Untitled

Dunstan Times, Issue 1132, 11 January 1884, Page 1 (Supplement)

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I appear before you again as a candidate, because Parliament or Ministers, or both, have willed that there should be a dissolution—a premature and unnecessary dissolution as I regard it. Ministers were beaten—badly beaten—on a direct vote of no-confidence. The ordinary course in such cases is to advise the Governor to send for some prominent member of the Opposition —the party carrying the vote —to form a new Ministry. But Ministers, departing from the usual course, advised a dissolution. They defended their action on two grounds. First, they said the House desired a dissolution, and so far as I was able to ascertain, it is a fact that several members voted against the Government, and with th - majority, on the distinct understanding that there should be a- dissolution. But Ministers further justified their advice to the Governor by the monstrous assumption that they, and they only, of all the members of Parliament, were capable of governing the country. To such a pitch of self-inflation has five years of undisturbed power misled them ! I can only say that taking them man for man, two or three more capable ministries could have been formed in the House. Whatever of extra expenditure therefore may accrue because of the dissolution, 1 charge Ministers with being accountable for it. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE. A great deal of robust nonsense has been talked about the Royal Prerogative in connection with this matter. The phrase is used to cover ignorance, and conjure silence with. As Lord John Russell correctly put it, in 1841: —“ A dissolution, like other prerogatives of the Crown is one in which the House, in certain eases, has the right to interfere.” And as a notable instance of such interference I may mention that the House of Commons passed a deliberate vote of censure on Sir Robert Peel for improperly advising Her Majesty to grant a dissolution. There is no royal prerogative with the exercise of which the representatives of the people may not interfere. I hold that in the present case the Governor should have exhausted the House before proceeding to the extreme step of granting a dissolution, and that Ministers are blameable for not having so advised him. Ido not say that either Sir George Grey or Mr. Montgomery could have formed a stable government. In fact Ido not believe that either could have done so. But so much the greater was the reason for their having been tried, so that the country might see the value of their preten sions. This view of the case does not seem to have occurred to Major Atkinson. The truth is, there is a notion extant that some advantage is to be gained by the party holding the keys of office at the time of a general election. In an honest, fair, stand-up fight, such as contested elections on the Dunstan have always been, it is difficult to see how this rule works. But if it is a case of helping a candidate by giving assurances of local work through his agency —and it is sad to think that such things do occur—then we can all understand how the possession of office may be made beneficial to a Ministry in dreadful straits. Whether it is dignified for a Ministry to cling to office for such purposes is another question. COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE. But although I disagree with the reasons assigned by Ministers, and deprecate their motives for not at once resigning, I am bound to express my gratification at the dissolution. The Parliament that has been snuffed out was unworthy to live. It was beyond calculation the worst House I ever sat in. As I said in my place there, it was no longer a Parliament but a big Road Board. Once the Parliament of New Zealand was a body of statesmen, capable of holding their own in any Legislative Assembly in the world. But it had fallen from its high estate. The cause of this deterioration is not far to seek. Every trumpery local matter is now, of necessity, referred to the Parliament, which used to be dealt with by the Provincial Council. Then to add to the confusion, the franchise has been extended to a large number of men, who never held it before, and wflo do not seem to know what to do with it now they have it. Naturally enough they made mistakes at the outset. One cannot learn to swim without first floundering in the water, any more than babies can learn to walk without falling. The newly-enfranchised electors elected new and untried men. We had, I think, 40 of these political apprentices in the last House. Very good sort of men in their way most of them were, excellent men I should say for Road Boards —or even County Councils, but as much out of their element in Parliament as an elephant in mid-air. Their talk was ot roads and bridges. One of them actually declared there was no community of interest in his own district, because the people located in some gully could not agree as to which side of the gully a sludge-channel should be made. What could be done with narrow-minded people ot this sort ? Their highest conception of political economy was centred in getting money for some road or bridge, and they voted quite naturally

