 1 knew of no more mischievous action than that which occurred on that occasion. It was a cru«fl mockery of the farming interest I am not speaking upon the merits of the Bill ; I cannot do so, because that would involve a long ditcusslon ; but 1 refer to the matter simply to show what bad examples ard set us by this Coalition Governmpnt—this coalition of the theoiotlcal and ut'Htarian elements, as they were calkd by the Colon al Treasurer,