THE DEBATE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1372, 24 February 1912, Page 8

THE DEBATE.

B£EEfW BY MR.^SITT..... ] ' . ;'; •'SECTAB&N, BIAS. 8.15, ; not I; remajto''sile'nt~was that 'a rtiehiber'of that I House'had been mo3t cruelly and malign- , nhtly.'skndered. Ho did not .wonder that the. Opposition wis elated, add'ho did not j. pudge. thßttf elation, after their long >perio(LVof melancholy. On .their ''own showing th'ey, had arisen'on„ tho steppiug- . Ftones of -nther men's faults.--It was .very damaging to admit that"the Government , had been punished on account of its administration .and'notion 'account of its : policy. The policy of the Beforni party Iras mean and attenuated. It begged, with ' » mendicant's whine, to. be returned to , to administer a policy which its oppoiij&nts had framed. It was a plea . which; evidenced their own impotence. The . Roforin party' had gono about the coun- : try creating a snecies of "Ward-phobia." ! Mo 'accepted without reservation the ' statement of. members of. the Opposition ! thatvtliey had not themselves been guilty nf 'hitting the shameful charges hurled : Rgainst Sir Joseph; Ward. But while they rnigUt,'make this 'plea with all truthfuli ncssi'this -did not ffea them, from all reIponilbili.ty'in connection with the matter. «i\.nyone who'turned up the file of the CKristch'urch'"Press" would find that ts oditor-liadv taken him (Mr. Isitt) to task-(for the use of abusive and improper language, on ..'the ground, that when ho nddressed v 'his imeotings in ■ the public street!, and nYen who had slunk into dark '■ corners and'pulled'their, hats'-over their eves/Saskod: "What about the commission jjir Joseph 'Ward made oh loans," ho i replied that a man who, in a- public meet- ' lug, -made such' a" statement' and a charge i igaiiist a public man was a "contemptible fnr.''i He:maintained that, this was absolutely; justified. . , "Sectarian Bias." Hc",-;knew that sectarian bins was being '. nsed;'- In his own electorate the statement J had been made that Sir Joseph Ward had lent the Catholic Cathedral authorities .£IO,OM without interest. Ho a-ked' Sir Joseph Ward about that, and, of cdjirse, he denied it. Thore were other instances of sectarian bias. Ho admitted r.hat'lhero were some actions on the part of the Government that ho could not approve'by any manner of means. • Thero was tho Dreadnought 'Ho went further than the Opposition in that matter. ' Ha con•denmed not only the gift but tho manner nf giving it. As lo the title, ho believed . that, [the only aristocracy was the aristocracy of brains and charaoter, but if the : -Primo Minister accented the a.p- ---: pendage, well, he.really had done nobody; very'much harm. He strongly condemned the Government.for .the initiation of compulsory''training,' and continued with ■ a -.wordy iiwade against tho Pcform party. I Mr. Isitf. referred, towards the conclusion of his speech, to the hard work the Prime Minister had to undertake nfteT he had como back from England with a boil on the back of his neck as big as a pigeon's eug.-nnd'n heavy cold. He wonted to fee , the'Primo Minister one day at 1.30 p.m., and was told "For pity's sake leave tho man nilone; ho has ha<l nothing to cat or drink since this morning." He charged Mr; .Tames Allen with having, in his criticism of the Budget, talked of him »s if ho were n criminal.

PROTESTS AND EXPLANATIONS. A, WARNING EROM THE SPEAKER. . Mr. M'ASSEY said that the Independent member for Christchurch North had, as usual, misrepresented him. He would pass over half-a-dozen points in which he bad been misrepresented in regard to the lending/Department of the State, because he lw(l explained tboin fully very recently. Mr; Jsitt. had said that tho policy of tho , Leador of the Opposition was a policy intended to-depopulate" Canterbury. Mr.'" Riisscil (Avon) raised a point of srdeiv contending that, with regard to ' svery-. speech made from the Government

I side of the House, Mr. Massey had seized the opportunity, under ' cover of a personal explanation, to make a reply on general principles. The Speaker remarked that this was a distinct reflection on tho Chair. Mr. Russell repudiated any intention of making such a reflection. Mr. Massey, resuming his explanation, gave Mr. Isitt's statement that his policy was intended to depopulate Canterbury, a flat and emphatic denial. The policy of tho Opposition was to give full effect to the Laud for Settlements Act, and havo it properly administered.- Tt had not been properly administered during the past half-dozen years. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie complained that Mr. .Massey was bringing "up questions of policy upon a no-confidence motion. The Speaker did not uphold the protest. Interrupted, at this stage, by some Government interjections, he warned members that any . member who presumed to interrupt the Speaker would be named and dealt with by the House. Mr. Isitt said that he had hot meant to say that tho policy of tho Leader, of the Opposition was intended to have'the effect, of depopulating Canterbury,, but that it would havo that effect.