with the party which could give them the husks for which they yearned. I say lam glad that, whether rightly or wrongly, the Parliament was dissolved. I trust the electors have learned something from the record of the past Parliament, and that at this election they will reject the weeds, and replace them by better men. PARTY. A great deal has been said about “ Party.” Well, I have watched the attempts to develope a “ party.” I have taken part in it in fact, and have given it up in disgust. The only outcome so far at least has been to develope obstruction. What is “ party ” without “ policy ? ” The Government never had a policy. They used up the odds and ends of policy which they found in the pigeon-holes on their accession to office, and then they were at their wits ends. Some stray shreds Major Atkinson tried to evolve from his inner consciousness, such as Compulsory Insurance and Federation. But his well-intended efforts fell flat. The people asked for bread, and he gave them stones. Commercial depression cannot be cured by such inefficacious nostrums as he presented. And these were all he was able to offer. Then the Opposition had no policy—not a single plank on which they could agree to embark together. It seemed to me that the only policy of either party was that of bold Robin Hood:— “ The good old rule, the simple nlan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can.” Only consider the way in which the business of the Opposition was carried on—Giey pulling one way, and Montgomery another, and each more intent on checkmating the other, than on fighting the common enemy. In the case of Sir George Grey I do not hesitate to say that he has been the direct means of keeping the Atkinson Government in office during the last three years. Not that he loves Hawera more, but Akaroa less. He aims at a position, and has held it in these past years, of the utmost danger to the State. He cares not for office, for he will neither lead nor follow. He desires power without responsibility, than which I know of nothing more fatal to the freedom of a people or their welfare. But so long as he can induce some 10 or 12 Members to blindly follow his lead—and nothing but blind servitude will satisfy him—he can hold the balance of power in the House to the detriment of Constitutional Government. This has been his position in the past, and he hopes to continue it in the future. THE HONORARIUM. Before going further I should like to say a few words about the Great Honorarium Question. lam bound to call it “great,” because in some districts the public seem to consider it as one exceeding in importance any political issue at stake. I may tell you at once that I voted for the whole amount, and took it. On principle I did so. I am sure my constituents would not have thought any better of me if I had voted against it for popularity’s sake, and pocketed it afterwards, with a hypocritical groan for the selfishness of my brother legislators, as I am sorry to say a great many have done. Of them, as of Donna Julia, it may be said: — “ A little still they strove, and much repented, And swearing they would ne’er consent—consented.” Why, I saw one member—not a poor one either—who absolutely stood in the middle of the House whilst members were filing off into the respective lobbies— Aye or No —and when he saw that the vote for the full amount was safe, he walked into the lobby with the Noes; and since then he has boasted on a public platform that he did not vote for the iniquitous thing. No, but he would have done so had it been necessary to secure the full amount; and he pocketed every penny of it. Then there are others who, as I observe, have donated portions of their honorarium to various public objects. What is this but offering up a sacrifice to the devil in the hope that, by a timely propitiation, he will help them to get back to Parliament again ? When I see these things, I am reminded of the advertisements one sometimes sees in the London papers acknowledging the remission of “conscience money” to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The people who send the Chancellor these “ conscience monies ” have been great rogues, or they would not have occasion to send the money; and the members who disgorge portions of then’ honorarium must be suffering from similiar selfconviction. They know they did not honestly earn the money, and so they strike a bargain with the devil, and hand a portion back. It will not avail them when the Grand Account is audited. But, above all, commend me to the folk who, falling flat at the feet of Demos, declare that if they had been in the House they would not have taken the full amount! Unassailed purity is not worth much. I remember an an old, scarred, maimed Waterloo veteran who, after describing how a British outpost was driven in, was ' told by his auditors what great things they would have accomplished under the circumstances. “Aye, my lads,” cried the old soldier, “ you are all very brave

