WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 374, 24 August 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

(From a correspondent of the Press.") August 19, The week opened with an unlocked for and wholly unexpected debate, which was raised on Tuesday afternoon, by the Speaker calling the attention of the House to the fact that an error had crept into the journals of the House in relation to the manner in which the Abolition Bill had been brought down. Major Campbell, the clerk, had in his rough minutes correctly stated the course of procedure; but the clerk, who transcribed his rough minutes, made it that the Bill had been referred to the House from committee of the whole. This course is invariably adopted in reference to ordinary appropriation or money bills; but it is almost needless to state that the Abolition Bill was sent down by Governor’s message. Sir George Grey was on his feet immediately upon the conclusion of the Speaker’s explanation, with the enquiry whether the course alluded to in the journals was not the one that rightly should have been adopted; and whether, through that not having been done, the proceedings, so far as they had gone in respect of the Abolition Bill, were not informal. The Opposition obstinately held to their point, though it was amusing to notice how often some of their speakers were caught napping. Especially was this the case with Sir George, "who accidentally or otherwise, failed to recognise the peculiar position of this Bill; with Mr O’Rorke, who while laying his finger upon a certain standing order, overlooked the existence of another, which laid down a specific course of procedure in reference to messages from the Governor, and Bills covered by such message; and with Mr Reader Wood, who for such an old Parliamentary stager, was strangely forgetful of the mode of introducing and dealing with Appropriation Bills. The Speaker, at the outset, ruled that everything was en regie', and though attempt after attempt was made by the Opposition to get him to reverse his decision, he budged not an inch, contenting himself by elaborating his explanations. The “simple-minded” member for Hokitika pressed Sir Dillon for his reasons, but received an answer that will not have the effect of “fortifying” him torepeat the question on similar occasions. The Speaker was strongly supported by Mr Stafford, who quoted precedents from the recent journals of the House of Commons, where the same practice had prevailed in analogous cases. The Opposition endeavored to make a strong point by alluding to what happened in Sydney last session, where a Stamp Bill had to be referred back to a committee of the whole after having reached its third reading ; but Sir George Grey and Mr Sheehan had the ground cut from under them by Mr Stafford, who showed that that case was in no way applicable, insomuch as that Bill had never at any stage previous to third reading gone through a committee of the whole, which as a money Bill it should have. So often were the main arguments repeated that the debate at length got wearisome, and it was a positive relief when the Speaker cut the talk short by refusing to allow his ruling to be further discussed. Then Mr Sheehan got up to give notice that on the next day he would move that the Speaker’s decision should be taken into consideration, which gave Sir George an opportunity of making another of these fervid appeals with which the House during the last four weeks have become so familiar. This proposition was stoutly resisted by the Government, who saw in it an attempt to gain delay, and of course it was negatived. The Opposition have been charged, but very unfairly, with factiously delaying the business by raising a discussion on the Speaker’s explanation. The point was important, and the Opposition were only doing their duty in vigilantly watching that the proceedings should be quite regular. Your readers cannot fail to see the bearing of the question raised. It means, if the Opposition determine to carry out their expressed intention of fighting the Government at every stage an indefinite prolongation of the struggle. The debate on the second reading will hardly be concluded before the end of next week—possibly on the 25th or 26th instant. The next step