THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Evening Star, Issue 3901, 25 August 1875, Page 2

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph.] Wellington, August 25. In the House of Representatives, at 2.30 yesterday, Mr Steward asked the Minister for Public Works whether it was intended that the bridge to be constructed over the Maerewhenua River, at the terminus of the Awamoko Branch Railway, shall be a railway and road bridge, or a railway bridge only; whether the plans have been prepared; and when it is intended to commence the work. Mr Richardson said the sketch plans had been sent up, and two sites had been suggested ; but the Engineer-in-Chief had not had time to fairly go into the matter, but iu three or four days he would be able to give the hon. gentleman every information upon the subject.

Mr O’Neill presented a petition from 1,500 residents of the Thames, praying that the public-houses be closed on Sundays. The Public Accounts Committee were allowed three weeks more to bring up their report. THE ABOLITION DEBATE.

Mr Buckland resumed the abolition debate. He considered this question the most momentous that ever had engaged the attention of that House. -The hon. gentleman referred to the earlier enactments under which our representative institutions were granted to us, and to the efforts made by the public men of the Colony to obtain a representative institution. It was at that period that Sir George Grey represented to the Imperial Government that the people of Mew Zealand were not ready to be entrusted with representative institutions. It was only after years of conflict on the part of the people generally, and of the Wellington Reform Association, that the Imperial Government consented at last to grant the Constitution we now enjoy. The hon, member for Hutt told them Provincialism was a party, but ever since the Constitution there had been a, division of parties. The first blow Provincialism received was in 1858, by the creation of the Province of Hawkes Bay. Then came the Consolidated Loan Act, which was the second blow. This greatly weakened the hitherto all-powerful party of the Superintendents and their followers. It had been said that Sir Julius Vogel alone had been the cause of bringing forward the question of Abolition, but Sir. Julius Vogel had nothing to do with it. It was the work of circumstances over which he had no control. No Ministry that ever sat upon those benches could possibly have resisted the amount of pressure by the public feeling of the Colony. Referring to what he called the doubling tactics of the Opposition in opposing the Bill, he said their first double was to dispute the power of the House to deal with the question ; but he could have no doubt, after the opinions of the legal officer of the Colony, coupled with the fact that Bari Carnarvon recognised the right of the House to discuss the question—and if he said discuss, he surely did not mean them only to talk about the question, and do nothing more. He could mean nothing less than that they should deal with the question in a practical manner. The hon, member for the Hutt told them the House stank with corruption, and in doing so he was reminded of the deputy shepherd in Dickens’s story, who attended a meeting in an inebriated condition and addressed them by saying—- “ Gentlemen, this meeting is drank.” The hon, member for Auckland City West pictured, in the most glowing language, the extraordinary progress made by different parts of the Colony, and attributed all their happiness and prosperity to the Constitution and the administration of the government in the early days. But he could tell the House that it was not through the laws, but in spite of them, that the people of New Zealand progressed. It was solely due to the good old stock from which they sprang. The hon. gentleman then adduced certain instances, to show how the Government of the day, early in the history of the Colony, did its very utmost to prevent the harmonious amalgamatron of the Maoris and Europeans. The hon. gentleman referred to the disgraceful proceedings at that place at the Thames at the Superintendent’s election, where the police acted as partisans, to show the corruption of Provincialism.

Mr O’Neill: That talk Is imn.ginn.ry, Mr Buckland : Upon my honor I am quite prepared to prove every word of it. After that the control of the police was handed over to the General Government. They were told on all hands that a change of some sort is requisite. They were told that the enemies of Provincialism were attempting to undermine it hut he considered that the worst enemy to Provincialism was itself. They were told that they were depriving the people of their liberties, but this was all bosh, and reminded him of the American counsel in a case of pig trespass, when he told the Court that if defendant’s pigs were allowed to roam over plaintiff’s land, then bad their fathers bled in vain. The hon, gentleman concluded by stating that, although he had been generally found amongst the opponents of the Government, his eon-notions upon this question were so strong that he could not possibly avoid giving the Government the moat loyal support; and if, at they bad been told they would be, kept here for months, he, for