out of danger.” And so I say of these untried candidates—They are all very virtuous out of temptation. A WARNING. I cannot but remember a warning and a bad example. Some years ago there was a dissolution, when precisely the same thing occured in regard to the honorarium. One gentleman refused to accept more than £SO, and vaunted his ultra-virtuous conduct to his constituents. Their answer practically was this:— “If you only estimate your services at £SO, and all the others estimate theirs at £2OO, you are not good enough for us. Every man should know his own value, and we accept you at yours. We won’t have you.” They rejected him—they have kept him out in the cold ever since. He is again frantically beseeching them to have him at any price; but I think he will never get over that sublime act of self-sacrifice. Another boasted at the hustings that he had not drawn one penny, of his honorarium, and the people would not have him at a gift. With such a warning and example before me, I refrained from unecessary selfimmolation, and I appeal to you whether I was not wise to do so. There are some people so peculiarly constituted as to regard “honorarium” as a better word than PAYMENT OF MEMBERS. But I cast all that to the winds, and I call it wages. I made a contract when I entered Parliament that I would serve you for a certain sum per session —short or long. On one occasion the work of Parliament was so prolonged that I was only just able to reach home on Christmas Eve. I asked for no greater payment then, and received none. This was a short session. I declined to take any less. The last miserable annual squabble should be put an end to by an Act fixing the amount payable yearly. Then if there were two or twenty sessions in a year the charge on the country would be the same. And it should not be less than £3OO a year. If that is considered little enough for Victoria, where Members only sit four days in the week, and can always return home by a railway train at night, with the opportunity of being at their own homes for at least three days and nights in the week, it certainly is not too much for the Members of the Parliament of New Zealand, who are practically banished to Wellington for from three to four months every year, without a chance of revisiting their homes during the entire period. I say “ without a chance. ” Of course they can go home if they please. But they can only do so by neglecting their Parliamentary duties. It takes two days to reach Dunedin, and four days to reach Clyde. So that a member could only pay a flying visit to his family during the session, at the ■ loss of a whole week. And for every day he is absent he is fined, whether he gets leave or not. Every member is therefore banished from his family in effect during the session, and his banishment is to one of the most unlovely spots in New Zealand. Payment of members is the rule in France, in America, and in all States where the people rule. It is the law of England now; although the practice has fallen into abeyance there. But at the present time the miners of Northumberland are voluntary paying one of their own number, whom they have returned to the House of Commons, the sum of £SOO a year. This is because they understand THE PRINCIPLE underlying payment of members. Do you wish to be represented by the wealthy classes alone ? If so abolish payment of members, the honorarium, or whatever you please to call it. I notice that a young gentleman of the name of Arkwright, newly arrived from England, is trying to teach the colonists how to suck eggs. The audacity of new chums is proverbial. As the Yankees say :—we can give them points. The object of paying members is to prevent the representation of the people falling into the hands of those who would soon pick up plenty of things about the House that would pay them better than a paltry £2OO or £3OO per annum. And the people should insist on payment —liberal payment —to secure honest representation, without which the franchise would be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. Of all forms of tyranny the most injurious, the most dangerous, and the most damnable, is government by a plutocracy —the aristocracy of mere wealth—the dominancy of the “ wealthy lower orders ”; and it is to this you will be subjected if you do not, by payment of members, retain a wholesome savour of independency in your legislature. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. But I would reduce the number of members. It is absurd to have 90 representatives for 150,000 electors, that is, supposing every male of the age of 21 and upwards is on the electoral roll. Reduce the number to 60 and still the country would be overrepresented. But in doing so care must be taken not to repeat the mistake of the last electoral distribution Bill, which, under the pretence of giving equal representation to town and country, really gave the towns and large centres of population an enormous increase of i representation, and deprived the country districts of

their fair share in the conduct of public affairs. pretty piece of political jugglery was performed by an " alteration of the Constitution Act in the last Representation Act, which substituted representation in proportion to population for representation in proportion to the number of electors. As a result of this manoeuvre the representation of the towns was increased, and the country representation was decreased—a wrong which I shall endeavour to get ' righted before another election occurs. THE DEPRESSION. Many men have assigned many reasons for the \ general depression under which we are labouring. Now I am not one of those who think that a government is always answerable for the state of commercial affairs. No doubt there has been over-trading—over importing—extravagance of living—over-speculation in land, and many other immediate causes for the depression which exists. But these are not really causes —they are rather effects. What caused the over-trading, the extravagance, the speculation ? When Major Atkinson was stumping the country, expounding the benefits to be derived from compulsory National Assurance, he said, amongst other things—“ Bad government is one cause of poverty.” I hold him to that; and I say that his bad government