is to carry the Bill into committee of the whole, where every clause can be debated threadbare; and from the general haziness that seems to shadow over the financial part of Ihe question, there will be no end of questioning Ministers. Assuming that it comes out of committee of the whole under fen days, it has afterwards to go through committee—an ordeal I care not to speculate upon—but I have a faint suspicion that, speaking considerably within the mark, nearly a month will elapse before a third reading is reached. There is no halting now; and the Government will not allow the smallest business to be brought forward until the question is finally decided. Verily the prospect is anything but inviting. The Opposition were a second time worsted on Tuesday, Early in the afternoon the Native Minister announced that the Government had determined to push the Abolition Bill to an issue ; and to that end would postpone all ordinary business, and when the debate that night was adjourned Sir Donald got up to move that it should be resumed at 2.30 p.m the next day (Wednesday). Against this the Opposition rebelled. First they opposed it because due notice had not been given ; and, beaten on that point, the Speaker ruling against them, they sought to catch the votes of the middle men—as those sitting on a rail are now called —by protesting against members’ day being set aside. For four solid hours they talked against time. First Mr Reid, despite bis disclaimer the next day ; next Mr Sheehan, spoke for an hour, and was able to say when he lesumed his seat that he had not said a single word to which exception could be taken; then that brace of bores —Messrs Murray and Thomson, whose peculiarly sombre voices would drive any ordinary person to sleep, or, if he were fortunate enough to be a member, or to have a Speaker’s order to seek the consolation of that only

part of the House which finds favor in the eyes of Takamoana (vide his speech on Wednesday). Talking against time is at the best an infliction, but doubly so is il when you arc compelled to listen as many times as the opportunity is afforded him to speak, to such shrill discordant tones as characterise the member for Bruce’s utterances. Mr Bollcston and Mr Header Wood were entitled to the thanks of the House fot their praiseworthy efforts to throw a little life into the proceedings. The member for Bruce is facile vrinceps at making unwarrantable assertions, and in one of his short speeches bad in five minutes committed himself to so many such of startling magnitude, that the member for Timaru felt impelled to administer to him a rebuke for the want of patriotism exhibited in the sentiments to which he (Mr Murray) had just given utterance. At once Mr Eolleston was to his feet, and he excitedly ran a tilt at Mr Stafford, telling him that after the way he had deserted his party in 1872, he should be the last man to talk of patriotism; and the member for Parnell followed up the attack in stronger language, accusing Mr Stafford of having adopted the railway policy of his predecessors, a course of action that had deservedly led to his expulsion from office almost immediately after his accession to power. All this, and the allusion of Mr Rolleston to the Government being supported by a packed majority, produced a nice little scene. First, we had Mr G. B. Parker protesting against being packed (it was a pity the hon gentleman should have left his remark so capable of misinterpretation), then a series of noisy interruptions followed, when silence was restored, by Mr Stafford asking the House to let the member for Parnell have his say quietly, as he (Mr Stafford; would have plenty of opportunities of showing how that gentleman had acted since 1872. Later in the morning we had the Commissioner of Customs again putting his foot in it, by saying that the Government would go on with private business if their supporters wished them to do so; which Mr Fitzherbert construed into an admission that the Government supporters were to be favored; and though Mr Reynolds protested against such an interpretation or intention on the part of the Government, other spoakers on the Opposition side took Mr Fitzherbert’s view, and in consequence Mr Reynolds had anything but a pleasant time of it.