one, was quite prepared to ignore the question cf time, and give his vote for the Bill upon every occasion it might be necessary to do so, Mr Macandrew followed. Hie speech will be found in full in another part of this issue, Mr Bryce replied to Mr Macandrew’e complaints regarding imputations upon Provincial servants. He said if such imputations were made, it was under extreme provocation from the - other' side, a sample of which was the member for Hutt telling them the House stank with corruption. The fact was, that the Government supporters acted with great forbearance under the circumstances, passing over the remarkable self-assertion of the supporters of Provincialism, for, in their minds, they were all heaven-bom statesmen. He would notice the statement that the educational reserves of Otago would pass into the hands of the Governor. The member for Port Chalmers could not have been in the House at the time when the Government, in replying to Mr Wales, gave an assurance that these trusts would be carefully protected to the Province. The hon. member for Hutt stigmatised the principle of subsidising Road Boards out of consolidated fund as vicious in the extreme, and yet the hon. member, when the Local Road Board Bill «f 1867 was before the House, none was a greater advocate for it than the member for Hutt, and yet that Bill proSosed to subsidise Road Boards out of consoliated fund. The hon. member for Hutt saw in ancient {Greece an illustration of that greatness begotten of Provincial institutions, but he stopped short exactly where it suited his argument. If ho bad followed the parallel a little further, he must have admitted all the civilisation and greatness that belonged to her, and that all her patriots and great men were unable to prevent her downfall in the absence of a feeling of national unity. He was

equally unfortunate in his other historical allusions, for instances that unity is strength, and that without a national feeling a country could not become great and prosperous. He could not but be struck with the degree of inconsistency in argument and with each other displayed by speakers against the Bill. At the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for the Hutt, he predicted great evils to flow from this Bill, if passed. On the other hand, the hon. member for Parnell, for whose Opinion the member for the Hutt felt a great respect, had already told the House that if Provincial Councils were swept away to-morrow, he apprehended nothing would happen. They had been told that there had never been a conflict between Provincialism and Centralism, but he maintained that it was apparent to the whole Colony that for years the out-districts had groaned under the injustice of Provincialism, and had endeavored to get things changed, but fsilod. There has also been a constant struggle on the part of Provincial Governments to usurp powers that did not belong to them, as was shown in the number of Provincial Acts that were ultra viret. Reference bad been made to American institutions. Well, he would take the State of New York, and according to its population in proportion to New Zealand, it would require exactly 108 Provincial Governmanage the affairs of that State. Speaking for the Province he belonged to, when he looked round and saw what the Provincial < jovernments did, and what the municipalities, education bodies, and Road Boards did, he failed to see what use Provincialism was at all. The lesser bodies did all the work. The hon. member for Auckland City West referred in terms of admiration to the legislation of Provincial Councils; but it was well known , that the multitude of Acts passed by Provincial Councils was the laughing stock of the Colony. The hon. member for Avon, in illustrating how his Provincial Government spent their money, said that the interests of large masses of the people had been neglected by the making of roads and erecting bridges in the out-districts. There was a contradiction of terms. The real support of cities was the country, and consequently in benefiting the country you benefited the town also. He maintained, then, that the’ system which caused such au intelligent and trained gentleman to make such a statement could not be a good one. The hon. gentleman could not entertain the objections made against the legality of the Assembly’s action in the matter. The hon. member for Parnell criticised the Treasurer’s finance to show that he could not fulfil promises therein made, but he believed the Treasurer knew more about the question than the hon. member fer Parnell, and he for one was quite prepared to accept the figures of the Treasurer. Coming to the Bill itself, he believed it would be impossible for the House to pass that session a good or complete Local Government Bill. He feared that Hie antagonism of the supporters of Provincialism would be too great to admit of such a result. They would not cordially co-operate in framing such a measure, and were even more likely to introduce features in it that would create a deadlock. It was neither a personal nor a private reason which induced him to support the Bill. He did it solely from a national point of view a desire to see a feeling for the Colony as a united whole replace those narrow feelings engendered by Provincial jealousies. The House rose at 5.30.