has been the cause of our troubles. The over-trading and extravagance was originally caused by the too lavish distribution of borrowed money. The depression has been brought about by the misapplication of borrowed money. The present state of New Zealand proves the truth of this allegation. The North Island is now prosperous; the South Island is depressed. Why is this ? Because out of the Two Millions of borrowed money raised in the last two years, an enormously large proportion has been expended, and is still being expended in the North, and hardly anything in the South. Is it surprising that there should be such a disparity in the condition of the two islands ? We are told that the sums appropriated to the South will be spent here—on the Otago Central Railway for instance. But I tell you that not only have the loan moneys already raised been Northern purposes, but the balance of the is very nearly all pledged and mortgaged for purposes and for new rolling stock and rails. It i> dJB.'.V' ' cult therefore to see where our share is to come frOTT At any rate very little indeed of the £2,000,000 raises has yet been spent as the Act directs in this island. But speaking here I must draw attention to a remarkable omission on the part of all who have hitherto set themselves to explain the causes of depression. Nothing has been said about the -- —-- FALLING OFF OF THE GOLD YIELD. We hear a great deal about the encouragement of local industries. The only local industries I know of are the pastoral, the agricultural, and the mining industries. Ido not call the manufacture of things we can buy better and cheaper elsewhere local industries. Nor do I regard it wise to levy extra taxes on our own real local producersfor the sake of encouraging the establishment of foreign manufactures in our midst. Yet this is what is meant by “the encouragement of local industry,” Rightly considered, this same “ encouragement ” is a serious discouragement to all who are concerned in the developement of our real native and local resources. What has been done to encourage mining for instance? Absolutely nothing since the management of the gold-fields has been transferred to Wellington. True there is a mining department, and there is a Minister of Mines—a gentleman who is I utterly uninformed in all mining questions—who^ 4 " wears the title without capacity—who knows" nothing and cares less about mining. He has an Undersecretary, who may know a little—not much—about mining, but who, I am sure, regards the whole thing as a nuisance, and would be glad if the last claim were worked out, and the last miner were exhibited in a glass box as a curious specimen of bygone ages. - Inwall the department I question if there is a single who could distinguish between a piece of quartz anjf \ a lump of rock-salt; and as for the peripatet®"* Inspector attached to the department, we know hei* < . in this district at all events, how altogether useless ! and incompetent, to put it very mildly, that official is. Well, what has been the result of entrusting this important department to such men ? The STATISTICS published in the Gazette furnish the astounding information that in the last three years the yield of gold in JSew Zealand has diminished in a constant gradual ratio, which something alarming. In 1880 the total yield was of the In 1883 it had fallen to £993,352. In the quoted the total falling-off in the yield was £6os,ooonfc In Otago alone it was £275,000. Remember, these v amounts represent, not borrowed capital, but available metallic capital extracted from the soil. then ask yourselves whether this great diminution in the production of local capital has had anything to do

with the depression that exists. You know, as I do, that this decrease has not resulted because of the goldfields being worked out. We all know that they are yet awaiting developement in this district, and that a l wise, knowledgable, and competent administration P* of the mines department would do much in the way of restoring the prosperity which attended the goldmining industry before its management fell into incapable and inefiicient hands. Major Atkinson was s— right when he said that bad government was one of thfe pauses of poverty. The mismanagement of the gold-field's , is a proof of it. The ADJUSTMENT OF TAXATION is a question which will come in for very serious conKsideration during the existence of the new Parliament. You know that I am in favour of direct as opposed to indirect taxation. Every penny paid in the shape of customs duties, by the importer, is repaid by threehalfpence on the part of the consumer. It cannot be otherwise, because the duty is an addition to the original cost of the article. Thus if any article is charged to the importer at £1 and the duty is 15 per cent, the first cost is raised to £1 35., and he must have his profit on the latter sum. Then the merchant and the retailer must make their profits again on the enhanced price, and by the time it reaches the consumer the Ss. duty has really been increased to 5&. Levy taxation direct, and you get rid of the intermediary profits; and besides, you have the advantage of knowing what you are paying for what you get. Take education for instance. The primary cost is about £400,000 per annum. But as it is paid out of consolidated revenue it really costs £500,000. If the cost were defrayed by a direct education rate you would save £IOO,OOO per annum, and in addition the duties now levied on the necessaries of life, such