Beaten on several divisions, Sir George Grey put it to the Government that they should fulfil their promises to grant a committee of enquiry rc the sale of lands in the Waikato, and entreated them to do that, and to lay on the table a return he asked for of the purchase transactions under the £700,000 vote; but Ministers maintained an attitude of stolid indifference. On every question of adjournment Sir George Grey repeated his appeal, until he at last (through, I believe, the instrumentality of Mr Swanson), discovered that the return he was asking for had been laid on the table early that afternoon. To say that Sir George was mortified at this discovery faintly expresses his feelings, He was thoroughly enraged, and during the succeeding half hour inveighed against Ministers in no measured terms for their want of courtesy. Shortly before four o’clock, the Opposition threw up the sponge, and members and those whose business compelled them to sit it out, retired to their homes thoroughly exhausted. If Tuesday morning’s proceedings are a foretaste of what may be expected when the Abolition Bill goes into committee, I look forward with fear and trembling to that period; and when it approaches shall seriously think of ordering a bed and blankets to be carried into my perch. I have already sent my measure to the undertaker’s, to save him trouble should his services be required. The speeches on the Abolition Bill on Wednesday were excellent, and on the whole were far above those that any previous night has produced. Mr Rolleston was hesitating and, as usual, dull, but very argumentative. Mr Bowen, who followed, made the best explanation of the Bill, and of the causes that called it forth, that has yet been made from the Treasury benches, and his emphatic declaration of the determination of the Government to push the Bill through this session, despite all opposition, elicited considerable applause from Ministerial supporters. The only point of Mr Murray’s speech requiring notice is that in which he came out in his customary role of a constitu-tion-monger ; and sketched to the House the system of local self-government he should like to sec adopted. If the member for Bruce was sincere, he should have then and there declared his intention to support the Bill, because in many respects his plan is in accord with the Government proposal, and he was at considerable pains to inform the House that he was and had ever been a declared abolitionist. But the speech of the evening was undoubtedly the last one, which came from the newly - elected member for Rangiteiki. As a maiden effort it is said to have been the best ever heard in the House; and it is admitted on all sides that it was the best that had up to that point been delivered on the debate. It was clearly delivered and logically reasoned, The points—many of them most telling—were capitally brought out, and the highest compliment that) could be paid to any member in the same circumstances, was the general verdict of approval which the speech produced. |The 'member for Rangiteiki, on resuming his seat, which he did amidst long continued applause, was warmly congratulated, and by nobody more so than by Sir George Grey, who was perhaps harder hit than anyone by the speaker. Rangiteiki must be held to have found in Mr Ballance a worthy successor to Mr Fox. The Upper House have little or no business to transact. They daily meet for a couple of hours at the most, and adjourn to the other Chamber, and from their gallery there closely watch the progress of the great debate. Mr Waterhouse, who returns to the colony in excellent speech, was in his place the day after his arrival, and is expected to furnish material for hon Councillors’ consideration. August 20. In the early part of Wednesday’s sitting the Native Minister offered to move then and there the committee of enquiry rc the Waikato land sale, which Sir George so often questioned the Government about during the previous sitting. Sir Donald McLean defended the silence of the Government on that occasion as being perfectly justified, when it was so evident that the Opposition were merely talking against time. Sir George flatly refused.,the offer, which was made conditional on"’there being no debate on the matter ; and went on to accuse the Government of insincerity, and with having done all in their power to stifle enquiry. Apropos of this little business, the Times tells a capital story illustrative of Sir

George’s promises being so frequently above the level of their subject as to combine the -üblime with the ridiculous. The story runs that on that very morning Sir George had gone to the Native Minister and said—“ In cousequenco of the action of Ministers in shelving my motion regarding the confiscated lands, I shall make such revelations as will astonish the colony and shock the Empire,” The head of the Government was equal to the occasion. He smiled with the beaming softness which is said ever to characterise him, and replied, washing his hands with invisible soap the while : “ Well, Sir George, I trust the Empire and I may survive the shock.” On Wednesday, the speeches on the Abolition Bill were (more remarkable for their number than their matter. The talk lasted ten hours, with no break save that furnished by the dinner hour: and in the evening, when most of the small fry were on their feet, it got terribly wearisome. The better part of the afternoon was occupied by Mr Donald Reid, who made a good speech for his side —thoroughly practical and earnest. There was, however, just a spice too much of Otago in it. To his own satisfaction, and that of his party, he demonstrated most thoroughly