OUR WELLINGTON LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 3589, 24 August 1874, Page 2

OUR WELLINGTON LETTER.

August 19. Verily this is a session of surprises, and they have tumbled upon us in such rapidity that we are net likely for some time to r alise their ex ent or character. Instead of the six weeks’ unimportant uneventful work, we were promised in the opening speech, we are being treated to such a variety of change', that we cannot tell what may happen before we get home. Surprises one and two -the Budget, with a proposal to make payments out of loan instead of revenue as heretofore, and a four million loan are dwarfed into nothingness by the latest the ahofition of the North Island Provinces —which is agitating the minds of the people here beyond all measure. And last, by no means least, we have intelligence of the breakdown of the Californian Mail Service. The causes that have lei to this last and greatest of the sensations have been explained. It was precipitated—forced is the better word—m to the consideration of Parliament and the country, but the results will be none the less sure. The country has been educated up to the belief that the time has come when the sponging proclivities of the North Island (Mr Sheehan will of course deny this) should cease, and there are those in our Parliament and out of it who are prepared to go further, and the country is r.pe for a complete changViff its form of government ; in other words, that Provincialism must go to the wall. For the present the Government will not go to the latter extreme, as Mr Reader Wood would like them to do : they are content with affirming the minor proposition, and on doing that have staked their existence—no sacrifice after all, for from the first they were conscious of their strength. The speech with which Mr Vogel moved his resolutions has been printed and cumulated iu pamphlet form, so that it is unnecessary for me to refer to it, beyond saying that the impression left on the minds of his hearers was that it was not equal to the occasion. That is not to be wondered at when the short time and the few opportunities he had for prepar n ;Jit are considered. Still he was m >re successful than those who have so far spoken, indeed, with the exception of Mr Wood and Mr Tribe on the one side, and Mr Sheehan and Mr Montgomery on the other, there has been no real speaking. Of course there has been no end of talking. On Monthe talking fairly commenced, and that day’s proceedings have been cleverly sketched by one of the local papers The debate of yesterday turned out to be no debate at all. It was a number of speeches, for the most part all on one sidq, containing little new, and that little not very true. Statements were made over and over again, with little change and less grace. Some of those speakers see their way better than they can explain it; Why not vote quietly ? Every man is not an orator, and a man may make a very good representative and attend carefully to the interests of his constituents and the country without adding to the talk with which we are deluged. More working and less speaking would be a decided improvement. Why do not members keep before them a sensible maxim of Mr Hosea Biclow ’ - 6

Words if you keep ’em pay their keep, But gabble’s the short out to ruin. Other speakers have what the o!d Marquis de Mirabeau would have called ‘ a terrible gift of familiarity.’ There is no getting rid of them when once they begin to talk, and yet they wish those who differ from them to get up and reply te what they have said, and thus prolong indefinitely the same oftrepeated story. Mr i; ’Connor hit the nail ou the head when, iu answer to this complaint, he said they forgot that there were no arguments to answer. It does seem better to let a certain order of speakers exhaust themselves and then at one fell swoop slay them than to darken counsel by words. Sir Oraqroft Wilson evidently bolds this view, for it induced him to make the best speech we have ever had the pleasure ot hearing the worthy knight make if many of them spoke less and thought more (he said), it would be a decided improvement upon their proceedings.” Mr beeves opened the debate, in a very hesitating aud somewhat incoherent speech. At one time he threatened an utter break-down-he stopped, considered, took refuge in a libation of water, proceeded, faltered, aud tried it again, but with small success—until towards the end, when he warmed up considerably. Uf course we understand bow it is. Mr beeves put it fairly himself. He wanted confidence and habit (of speech ; but why take up the position he did, in which as . he himself confessed he had materially failed in showing that the resolutions were mischievous and dangerous to the Colony ? —Major Atkinson followed Mr Reeves, in a gflqd speech, which woplej have been better if’ jt haij "been Igss declamatory, s Mr Curtig spoke neatly, aqd was followed by Mr M*Qillivray, who ig apparently no favorite in the Houge, hut who nevertheless made seven*! points of a more telling character than any of tfte previous speakers, Mr Thomson made a long broken in two by the Speaker leaving the chair, If Mr Thomson had compressed his statement into the spaqe of fifteen minutes, it would have told well, but its diffuseness deprived it of strength: He hj s putting an amendment on the order paper—a course requiring no de. stating that the Opposition were like sheep without a Sfopherd (probably he was bewailing the loss of the vote and inflienoe of the hon. member for Dunstan,) which created a hearty laugh. Mr J. L. Gillies took up Mr Thomson’s parable, and repeated what that ‘gentleman said. Then we had two of the Native contingent, succeeded by Mr Donald Re'.d, from whom we expected a good speech, but were disappointed. The subject probably did not smt him- He made a few capital points but failed somehow to press them hpme. He quoted : the' v Mi- Vogel tff (the famous Christian Martyr —fhep tqe stoutegt fppmb£ r pf the Proyincea —agaipst the Mr V pgel of who teelfS to be thejr dpstypygr.— “the apostle of in; consistency ” Mr HeifJ would have liked to have called him, had he dared. Ag the Premier himself put it, there are two kinds of political tergiversation, or political inconsistency, pr whatever name you may attach to a change of opinion ; oue the result of honest conviction ; the other the outcome of personal consideration. But Mr Reid fails or refuses to see the distinction. Could the member for the Taieri have read, or, if he had read,- have forgotten the famous distinction drawn by .Sir Kobert Peel, when taunted walk changing his opinions on the quebtion ot protection, betwe -n the change of opinion resulting from conviction and that brought, about by n“ te “ hOWB ' speaking,’ the ball opening with Mr Macaudrew. ' The important pos£ Upn pijr Superintendent occupies in the flpuge, dprpands that m° r e than passing consideration shpuld he given to him. ' Ppssibly the speech of the debate was expected from him j what he gave you know, Mr Macandrew is the moving spirit of the Oppoaition; greater is his influence with those acting with him than that of Mr FitzhqrbhPß,

