WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 362, 10 August 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

{From a correspondent of the Press.) August 7. On Tuesday Sir George Grey announced the formation of an Opposition, and he did so in another of those fervent appeals, to which the House is quickly becoming so accustomed that they will shortly be shorn of all effect. Though most of his hearers admit that his attack on the Governor was wholly gratuitous and uncalled for, no one questions that in his opening remarks and upon the land question, albeit his observations upon the Upper House, while correct in the main, were just “ a leetle” tinged with animus, were excellent and to the point. But when he dropped the role of Opposition leader, and spoke simply as the member for Auckland City West —as I shall show he did—it was only too apparent he was committing a grave blunder—so great indeed, that the Post— his own organ—was forced to admit that his speech gave greater satisfaction to his enemies than to his friends. Having denounced the manner in which the Abolition Bill had been brought down, and charged the Government with offering the people all sorts of bribes to surrender those “ birthrights” and “ great representative institutions” about which we have heard so much lately, Sir George went on to say—- “ That those who acted with him were prepared to offer to the people of this country constitutional changes which would be greatly to their benefit, and were prepared to give them control over greater sums than were offered by the Government Bill, much greater sums, and raised by a fairer and more equal system of taxation. Did the magnates of the land who offer these bribes offer anything from their own pockets? ‘Tax yourselves, ye poor, ye middle classes, from what we have taken from you in the first instance ; we will give you back so much.’ It was unfair not to let the inhabitants of New Zealand have their alternative proposals placed before them. As the Bill was unfairly rushed through the Imperial Parliament, so was it unfairly attempted to rush this measure through here, To the public meetings convened in the centres of population, where an effort was being made to bribe them into adopting a measure which is to seal their own downfall, it was not told that there are opponents in the field who contemplate something infinitely better. Had this been done, the meetings would have dissolved into thin air, the telegrams would have been wasted, and from this effort, abortive as it is, great good would ultimately arise, Every possible sacrifice, every effort which prudence would enable them to make, every anxiety which years’ service in New Zealand could instil into many of them now acting with him, would be used in the endeavor to place the future of the people of this country on a firm basis, which should prevent, for centuries to come, all revolutionary attempts such as the present to deprive the people of the rights they enjoy,” Sir George was so carried away by his impulsiveness, that he failed to see that most of the applause which greeted his references to those larger sums the Opposition were prepared to offer the country, aud which, as offered by the Government are bribes, was ironical. The country will think with the House, aud with the Post, that either Sir George said too little or too much. If the Opposition are possessed of that policy which is so eminently superior to the Government one, that the country will, by adopting it, gain inestimable blessings; then was the time to have placed it before the country. Listen to what the Post, which represents the Opposition, has to say upon that point: —“ Sir George denounces the Bill as a series of bribes appealing to the lowest motives which could actuate human nature, and then immediately appealed, even more forcibly, to these same motives himself, by saying his scheme would give the many control over even larger sums, to be taken from the pockets of the few. He spoke of equitable taxation, but only in the vaguest terms. We were disappointed, aud so will the country be. Empty talk about revolutionary attempts to deprive the people of rights which it is self-evident they do not value, and are only too willing to exchange for privileges of a different character, will not have any effect on the public mind. The Government has put forward its proposals in a very decided aud plain way. We do not think they are sound proposals or even practicable proposals . . . but the people will accept them and chance their fulfilment if counter proposals of a better nature are not at once set forth.” But did not Sir George Grey say too much ? I think he did; for the truth is that as yet the opposition are not prepared with any counter policy. If they were successful in relegating to the constituencies the decision of the abolition question, then Sir George, Mr Macandrew, Mr Fitzherbert, and Mr Rolleston might have laid their heads together, and, in view of the elections, have hatched one, the main features of which would probably have been a hybrid constitution, which professed to give, but would not do so, financial separation, reduced taxation, and Upper House reform. The caucus on Monday never authorised—and in writing this, I do so advisedly—Sir George to make the declaration with which his speech concluded; and I venture to assert that it was as much news to many who attended that caucus as to Ministers and their supporters, to hear that the Opposition had a definite policy to lay before the countrv. Sir Donald McLean always speaks forcibly aud to the point, aud never were his utterances more so than on Tuesday, when ho made a very brief reply to the speech of the Oppo-