that the Bill meant little short of financial ruin to the out districts of Otago, and that its adoption would be a fatal and egregious mistake for that province generally. He was particularly strong upon the excellence of the administration of the Otago Provincial Government, which sounded a little like blowing his own trumpet, and strove to impress the House with the generosity of a Government that had of its own accord introduced a system of shire councils and local government, infinitely superior to the Government proposal, giving to districts twenty per cent of their land fund—liberality that had never been taken advantage of, because the districts were so satisfied with provincial administration. Mr Reid was strangely oblivious of the agitation that in Oamaru led to the passing of the North Otago 1 oan Act, and of the feeling of the Southlanders towards this so-called Liberal Government, of which he is himself the head. But Mr Cuthbertson, who spoke later on, had something to say on the one head, and Mr Steward on the other. By them the provincial administration of the land fund was not presented in a very favorable light, while the provincial administration of public works, more particularly of railways in Southland, was strongly condemned by Mr Cuthbertson. Sir Cracroft Wilson read his speech, which was cut in halves by the dinner adjournment. In the first part he addressed himself to a defence of the Legislative Council, and to coming to the rescue of the member for Timaru, who had been accused all round of having deserted bis party in 1872. Sir Cracroft earned a round of applause from the Ministerial side when he urged that there might be circumstances under which no honest man could lead an Opposition, but he was fairly drowned by opposition cheers when he followed that up with the qualification that the circumstances he alluded to were those of a Government having got matters into such a mess that no honest man could undertake to put them straight. Seeing, as I have already stated, that his speech was written, it is difficult to imagine what produced the alteration in its tone when he resumed the debate at 7.30, and devoted the half-hour during which he was on his feet to a savage (and that is using a mild word) attack on two men who had been Superintendents,but whom the House knew perfectly well, though no names were mentioned. Mr Yon der Heyde, while announcing himself an abolitionist, sounded for the first time this session the war note of the Auckland party—namely, that the compact of 1856 should be set aside. On Friday afternoon Mr Reeves resumed the debate, and made an excellent speech from his point of view. There was less hesitation about his delivery than is usually noticeable on great occasions, and when he warmed up, as towards the close of his speech he did, he spoke with much fluency. His retort upon Mr Bowen, for now assuming the role of a Brutus, when a few months since he would gladly have been one of those Cmsars he now so much condemned, elicited loud cheers from the Opposition, which were renewed again and again during his criticism of and reply to the speech of the member for Heathcote, on whom as the telegraph will have informed you, he was exceedingly rough. It is perhaps fortunate that Sir Cracroft was not in the House at the time ; had he been I am certain there would have been a scene. Sir Cracroft came into the House shortly after the adjournment; and from the few observations that he then made, there is little doubt that he will take advantage of the first opportunity of having it out with the member for Selwyn. At the evening sitting, Mr Ward, the member for Wairau, spoke on the Opposition side, making a speech which earned for him a pretty compliment from Mr Stafford, who followed him, The speech of the latter was an able one, but hardly of the kind that might have been expected. Insomuch as it was a profession of his own faith it was excellent; but it fell short of the settled purpose of its author. Mr Stafford spoke without notes, and getting somewhat excited, overlooked two of the points he had determined to address himself to. At the outset he sketched those under four heads, and sat down after having mainly dealt with but two of them. His declaration of the relationship between Ministers and himself was clear and distinct, and should set at rest all doubts upon that score. The loud cheers which followed every sentence of his reply to Sir George Grey’s attack upon the Colonial Treasurer and the Minister for Justice showed how completely a majority of the House shared in the member for Timaru’s opinion that that attack was as ungenerous as it was uncalled for. E’rom Mr Stafford to Mr White was a descent that requires not to be characterised. But it is only justice to the member for Hokitika to say that be was put up to fill a gap without preparation, it being understood he would not be called upon to speak till the next day. However, he occupied the floor till midnight, the time at which it had been arranged that an adjournment should take place. To-day it is probable Mr Macandrcw will speak, and after him some little guns on both sides will be fired off. Mr Fitzherbert is reserving himself for Tuesday, and rumor says that he and Sir George are to speak at the Hutt to-morrow night. The member for Christchurch East has been unpleasantly brought under notice. On Wednesday he entered the House in such a state that the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to have him removed. No member will now sit on the same bench with him, and the library committee have requested him to absent himself from Bellamy’s and the library,