Mr Gillies, and Mr Polleston jput together, He has been the most valiant supporter of the Government, as he is in this matter their most determined opponent. ■lt required great provocation, great sacrifices, tor him to break off old associations, old alliances, and to go over to the enemy; and the House reasonably expected jto bear an explanation bf some of the causes that had fv 0 S t u bo " t . suoh a result It is known that Mr Macandraw has exerted all Hi powers of persuasion—and they were great-in en.deavouring to get the Government to recode from the position they have now taken up. and it was only when he found them strong as adamant m their purpose that he broke with them. But not a word had we about these many interviews; these strong appeals to turn back, and the flat refusals to do so Mr Vogel made; nor is it likely the Colony will know of them until Mr Macandrew appears before bis constituents. For the present we must be content with his arsurance that it is because he sees in the Government piopesa’s the thin end of the vredge, which shall rob the Southern Provinces of their laud fund, and then destroy . Provincialism altogether, that he is forced into opposition. That was the only ground of objection. Mr Reynolds, who spoke after him, could see this iu the fpeech of the member for Port Chalmers, aud it was to answer it that he addressed himself: The meraber for Port Chalmers complained that they should sacrifice everything to secure —(Mr Macandrew: All secondary considerations) the land fund. The hon. gentleman did not need to sacrifice anything.—(Hear.) The land fund was perfectly secure to the Provinces ; but in order to make it more clear the Government were quite prepared to pass an Act that could not be repealed without reference to Her Majesty. Nothing* could be more secure than that. If there was any remonstrance from the Provinces of Qtago and Canterbury, containing as they did three-fiftha of the population of the whole Colony, Her Majesty would never be advised to consent to the repeal of such an Act. If that was the only objection the member for Port Chalmers bad to the resolutions, he might well waive it and vote for the Government.—(Hear.) For the rest Mr Reynolds was put qp to Hansardise members who opposed the resolutions, and with the aid qf that publication he showed that the members for Auckland City, West Taieri, Port Chalmers, and Brqcp had at one time or another moved in very direction the Government were qow moving. After Mr Reynolds caiqe Mr Montgomery, who spoke well, and showed fchaj; he wfil soon becomo a very prominent member. His principal objection to the resolutions is that the time is not ripe for the abolition of Provinces, and that if it were the people should be first consulted upon it. Then came Mr Steward, full of figurative expressions, bqt speaking well withal; Mr Sheehan, ip,a comic vein at first, but vigorous towards the last; Mr Iribe, with monotonous delivery, but speaking some truths, aud dealing with the question from a strong ultra-Pfovincial point of view ; Mr Murray opposing, for oppos tiou’s sake, for his sympathies are decidedly in the direction of Centralisation and he is extremely personal in his remarks; then Mr Reader Wood, givipg a strong opposition to the Government; audlastly; Mr Williamson smiting the member for Parnell, aud defying the Colony. ■ ■ •