sitionleader. Noticing with a few well chosen congratulatory words the formation of an Opposition, he proceeded to show that the proposed constitutional change was not revolutionary, but on the contrary, was demanded 1 y the all but unanimous voice of thepeople. Quoting, amid loud cheers from Ministerial supporters, Mr Stafford's memorandum in 18(57 to show that the Government of that day, when seeking power to set at rest certain doubts that had arisen in reference to the Westland Bill, had in view the necessity for meeting the time then fast approaching, when provincialism must give place to another system of local Government more suited to the times aud to the circumstances of the country, he reminded Sir George that even while he was Governor there must have been present to his mind the fact that when certain difficulties were overcome there must necessarily be a change in the colony’s institutions. He went on to quote Earl Grey’s opinion that as the population of the colony increased, and settlement spread over the country, provincial institutions must necessarily assume quite a municipal character, and of Sir J. Pakington’s opinion in the same strain. Provincial Governments and Provincial Councils, continued Sir Donald, with a degree of warmth unusual in him, interposed between the Assembly and the people ; and the latter, from one end of the colony to the other, had for years seen that the proposed change was inevitable, while the sympathies, the feelings, and the decision of the outlying districts had declared that this change must be effected. The new Provinces Act, for which the member for Timaru deserved the greatest credit, wf.s not considered revolutionary ; yet had it not been for the fear of dismemberment of the principal provinces he was certain very little justice—scanty at the best—would have been done to outlying districts. He expressed regret that Sir George should have thought proper to have made such an attack on the Governor: while that on the Legislative Council was unjustified and uncalled for. In that body were gentlemen who had done good service to the colony—many of them old servants of the Crown, and distinguished colonists. After some remarks by Mr Fitzherbert, the House passed on to business. On Wednesday there was -an interesting discussion on steamers, and the manner in which they are equipped. Mr O’Neill, called the attention of the ;Commissioner of Customs to the necessity for providing for uniformity of regulation in respect to the inspection of steamers; and for insisting upon steamers carrying boats properly equipped and found, his experience of coasting vessels being quite to the contrary. Mr Reynolds promised to attend to the wishes of the member for the Thames, but pointed out that until the Imperial Parliament legislated in that direction, which he hoped would be done before long, the Governor had no jurisdiction beyond three miles from the shore, so that a vessel might leave port well found in every respect, and as soon as she was fairly at sea, be as badly found as ever. Mr Hunter, being interested in the local steam companies, defended their owners from Mr O’Neill’s charges, which, he said, were unfounded and not proven ; and instanced the wrecks of the Queen, Rangitoto, Taranaki, Lord Worsley, Airedale, White Swan, and William Denny, none attended with loss of life, as showing that their boats must have been well found. Not so, however, thought Mr Parker, who said six or eight minutes elapsed before a boat was lowered from the Rangitoto. Messrs Sheehan, McGlashan, and McLean (Waikaouiti), complained bitterly of the over crowding of passengers and over loading of cargo on some of our coasting steamers, while the lastnamed gentleman drew the Commissioner’s attention to the necessity of giving the Customs’ authorities the fullest power to detain uuseaworthy ship**, without at the same time subjecting themselves, as in the existing state of the law they did, to penalties for simply doing their duty. On Wednesday Mr O’Neill brought forward his sessional Plans of Towns Regulations Bill, which he moved in a very sensible speech. The House generally endorsed the principle of the Bill, but Mr Richardson pointed out that in its present shape it was unworkable, because it contained no penal clauses. Mr Reid was the only member who spoke against the Bill. Since Mr Richardson aud Mr Carrington have promised to lend Mr O’Neill their assistance, he should be able to send up the Bill to the Lords in such a workable shape as to secure their concurrence.

