CAUCUS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 355, 2 August 1875, Page 2

CAUCUS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS.

{From a corresjnmdent of the Press.) At a special meeting of Government supporters yesterday the Hon Dr Pollen said the Government had invited those members who appeared to be favorable to abolition. The Government, as the Bills showed, were prepared to go further than the resolution of last year, and the contemplated abolition was financially considered as shown by the Treasurer’s statement. The were perbans susceptible of some modification. Existing administrative arrangements were at present disturbed as little as possible compatible with abolition. Mr Reader Wood asked to be allowed to make a personal statement. He said he was looked on as a recalcitrant member of a great party, and he wished openly to state what his views were. His opinions re abolition had not changed in the least. If anything they were stronger than ever; but he had more doubts as to the legal power of the Assembly to abolish without an Act of the Imperial Parliament. He feared if the measures were forced on without full legal powers, greater confusion would follow than if the provinces continued a few months more. He would have suggested that the Bill bo not proceeded with further this session, but that the Government should ask the Imperial Parliament so to amend the Constitution Act that the Colonial Legislature could alter the constitution of the country as in its wisdom seemed advisable Last night his views

greatly changed when he saw the Bill. He referred them to a similar meeting of last session, at which he said he did not see what the confirmation of the land compact of 1856 had to do with abolition, and that he would not support any measure the object of which was to tighten that compact. Mr Fox, Mr Buckland, and other members supported him, and Mr Stafford admitted its reasonableness, and said he did not see how the Middle Island members could be expected to do otherwise. Mr Vogel admitted the land question had nothing to do with abolition. It need not be in the Bill, and separate Bills might be introduced if necessary. Judge the extent of his (Mr Wood’s) surprise when he found on reading the Bill it was proposed definitely by the Act to localise and secure the land fund to the existing provincial divisions. He could only conclude that in forming the Bill as they had done, Ministers were prepared to sever party ties between himself and them. For the future he must be regarded as an opponent of the Bill. He was then retiring when Mr Stafford called him back and said he wished him to hear what he had to say. Mr Stafford then confirmed the substantial itffcuracy of the statement he made as to what took place last session, Mr WOOD thanked him, and said on a former occasion when he made similar statements to his constituents his accuracy had been impugned. He now found on making the same statement in the presence of all who were acquainted with the facts, instead of meeting with contradiction, testimony was borne to its accuracy by so good an authority as Mr Stafford. Mr Wood then left the room. Mr Stafford also said with regard to the land fund he would observe that the existing Act of 1858 definitely appropriated all land revenue to the provinces whence it arose. All that the Abolition Bill now proposed was to distribute it to different localities. If the Bill was passed not a shilling of the land fund accruing in any province could be spent in any others. Mr Creighton thought Sir Julius Vogel said last year that the question of abolition and the land fund should be kept separate. He was an opponent of provincialism, but he did not like the sections of the Bill relating to the land revenue. If the consolidated revenue fail, the proposed new institution would he feared be in the same position as some of the provinces now were. The Bill was good except as to the sections respecting land. Mr Beadshaw was in favor of the Bill, but first desired to meet his constituents, as he had pledged himself to that, and therefore while favorable to the Bill, should like the country to consider it. The Boards created must be largely subsidised or they will fail to work, and the cost of initiating the Boards would be large. Hon Dr Pollen said the Government desired to raise this important question out of the region of party as a general measure for the welfare of the whole colony. Messrs McGlashan, T. L. Shepheed, Gibbs Meevin, and Wakefield approved of the Bill and land clauses; the last-named hoping the question of increase of taxation would be discussed in the House. Mr Williams said he voted against the resolutions last year because they were incomplete. His constituents wanted total abolition, and he would now vote with the Government for that end. He would like to know how they intend*. d to deal under the Bill with the native districts. Mr Luckie said he was the first member who addressed his constituents after the last session. He had told the Government he voted for the resolution last year because he believed it indicated what this year would produce, total abolition. A large meeting of his constituents was unanimous in favour of abolition. Mr Wood’s constituents were the same, and that was the experience of fivesixths of the members who had addressed their electors. Practically, the country had been appealed to, and the verdict generally was favourable- He the land fund Mr Stafford’s reference to the Act settled the matter, and besides the South had largely consumed the land fund, while large tracts remained untouched in the North Island, and it was doubtful if it was for the future interest of the North to put all in one common purse. Mr Pyke was favorable to delay and an appeal to the country, but he was a supporter of the principle of abolition. Mr Buckland said Mr Luckie was mistaken as to the land in the North. The Native owners knew its value, and were not willing to part with it except at a high price. The North Island land fund must be considered a myth, for what with private competition for purchase, very little came into the hands of the Government, The success of the local Government Bill depended much on administration. The amount of subsidy must, he thought, be taken irom the land fund. He would vote for the second reading, reserving power to make amendments in committee where advisable. Another member said that some Northern members favored abolition, but if they combined to alter the localisation of the land revenue he would oppose them. Sir D. McLean said Government adhered to the localisation of the land revenue clauses. What they wanted now is an expression of determination to pass the Bill, The question was, is it abolition or not? Yes or no? This session Government mean to carry the Bill through. [Hear, hear. “ Yes, yes.”] Mr Kelly (Taranaki) said the people of that province were favorable to abolition Mr STAFFOED said the Government had taken a plucky and bold stand, and therein acted with sagacity, and they would receive the general support of the country. Any one now present not prepared to support the Bills should say so. All might reserve the right to propose amendments in committee. Mr Stafford then moved—“ That this meeting agrees to support the principal of the measures introduced bj the Government yesterday, with a view to their being given effect to this session.” Mr Pbaece said he did not vote last year, but would support the Bills now, and felt sure in doing so he would represent the opinions of the majority of his constituents. , „ ~ Mr May did not quite approve of all the details of the Bills, The North Island Boad Boards would get but little out of the land fund, and borrowing on land fund security before they had the land would not last long. He would act as he thought proper, on the and clauses in committee, but otherwise Iwould support the measures. Mr J. 0. BEOWN came to the meeting at Mr McGlashan’s invitation. Since last session he had come to think more favorably of abolition. He thought the Bills might be remitted to the country before a decision,

