WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 377, 27 August 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

{From a correspondent of the Press.) August 24. The abolition debate was continued on Friday, the speech of the day, or rather of the night, for it occupied the whole of the evening sitting, being Mr Fitzherbeit’s. In the afternoon we had Mr Mervyn, who said nothing new ; Mr O’Conor, who shadowed forth some valuable suggestions as to the way in which the Bill should be amended in committee, and showed that he had given it very careful consideration ; and Mr Basstiau, the newly-elected member for Wallace, who made a very fair maiden speech. Mr Fitzherbcrt commenced to speak at 7.30, and held the floor till a little after midnight. It is quite amusing to note the different opinions that live hours’ effort has called forth. The Opposition were delighted with it; and say that as a logical, convincing speech, it was the best this Parliament has heard. In their eyes, Mr Stafford was utterly and the defects of the Bill ruthlessly laid bare. On the other hand, Ministerial supporters declare that the speech was a terribly weary one, weak in its arguments, and false in its deductions and facts. For my own part, I must confess the speech was extremely dull on the whole. Anyone who has heard Mr Fitzherbert on such occasions, when he talks to himself two-thirds of the time he ison his feet, will be able to realise what

trouble it is to sit out a five hours’ speech of that kind. If Mr Fitzherbert had not occupied so much time, it is possible we should have had two more speeches on Friday night. The question now asked is when the debate, now grown wearisome since all the big guns have been fired off, likely to finish ? It was, I believe an understood thing that it should be brought to a close on Thursday next; but that can hardly be the case, since some twenty-three members have intimated their intention to speak. It is an understood thing that the Opposition will not call for a division, though of course the Government will do so. At the end of last week the Opposition leaders received intimation from several who, they had believed, were in accord with them that they could not see their way to opposing the second reading; and. it was in consequence deemed most undesirable to adhere to the original intention of going to a division, which would only show their weakness. The Times this morning comes out with a strange leader. Hitherto that journal has been giving the Opposition a tolerable share of moral support. Nowit tells them that they cannot free themselves from blame if the intent of their oppositions be simply to delay the settlement of the question. I understand that the Minister for Justice intends to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to evidence. The principal of the proposed alterations are as follow :—To introduce Lord Denman’s Act, by which a husband or wife may give evidence in divorce cases ; next, to allow a husband or wife to give evidence in assault cases, which they are now only able to do in the roundabout way of taking out cross actions ; and to allow an infidel to give evidence in the law or other courts. According to the law, as it now stands, no infidel can be put upon the witness stand, and I have no doubt it will have been within Mr Bowen’s experience, as well as that of old magistrates, that many failures of justice have arisen from a principal witness choosing to assert that he has no creed or religious belief. The proposed amendment is in the direction of allowing these non-believers to make an affirmation, and a false affirmation will be treated and punished as perjury. The Opposition are working the wires to their own disadvantage. Towards the end of last week telegrams found their way into the papers here stating that at Longbush, Mataura, and Invercargill, meetings had been held and had unanimously carried resolutions against immediate abolition, and in favor of delay. Mr Cuthbertson, the member for Invercargill, has capsized this weak invention of the enemy. In neither of the districts named has a meeting been held, while the feeling in them is in favor of abolition. So saith the Mayor of Invercargill and three of the leading people of that town, to whom Mr Cuthbertson appealed. The Provincial party was in full feather at the Hutt on Saturday night. Sir George Grey having been requisitioned by the electors of that district to address them in public meeting assembled, proceeded to the Hutt by special train, and was accompanied by his faithful henchman, Mr John Sheehan. Sir George appears to have received an almost gubernatorial welcome. On the platform he was met by Mr Fitzherbert, and other local notabilities, and the Maories, to the number of a hundred or so, who thronged the approaches, cheered most lustily. A torchlight procession had been arranged, but in the earlier part of the evening it was a failure. In his passage from Mr Fitzherbert’s residence to the meeting, Sir George was again escorted by an admiring crowd, who cheered to their heart’s content. The proceedings opened with a little demonstrativeness on the part of a local politician named Rush, who displayed much anxiety to know the why and wherefore of everything. When he was fairly put down, a work of some difficulty, Sir George commenced his speech, which, brimming over with paternal advice and abounding in pretty pictures of girls’ falling in love with young men, who must be provincialists, must have tickled the Huttites immensely. Mr Fitzherbert’s speech was short and decidedly strong, and concluded with this very firm sentiment, which the Huttites applauded to the echo. “ This is the last word I will say to you ; now, do not be rash, and because you may have had occasion to find fault with many things that have occurred in local affairs, do* not be misled into destroying that, which once lost I do not believe you will ever get back again—your liberty ; and if you did get it back again, the struggle would be a frightful one, and no one could say through what bloodshed. I am not speaking of today, but I assure you that I believe the struggle would end in civil war. I do believe that there are some of you young enough to see that if the sole Government of this country is attempted to be absorbed into one place at Wellington, other parts of New Zealand will wrest it from them by force.” It is hard to arrive at anything like a just idea of the number present at the meeting. The Times is silent upon the point, but admits that the Maori section was exceedingly enthusiastic, and demonstrative in their approval of everything and every shade of opinion expressed ; the Tribune says only forty or fifty Europeans were in the room ; while the Post puts down the attendance at fully 200. In discussing the Hutt meeting, the Times on Monday warns Sir George Grey and Mr Fitzherbert of the danger of using threatening language. “ When the Opposition leaders prophecy armed resistance and civil war, it is hard to acquit them of knowledge that their prophecies may assume hereafter the place of orders, yet we would fain believe, and indeed, as we said above, are almost content to believe that they are acting in mistake. We wish to show these gentlemen that their words may bear consequences which they do not desire and which they would bitterly regret. The mere probability of such consequences in a community and a country like this may to some seem ridiculous, but it is evident that they do not seem so to Sir George Grey and Mr Fitzherbert. And no one who knows the world can be ignorant that times may easily come in the heat and fury of political battle when the ordinary weapons of politicians are exchanged by a few fanatics for those weapons which bring destruction on those who take them up, and work fearful evil on all. It is such utterances as those that have been recently made that bring about the change of arms we have alluded to ; it is such utterances that bring about outbreaks which, in their power to settle the point in dispute would be laughable, were it not for the serious consequences they involve for a few misguided headstrong fanatics, the first to be disowned by those who arc really responsible for their acts, and the last to excite the pity of their opponents."