On Wednesday evening business was delayed for fully an hour, by the discovery of fire in its incipient state in the building. Before the Speaker was fairly in his chair, the chamber got uncomfortably filled with smoke, and an adjournment of all aud sundry was made to the open air. The presence of smouldering fire was Soon detected; and after a little delay, caused by the numerous burstings of the hose in use, all danger was over. The smoke—for there really was no fire—originated in an over-heated flue in the narrow corridor immediately behind the Speaker’s chair. This flue came in contact with a loose piece of board which had inadvertently been laid across it. The only serious outcome of the fire was a little disturbance, which resulted in some undecidedly unparliamentary language, leading almost to blows, between a well known journalist aud a member of the civil service. The constitutional question was again trotted out on Thursday by Sir George Grey, who asked for the date on which the Attor-ney-General’s opinion re the abolition of the provinces was laid before the Governor, and. elicited from the Minister for Justice the information that it had never been brought under his Excellency’s notice. Mr Bowen took advantage of the opportunity to read some correspondence that had passed between himself and the Chief Justice. From this, Sir George’s explanations, and what fell from Mr Stafford, it is plain that Mr Prendergast has never at any time expressed or held an opinion different to that he gives in hia memorandum of Ist December last, viz, that the Assembly has, under the 31st and 32nd of Victoria —the Imperial Act of 1863—the fullest and amplest power to abolish any and all provinces. While it is true that, as Sir George Grey asserted, he never said that the late Attorney-General had ever given any other opinion, it is rather unfortunate, a j Mr Stafford pointed out, that there should have gone forth to the country, uncontradicted, the impression which appears to have been as largely shared in inside as outside the House, that Sir George Grey had said Mr Prendergast had at some time or other given a quite different and contrary opinion. This latter assertion was made by some hou member on Sir George’s left—possibly by Mr Bunny—aud either the Press Agency or a “ special ” credited Sir George with it. Had

not Mr Stafford been interrupted, the House would doubtless have heard from him the true history of the Bill of 1868, which has now become so famous. This much was. however, gleaned from him on Thursday. It was prior to the passing of the Imperial Act of 1868, that Mr Frendergast explained to Sir George the meaning of “ Abolition of Provinces,” to be the alteration of provincial boundaries. The question of the power of the Assembly, as under existing laws, - to abolish any or all provinces, in the sense it is now attempted to abolish them, was first raised by Mr Brandon and afterwards by Mr bewell. These, and the previously expressed doubts on the same subject of Mr Frendergast, induced Mr Stafford to draw up the memorandum, asking for extended powers to be given to the Assembly, and togivewhich the Imperial Act of 31 and 32 of Victoria was framed. It appears also that the doubts entertained by Mr Frendergast were shared in by the Crown Law Officers in England. The draft Bill was sent out to the colony for the consideration of the Colonial Government; and when it was submitted to the Attorney-General with a request that he should give it his most careful consideration, he was told by Mr Stafford that the object of the measure was to give the Legislature of this colony the fullest power to legislate in the matter of the provinces. The alterations in the drait Bill made by the Attorney-General were few; but there was one important one, whicn the Imperial Government and the English Parliament adopted. It was to give to the Assembly “ the power to make” the alterations in the constitution which abolition implied. So that it has now been placed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the late Attorney-General always held *that from the passing of the Imperial Act of 1868, the Assembly had the power to abolish the provinces. As there always is a calm before a storm, Thursday was a very quiet day, the business on the order paper being disposed of in three hours. There were, however, two or three matters that came before the House which deserve a passing reference. The inquiry into the circumstances under which the cost of the Mangere bridge was charged against the vote of £60,000 for roads in the north of Auckland, moved by Mr Sheehan, discloses what, to use very Parliamentary language, seems to be intentional peiyersion of facts in a very gross way on one side or the other. Early in the session the Minister for Public Works, when questioned in reference to this bridge, asserted most distinctly that the General Government had flatly refused to undertake its construction because there was no vote for the purpose; but that owing to the great pressure brought upon them by the Auckland Executive they gave way, and agreed to go on with the work on the express understanding that the cost was to be charged against the £60,000 loan, and to that understanding the Auckland authorities were parties. Now we' have Mr Sheehan declaring that, although he was a