WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 353, 30 July 1875, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

(From a correspondent of the Press ) July 27. The debate on the reply to the address was continued on Friday afternoon, and brought to a close the same evening. At the afternoon sitting the smaller pieces had all the firing to themselves, but at night the great guns were discharged in quick succession. The debate was re-opened by the chosen of Bruce, and Otago figured very conspicuously that afternoon, no less than five members from that province addressing the House before the dinner adjournment. The principal speech was Mr Montgomery’s, and he was the first of the Opposition to give credit to Sir Julius Vogel for the manner in which the loan negotiations were conducted. Mr Ward, the new member for Wairau, spoke after Mr Montgomery, and opened so very well that the House looked for a good speech, but to the surprise of everyone the hon gentleman, after giving utterance to a couple of sentences, resumed his seat with the strange declaration that he could not comprehend whither the House was drifting. I imagine what Mr Ward really meant to say was that with Ministers on the one hand declaring that the address was a mere formal matter, and the shining lights of the Opposition, on the other, asserting that it committed members, he was unable to decide which way to vote. In the evening, all the galleries were full, and every member in Wellington was in his place. It has also been remarked that the Bank of New Zealand was well represented in the Lords’ and Speakers’ galleries. That evening’s debate will be long remembered, for it was brilliant in the extreme, and strongly reminded many old members of the famous debate of 1866. Sir George Grey, who was not on his feet more than one hour, spoke well, and as he al ways does, with great earnestness, but it was not a convincing speech. It was curious to notice the frequency with which he addressed the House as *• gentlemen,” or personally addressed the member for Timaru, in both of which respects he was, of course, transgressing the standing orders, and he did so without let or hindrance. But stranger still, Sir George’s personal and direct allusions to the Governor —an unheard of thing in that Parliament, if my memory does not fail me—failed to attract the attention of Mr Speaker at the time of utterance. It was only when Mr Stafford was reading Sir George a severe lesson that Sir Francis began to prick up his ears. Then came Sir George with a denial of having made any such allusions as Mr Stafford wished to impute to him, and of course the latter, in the face of that denial, was obliged to leave the subject. But the fact remains that Sir George, in the course of his speech, did make references to the present Governor, which, to say the least of them, were of a very unusual character. And it is equally beyond question that he in the plainest language a man could use asserted that the power of the Bank of New Zealand in the land at the present moment was such that it could have who it chose appointed Governor of the colony to support its interests. The allusion to the present Governor was contained in the course of his argument that the Bank was really the motive-power of the Ministry, and was made in this form : that the Governor by accepting a Ministry which, as he (Sir George) had previously attempted to show, did not really represent the people of New Zealand, had in point of fact committed himself to' a line of policy from which he could not recede ; and par conse •