but was not pledged in any way. He was disposed to be favorable to abolition, and, if he felt so disposed would support the measures. Sir J. C. Wilson and Mr Mervyn would support the Bills. Mr Walter Johnston would do the same. He would vote for the localisation of the land revenue. He doubted the ability of the new Boards to undertake large works without special subsidies. Mr Stafford said there was a power in the Bills to provide for making main works. In fact, the General Legislature had already assisted in these matters in the North Island and Westland, and if the country wished a thorough national system, under which large rivers would be bridged and arterial works executed, it must first get rid of the provinces, Mr Creighton would support the Bills, and vote for the second reading, reserving the right to alter in committee and to vote against the third reading if he were not satisfied with the arrangements. Mr Beadshaw added that he would support the passage of the Bills unless his constituents insisted on the question being remitted to the country. Mr C. Parker said his constituents left him to act at his own discretion, although they were favorable to abolition. The fact was it was perfectly clear that the Bills could not pass if they were shorn of the revenue clauses. After a little further conversation, the resolution was put and adopted without a dissentient voice. The Hon Dr Pollen thanked the members for their attendance, and informed them that the Government had fully satisfied themselves as to the competency of the Assembly to deal with the question. (From a correspondent of the Press .) The report that Mr Reader Wood has seceded from the Abolition party and opposes the Government, because the measures provide for the localisation of the land fund, causes much talk. That is the special point in the Bill with the southern abolitionists. It places the opposition in an awkward position. Mr Reader Wood and Sir George Grey have the same view. Messrs Macandrew and Co differ on the land fund. These three favor the division of the colony into four separate colonies. It is difficult to reconcile conflicting views.