member of the Auckland Provincial Government during the time the arrangement is said to have been come to, he knew nothing about it, and that declaration he supported by telegrams from Mr Gillies, late Superintendent; Mr Hurst, the late Treasurer; and Mr Lusk, late a member of the Auckland Executive. For himself, Mr Gillies asserts that he never agreed to have the cost of the bridge charged against the £60,000 loan, nor was ever such a suggestion made to him verbally or in writing. Messrs Hurst and Lusk are equally emphatic in asserting that no sueh proposal as the Minister for Public Works alluded to was ever made while they were in office. Then we have Mr Richaidson’s of the matter as follows:—Very shortly after the Waterhouse-Vogel Government came into office, he found there was a distinct pledge given that a bridge should be built over the Mangere, the previous Government having been greatly pressed by the Auckland provincial authorities to build it. When the Waterhouse-Vogel Government came to consider the matter, they were met by the difficulty where the money was to come from. However, plans were prepared, and when he (Mr Richardson) paid his first visit to Auckland he personally inspected the site with this result—that if he had been dealing with the matter himself he would have been very much inclined not to have built the bridge at all, But there was a distinct pledge to build, which he was told must be carried out, and therefore the work was gone on with. He had several interviews on the subject with the Superintendent (Mr Gillies), who pressed him very hard to have the bridge completed. The outcome of these interviews Mr Richardson asserts to have been tlat he explained that there was no vote out of which the cost of the bridge could be defrayed, and that Mr Gillies said his Government were willing it should be defrayed out of the loan for roads to the north of Auckland. This understanding he repeated to Mr Sheehan when they went on a visit to Kaipara together. The next step was calling for tenders, and when they came in they were found to be £I6OO above the engineer’s estimate. In view of that fact the Auckland authorities were telegraphed to to know if they still wished the work to be proceeded with, and Mr Gillies replied—“ My Executive recommend the acceptance of tenders.” This telegram throws a light upon the question. According to Mr Richardson this Mangere bridge affair has been from the first a very objectionable piece of business to him, He only sanctioned it when he found the Government were pledged, after they had been subjected to no end of worry; and when there was a distinct understanding as to how its cost was to be met. Now it turns out that the construction of the bridge was a moot point with the Auckland Executive, the Superintendent taking one view and his Executive an entirely opposite one. Mr Gillies claims that in telegraphing “ My Executive,” he did not include himself; and Mr Richardson, that that is an unfair constructiou of the message; on which the General Government acted. As it now stands, the quarrel is a pretty one ; and the labors of the committee are looked for with considerable interest, as they must do one of two things—either impugn the veracity of the Minister for Public Works, which up to the present no one on either side of the House would think of questioning, and convict the General Government oi expending moneys in direct opposition to the wishes of the House; or show that the Auckland authorities have been grossly forgetful of an important transaction, and to serve political purposes have intentionally distorted certain facts relating to that transaction. The Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Bill was moved for the fourth time by M i Steward, in an excellent speech, in which

were reviewed the arguments of its opponents, the latter being combatted by the opinions of such eminent men as the Primate of England, the Archbishops of York and Dublin, Cardinal Manuing, &c. Mr McGillivray, according to custom, moved that the second reading should take place that day six months ; but before him had been Mr Fyke, who made one of the coarsest speeches I have ever heard in the Chamber. A proper compliment (?) was paid to the member for Wakatip by the occupants of the ladies’ gallery who, when he said that after passing such a law we should go in for polygamy or permit polyandry, straightways left the House. The division was very close —29 against 25—but it would have been larger if all those who have voted in its favor in past sessions had been in their places. While the division was being taken Bir George Grey, Mr Sheehan, and Major Jackson managed by some means to get into the Chamber, and Mr Fyke, spying them, claimed their votes ; but Mr Speaker decided that, as they were not in the House when the question was put, the division lists must stand. As the “ayes ” were telling out into their lobby some merriment was created by Sir Cracroft Wilson inquiring of one of the “ noes ” who was desirous that the member for Heathcote should go into the other lobby, “ When did he ever know him to vote like a bigoted beast?” There is very little likelihood of the Bill ever passing our Upper House, constituted as it at present is. In a former letter I alluded to the probable resignation of the Commissioner of