as tea, sugar, and similar commodities, might be dispensed with altogether. I am so much opposed to the system of indirect taxation that I would remove all customs duties with the exception of those on alcoholic liquors and tobacco, and these I would increase to the nearest point short of rates that would absolutely encourage smuggling. THE PROPERTY TAX * is of a duplex character. In so far as it is levied on what is termed in law “ personal ” property —that is to say stock-in-trade, furniture, and other moveables—it is wrong in principle. When it is levied on merchandise it partakes of the nature of an extra customs-duty, and is really paid by the consumer at last. It is also a tax on industry, because it affects, either more or less directly, everything that industry creates. It should therefore be abolished. But a tax on real property, such as houses, is fair. There is no valid reason why capital invested in house property should not bear an equal share of taxation with capital invested in land. The tax on real property should “"efore be retained. A great deal of time has been -spent in the endeavour to draw a fine line of inction between property created by man and oerty created by Nature, or rather Nature’s God. such attempts must necessarily fail, because the t . earth i tself is of no value until the presence of man ..lends value to it. That \ LAND SHOULD BE TAXED is a self-evident proposition. It is the source of all wealth. But I have no sympathy whatever with any - scheme for bursting up large estates by the imposition of a Progressive Land Tax. That the holding of large areas of land in an unimproved condition for speculative purposes is an injury to the State, and an injustice to the general community, the members of which are debarred from the proper use of such land, cannot be denied. But I hold that the ordinary mode of taxation, if properly applied, supplies a sufficient remedy If an equal acreage tax were levied on all land—improved or unimproved—without regard to value, the holders of unoccupied land would very soon find it to their advantage to place their holdings in the market, or to lease the land on reasonable terms, , or to make use of it themselves It would not pay to allow it to remain idle. For instance, suppose two men holding, the one 500 acres of land in cultivation, and the other 500 acres in its natural state. If an acreage tax were imposed the cultivator would not it at all, but the speculative holder would find the payment very oppressive, because he would not be getting any return, and he would soon discover that the worst use to which he could put his capital was the holding of unimproved land. Now, increase the speculator’s holding to 5000 acres and upwards, and ( you will see how my plan would work in the direction ! of compelling the profitable occupation of the land. LAND NATIONALISATION. L I hope none of you have been infected with the I Henry George rabies. The nationalisation of the land, ft whatever may be said as to its application elsewhere, * cannot affect the consideration of the land question with us. In the first place we have yet many millions of Crown Lands unsold, and we had better apply our talents to the proper disposal of these before we begin to consider how we shall deal with land already sold; and it must be remembered that there is no analogy between the circumstances of possession here and in Britain. All the lands in England were held in fee of the Crown until the timie of Charles 11., when a Parliamer^—composed entirely of Crown g of two only, absolved themfrom their feudal obligation's, and granted themy selves and their heirs in perpetuity the freeholding —such lands, giving to the Crown in lieu the right to excise duties and duties of customs —which, I may in passing, is the origin of those duties. Before that time the Crown tenants held their land on condition of supplying His Majesty with so many men or ships, or money in lieu thereof in time of war, and rendering other stipulated services. In the time of William and Mary, the rights and obligations of the landowners came

again into question, and they only retained possession of their estates by making a further concession, that a tax of four shillings in the £ should be levied on all lands within the realm of England. This tax remains in force to this day, but the valuations remain as they were fixed in the reign of William and Mary; and one of the objects steadily insisted upon by financial reformers at the present day is to have the land re-valued, so as to make the freeholders pay their fair quota to the public burdens. This is the case in England, and many generations have passed away since the seizure of the land was effected. But here, in New Zealand, the owners of land are for the most part of our own generation, or only one remove therefrom. They have paid the State all the State demanded when they bought the land, and it would be little less than public robbery to take it from them now by force or fraud—by which I mean unequal taxation. Depend upon it, if they are compelled to contribute equally by an acreage tax, without regard to value, they will very soon find that to hold land unoccupied and unimproved is a losing transaction, and they will not be able to make out a case of unfair treatment either. FUTURE SALES. But we may yet protect the State—that is the people who compose the State—from injury in the future. When land is sold under any system it should be sold subject to a perpetual