quencc his assent to ‘all measures submitted to him by that Ministry was a certainty. It is generally admitted that this and the revolutionary sentiment of the concluding part of it were the weak points of Sir George’s speech. In other respects it was a declaration of policy ; which, however, has failed to give satisfaction to the general body of his supporters. By far the greater portion of Sir George’s followers in the division on the abolition question are men who have not the slightest sympathy with the cause of provincialism, which he has at heart so dearly, but are with him on the sole question of the measure being relegated to the people for consideration before Parliament deals with it finally. It was. as the mouthpiece of these men, that the Post (itself of abolition tendencies), declared of Sir George’s speech “ In one important respect it will fail to satisfy the country. If it meant anything, it meant that provincial institutions, as they exist, are loved by the people, that they are not susceptible of improvement, that they meet the wants and circumstances of the country, and that the rights and liberties of the colonists of New Zealand are dependent on their maintenance. We can assure Sir George Grey that he has. incorrectly interpreted public feelingjin these respects. It is true that he said if after a general election the people decided in favor of abolition, he would concur ; but this very pledge implies that he intends to go Jto the country on the issue of whether the provinces are to be abolished or the status in quo maintained. If he do, he will be left in a most hopeless minority. We believe Sir George Grey more capable than those now at the head of affairs, of devising a simplification and modification of the existing forms of government, and of constructing other and better administrative machinery. If he will put forth a programme of this kind, and submit it to the country in opposition to the Government scheme, he will probably win ; if he do not, he will be beaten.” But everybody, the Editor of the Post included, knows that Sir George will never admit that a better system of local self-government than provincialism can be found. Sir George was followed by the Native Minister, who spoke very briefly, but with unusual vigor: and if any doubt had previously existed as to the intentions of the Government in respect to the measure of the session, it must have been effectually removed by the firm and decisive reply of Sir Donald, that the Government, feeling assured of the legality and desirability of the step, and that in taking it they had not only the support of a majority in Parliament, but would be backed up by the voice of the people, were determined to abolish provincialism once and for ever, despite every opposition. The House rang again with cheers from the Ministerial side when Sir Donald gave expression to the fixed determination of Ministers not to swerve in the least degree from the line of action he had sketched. Next came Mr Stafford, with an excellent speech, showing all his old debating and oratorical powers, but less argumentative than usual, Opening with a graceful tribute to Sir George Grey, of whom he said that though he had as Premier of the colony worked under two or three Governors, he had never worked with greater pleasure than when Sir George was Governor, the member for Timaru proceeded to combat the arguments of Sir George. How far he succeeded in doing so your readers have long since been able to judge themselves, for the PRESS has already been supplied with a tolerably accurate summary of Mr Stafford’s speech. It was quite natural that the member for Timaru should be followed by Mr Fitzherbert, who made a caustic and exceedingly witty speech, bestowing his attention mainly on Mr Stafford and Ministers, declaring of the latter that they were merely the puppets of Mr Stafford, who made them do his dirty work. As a personal matter Mr Fitzherbert alluded to the Bill for creating Westland a county, which had been referred to by Sir George Greyand Mr Stafford in their speeches, and spoke as follows:—It appears this Act was passed in 1867, when he was a Minister, so that he ought to know something about it; whether it was discussed in Cabinet or intended to declare that the provinces should be abolished throughout the c «lony. Appealing to Mr Stafford, he defied that hon gentleman to declare that he did that. Ha then went on to explain that he was at home representing the colony there in 1868, when he received letters from persons in New Zealand to which he did not pay much attention at the time of receipt, which advised him that his colleagues were drafting a new constitution, and to look out at the Colonial Office. The consequence being that he did make enquiries, and was assured that the very Act on which the Government now relied, was the smallest technical matter in reference to the province of Westland. The Minister of Justice, who followed Mr Fitzherbert, acquitted himself well; Mr Eolleston was exceedingly ponderous; and Mr Wakefield, though barely listened to, spoke well. Then the address passed nem, con., the Opposition having found that nothing was to be gained by continuing the debate open till the arrival of Mr Macandrew. It was almost a pity they did not earlier come to that determination, in which case the country would in all likelihood have now been in possession of the Abolition Bill, which is ready to be circulated. The only object the debate served, was to show the Government that an Opposition was being formed under the leadership of Sir George Grey and Mr Macandrew. The ontcome of the debate has been to show the Government that, on the constitutional question, they will be opposed mainly on the ground that it is desirable to first get the public mind upon it; that their legal status as Ministers, and their administration of public works during the recess, will be made grounds of attack; and that the loan negotiation and finance generally, will be thoroughly investigated. To carry their point in respect to the first mentioned matter, the Opposition are determined, by all the means the forms of the House allow, to obstruct the passage of the Abolition Bill; so that, with such additional knotty questions as finance, immigration, and public works, on which some members are anxious to deliver themselves at length; and the Bankruptcy and Representation Bills thrown in. to {say nothing of the private Bills, the first crop of which we have already seen, there is every prospect of a ten ojf twelve weeks’ session. Somehow or another the impression hn«J got abroad that the Government will npt press the Abolition Bill to an issue tjiiq session. As far as I can learn, the only ground for that belief is a paragraph in an editorial in Saturday’s Tribune, in which the writer argueslfromthe fact that “the Government can confidently reckon upon a majority for the abolition of provincial institutions, larger than any which a New

Zealand Government have had for several years,” that Ministers might use their strength with courtesy and prudence, and delay the final decision of the question till the new Parliament, But last night’s article, evidently inspired, is confirmatory of what fell from Sir D. M‘Lean on Friday night;— “ Judging from the numbers and determination of the majority of the House of Representatives, on the question of abolishing provincial institutions, we find that we rather understated the strength of the Government, when referring to the matter on Saturday. And as the country is ripe for a settlement of the question, and any courtesy, involving delay, would be quite thrown away upon the minority, who would choose to take it rather as a sign of wavering, if not of weakness, than of strength, we believe the mind of the Government is quite made up to carry through the measures they are about to submit to the House without any loss of time. That they can carry them, there seems no reasonable doubt, but supposing an adverse vote at any stage of their progress, the Government will be ready to go to the country on the issue. There is, therefore, a definite programme before the House —a programme regarding which there can be neither doubt nor difficulty on either side —the Government being quite prepared to stand or fall by their policy.”