Customs, and to rumours that were afloat as to the probability of his being elevated to the Upper House. The first mentioned matter is alone correct. Some time since, Mr Reynold’s, finding he could not spare himself from his business so long as the duties of a Cabinet Minister require he should be, determined to resign his portfolio, and that resignation will be handed in after the expiration of the present session of Parliament. He has, however, no intention of retiring from the representation of Dunedin. Among the rumours now current in the lobbies are those that Mr Ingles is to be provided for, and that Mr McGlashan will be appointed Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands, when Mr J. T. Thomson, the present occupant of that office, is made Surveyor-General of the Colony. The House and its galleries were crowded last night to hear Major Atkinson move the second reading of the Abolition Bill. Never was the absence of Sir Julius Vogel more keenly felt by his colleagues. From first to last, Major Atkinson’s speech was a failure ; and if the measure depended upon it, there is little question that its fate would have been irremedibly sealed, The only strong and telling point was that in which he attempted to show that the Assembly had full legal power to deal with the question; and that Ministers had acted a proper part in introducing the Bills in the manner they had. In some respects the speaker furnished the Opposition with arguments which tell in their favor, and will be certain to be used with advantage and effect by Sir George and Mr Fitzherbert, It was, too, extremely unfortunate that he should have put so positively as he did many of his propositions which involved contradiction, and still more unfortunate that he should have persisted, when contradictions, given with no uncertain sound, arose aiound him, in repeating his assertions, and almost defying his opponents. As often as he said “it is admitted on all hands” that the country had declared for abolition, he was met with a perfect blast of “ No’s”; and when he said he must have the last word, the Opposition’s demonstrativeness must have convinced how foolish had been his attitude. Equally conderanable was the action of the Government Whip, Mr M'Glashan, who, allowing his zeal to outrun his discretion, got up to object to the ironical cheers which so frequently greeted the Treasurer from the Opposition benches, but who was fairly laughed down. Mr Reynolds also contributed his share of the general discomfiture, After Sir George had moved the adjournment of the debate till Wednesday evening, there were indications on the part of Ministerial supporters that it should be taken at 2.30, while the Opposition stuck out for the evening. Dp got Mr Reynolds with the observation that as Tuesday was a Government day, the Government would order the business on the paper as they pleased ; but the Speaker was down on the Minister in a moment. It appears to have been an understanding between the two whips that the debate should be postponed till Tuesday night; and Mr Reynolds’ suggestion was not at all relished. No one will doubt that Major Atkinson was sincere when he expressed how pleased he would have been had it fallen to the lot of the member for Timaru to have moved the second reading of the Bill. Had it been so, the House would in all probability have been treated to one of the best speeches that gentleman has ever made, instead of having been compelled to listen to about the worst with which any important Bill was brought under the notice of any Assembly. However, the talking has yet to come. On Tuesday night we shall have Sir George Grey, and everyone is expecting, as may well be, a speech worthy of the man and the occasion, Mr Stafford will not disappoint his friends or the country; and from Mr Fitzherbert we are sure to have both quantity and quality. Afterwards, as from Tuesday the thiug is to be fought out to its bitter end, we may look forward to epeeches of all binds, long and short, good, bad, and hopelessly indifferent. Seventy per cent, if not more, of the House are sure to talk; and since speaking against time is now the announced programme of the Opposition, everyone is settling down comfortably for a long session. That the Government will in the end, carry their Bill, no one, except their determined opponents, doubts. In committee, it will be sure to be considerably altered. Some of the Opposition propose to test the sincerily of the Government in the matter of local self-government by moving in another direction. The Marine Act, as it now stands, gives, under one of the sub-sections of clause 5, power to the Governor to appoint and to dismiss all officers connected with the management of harbors. Since this Act was passed in 1867, harbor boards have been incorporated in various provinces. Now it is proposed to ask the Government to repeal this clause, which, it is alleged, places the Colonial Government in the position of being able to override the acts of harbor boards, and of exercising, by means of the patronage the clause places in iheir hau'is, influence of the harbor officers, to which the latter should not be subjected. I do not profess to say whether there is anything in the point: but if the Opposition are right, the question is a very fair one to put to the Dovernraent.