rent-charge estimated at one-tenth or any less proportion of its annual value. These values should be adjusted at certain fixed periods, say every twenty, or twenty-five years. In this way you would give the purchaser a freehold as complete and valid as that which he now possesses, and at the same time you would secure to the State a constant source of revenue from the land. You would gratify that natural sentiment which makes every man desire above all things to possess a piece of land which he can call his own, and you would never entirely relinquish the right of the State to be maintained by and from the land which is the heritage of all men. This brings me to the consideration of the system of PERPETUAL LEASING. About which such a wonderful hubbub has been made, as if it was something quite new and had never hitherto been thought of. This, gentlemen, is only the repetition on a larger scale of the Agricultural Leasing system under which Tuapeka, Wakatipu,- and the goldfields generally were first settled in 1862. And I shall not risk much if I venture to predict that the ultimate issue will be the same as that which befell the original experiment. The agricultural leaseholders held their land under certain conditions as to improvement, with the right of perpetual renewal, but no right of purchase. This did very well for a time, and people were only too glad then to be allowed to get a piece of land on any terms. But in 1866 they were numerous enough, and consequently strong enough, to demand a right of purchase, and the right was conceded. The same thing will happen in the case of the “ perpetual ” leaseholders. When they are strong enough they also will demand the right to possess themselves of the freehold, and they will carry the point. And it is well that they should. I tremble to think of what might ensue in the future, with a large body of crown-tenants on the one hand, and a weak government—corrupt because of its weakness—on the other. In dealing with the public lands I have always held that they should be classified as agricultural and pastoral, and each class should be subdivided into first and second-class lands, subject to future re-classification, because we do not yet quite know where to set arbitrary limits to cultivation. The land which is rejected to-day as unfit for agriculture, is on to-morrow found to possess some special adaptation for it. The agricultural land being thus temporarily determined, should be opened so that any bona fide settler could elect to take it up without delay, either for cash, or on deferred payment, or lease, as best suited him. I say nothing about agricultural leases in this connection, because that system of occupancy has been purposely debased, by laying out only stony rises and gravelly patches under its operation. I must say something, however, about the great drawback to settlement under the deferred payment system. It is a monstrous thing that the State should determine where a man shall live and sleep. The continuous residence condition prevents many excellent settlers from obtaining land; for to comply with it a man, or his young son, or his daughter, must immediately reside on the exact section held under it. Gross injustice has lately been done by the too rigid enforcement of this tyrannical condition, in the cases of Miss Howat and the Sheath’s at Rankleburn, and more immediately in this neighbourhood in the case of Mr. Naylor. It was proved in evidence, and admitted by the Board that in each and all of these cases, more than the law required had been done in the way of improvement and cultivation. But the condition of personal residence is unelastic, and a wrong —a great wrong—was done by insistance on the observance of the rigid letter of the law. The Board got frightened afterwards:— And back recoil’d—they knew not why— Even at the sound themselves had made. They petitioned one unhappy settler not to throw up his land; and generally they have exhibited a more Christian frame of mind ever since. But the wrong has been done—the Minister of Lands hounding the Land Board Commissioners on to their distasteful task —and the power to repeat such wrong must be taken away by an alteration of the law. The State has a right to demand that when it parts with any portion of the public estate it shall be properly used to the public benefit; but it has no right to dictate where a man shall eat, or sleep, or have his habitation. Take away the conditions of residence, and make the conditions of improvement more stringent, and you will quickly effect a revolution in the history of settlement —you will advance it half-a-century. In the case of

PASTORAL LANDS a different course should be adopted, and I will tell you why. There are not at present sufficient people with the necessary capital to properly occupy the pastoral lands. That is proved by the results of the last sale of pastoral licenses The time will come when each run will have its own occupier, hut that time is not yet. In the meantime, therefore, I should prefer not to sell the pastoral lands, but to lease them on somewhat similar conditions to those offered to agriculturalists under the Perpetual Leasing System. That is to say they should be leased, excluding all land classified as first or second-class “agricultural,” of which a temporary occupancy might be granted until it was required for settlement. I would lease such “ pastoral ” lands for 21 years, with the opportunity of renewal; and with compensation for permanent improvements made by the lessee during the term of his lease. I would so arrange the leases that every few years some of the runs would come into the market, and in i such a way that no two adjacent runs should be in the market at the same time. I think this would bring about two very desirable results. The pastoral lessee being assured of 21 years’ occupancy, with compensation if unsuccessful in re-purchasing at the end of bis term, would forthwith set himself to improve his run —by subdividing it, by conserving the natural grasses, and by sowing artificial grasses. There is no question of the fact that our pastoral lands have been injured beyond computation by the system prevalent of allowing the sheep to wander at their own will anywhere over the country. The sweet succulent natural grasses, and the nutritious herbage, such as anise, which once was so plentiful have been destroyed by this process. Some of these grasses and herbs were annuals, some were biennials, and they were never suffered to flower or seed. Give the runholder security of tenure and payment for his improvements, and you will give him an inducement to improve the country. His interest, after all, is the interest of the colony, and both must suffer or prosper together. MORE MONEY. One word here about further borrowing. There is much misapprehension afloat as to the present position. When you are shocked by being told that we are sending home such vast sums for interest, do not suffer yourselves to be quite thrown off your balance. Remember that upon about £12,000,000 of our debt the railways contribute a considerable proportion of the interest over and above the working expenses. The railways of this Island pay, I believe, all the interest on the moneys expended in their construction. The northern railways, I know, do not pay more than 2 per cent, of interest; and the quarrel just now is whether the traffic rates on the southern lines should be increased to make up the deficiency on the northern lines. Setting this aside for the moment, it is painfully evident that we must borrow more money or suffer a collapse. There are many works requiring completion—the Otago Central Railway amongst them. But we must borrow on more strictly defined principles. The last loan was raised, with a schedule in which there were lumped several lines and pieces of lines, and a variety of other items for roads and bridges and immigration; so that if the money is expended upon either of these there is no provision to insure its being spent in due proportion upon each individual work. In future, care must be taken that each item shall form a separate schedule, so that the money can only be expended as Parliament wills it. The Government have behaved very badly in this respect, and I greatly blame Mr. Dick and Mr. Oliver for allowing the proceeds of the loan to be—l will not say “ misappropriated,” but misapplied. However, we learn by experience. The same course must be adopted in regard of all public works. Each work must be a separate item, specially appropriated, as is always done by the New South Wales Legislature; and whatever may be the course now, it used also to be the rule in the Victorian Parliament, when I had the honor to be a member of that Assembly. And not one shilling should be borrowed for UN-REPRODUCTIVE WORKS. Roads and Bridges, Wharves and Harbours, and all such parochial matters must be left to the local authorities to be dealt with, and the money and the time of the New Zealand Parliament must be conserved for more important affairs. You have heard much lately of DECENTRALIZATION ; a phrase capable of immense perversion. I was present, a few nights ago, at one of the Colonial Secretary’s meetings. I heard him bewail the extremes to which decentralization was carrying people. He instanced some petty place which wanted to set up on its own account as a Road Board, with a revenue of £4O per annum, and he said—“ That is nonsense !” I quite agree with him; but that is just the sort of decentralization that his Government have been courting; because the more they could divide, the more securely they could govern. The strength of the Ministry is to be found in the weakness of the local bodies. This is not at all the thing I desire. I would decentralize by making the local bodies stronger. There has been a cry for “ Separation ” —financial or otherwise—from the North Island. Gentlemen, make up your minds on that subject. Any separation that will ever take place will eventuate in a complete severance, and the essablishment of two colonies in New Zealand. But I apprehend no such result—at present. 1 wish to see LOCAL GOVERNMENT provided for without disturbing the relations of the two Islands, and without undue interference with the Central Government. The County system has done much, no doubt. It liberated us from the centralistic domination of Dunedin, and as you all know very well we have been, financially speaking, very much better

off since we dissolved partnership with Provincialism. Therefore you need not suspect me of any hungering after the flesh-pots of Egypt, which in truth were very empty of aught but dry bones, so far as the people of Central Otago were concerned. But I should like to see the Counties amalgamated in large “ Local Government Districts.” I would map out Otago (as, by the way, I endeavoured to do in the Abolition Session) into four Districts—Otago South—North—East—and Central; the, latter to include the Counties of Lake, Vincent, Maniototo, and the upper part of Tuapeka— I put it thus, only roughly, to give you an idea of the extent of a Local Government District—and these districts I would intrust with some of the powers exercised by the Justices of Peace, assembled in Quarter Sessions, in England—such as the control of the Police, Gaols, Hospitals and Charitable Institutions, Education, Waste Lands, the Administration of Justice, the Gold-fields, the charge of Main Arterial i Roads and Bridges, and other suitable functions. The Parliament would thus be relieved of work unsuited to its capacity, because of its local character. I am not disposed to enter into the details of this proposal until lamin a position to give effect to it. But lam satisfied that this is the true solution of the problem of Local Government. If you ask me with what revenues I would endow these local governing bodies, I answer with the land and property taxes, whatever shape these may assume. Where the money is raised there it should be spent. I would not interfere with the local autonomy of the County Councils or Road Boards nor with that of the Boroughs. And most assuredly I would not suffer the large boroughs such as Dunedin or Christchurch to have a finger in the pie. That would be to subjugate the country to the city—a most disastrous thing. No; let the larger boroughs have large powers and govern themselves. It will suit us all better that it should be so. Dunedin would scarcely care to have residents in the country interfering in her local business, and equally we should dislike the interference of Dunedin in our business. Let the big boroughs and their suburbs then govern themselves, with equal powers in relation to all the subjects I have named, and let us in the country preserve our own local autonomy. FEDERATION. There is only one other subject that I propose to touch upon at present, and that is Colonial Federation —a question wdiich should have been made a prominent one at this election, because it involves issues the extent of which can scarcely be foreseen at present. I am sorry that Major Atkinson had not sufficiently the courage of his opinions to bring this into the foreground. As it is, this large question will have to be settled by the next Parliament without the people of New Zealand having had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. The present objects of the proposed Federation are not extensive. They are limited to the erection of a Federal Council, consisting of delegates from each of the Australasian Colonies, empowered to deal with matters affecting each, but beyond individual colonial jurisdiction. The apprehension of absconding criminals, the dealing with offences at sea, the arrest of offenders against the civil law, theregulation of foreign immigration—such and similar matters are to be legislated for by the Federal Council. There is not much,if any, objection to theschemeas thus limited, provided always that no federal law shall have force in any colony until the Legislature of that colony has satisfied and affirmed it. Nay; there will be many beneficial effects from such an arrangement. The rogues of one colony will know that there is no resting place for the sole of their feet in any other colony. The murderer at sea will know that for him there is no Oceanic Alsatia in the Australasian seas. So far the movement is a good one. But there is, just now, one feature in connection with it which should enlist every true man in its favour. The first and foremost thing to be done is to take joint and united action against the deportation to New Caledonia and the Islands of the Pacific of THE FRENCH RECIDIVISTES. Do you understand what is meant by that phrase ? It means almost literally the “ irreclaimables.” The recidivisms are double-dyed scoundrels, male and female, as the case may be. They are creatures who have been punished over and over again, and cannot be reclaimed —in whose cases even the perfervid sentimentality of a French jury is unable to discover any “ extenuating circumstances.” And these wretches the French Republic proposes to transport to New Caledonia, with a permit to travel anywhere, after a few months detention—anywhere out of French territory. In other words, France intends to flood the Pacific with these outcasts of humanity, and thanks to a weak radical government at Home, it is probable that the iniquitous scheme will be carried out. Well, we must protect ourselves since we are left to our own devices, and one of the first things the Federal Council will have to take in hand is the mutual defence of the Colonies against a foe more dangerous than the plague, more lata.l than death. If for this purpose only the Colonies should unite. Then there is the issue of war. If Great Britain should be embroiled in any war, how could the Colonies hold their own, if each relies on its own insignificent preparations for defence 1 The day is fast coming when these great questions will have to be solved. Neither the Colonies, nor the Mother Country can afford to remain loosely attached as at present. For England the question is whether she shall subside into a third-rate power, dissociated from her colonies; or whether she shall become the head of a Confederation of the Anglo-Celtic-Saxon race dominating the world ; with the Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes, and the Southern Cross blending harmoniously together in one triumphant banner, compelling “ Peace 1 with Honour ” in every part of the habitable globe.