WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 379, 30 August 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

(From a correspondent of the Press.) August 27. The end is not far—indeed it may come before this reaches you. The speaking this week, as far as it has gone, has been on the whole more practical than during the previous fortnight ; while nearly all the speakers have compressed their remarks, with the result that fifteen men only occupied two sittings. On Monday the ball opened with a fiery speech from Mr Buckland, who was decidedly *• rough ” on Sir George Grey, and desperately hard up for material for his attack when he had to go back to almost the foundation of the colony and bring in a great deal of irrelevant matter. Mr Macandrew spoke at unusual length for him, and with much feeling. The burden of his complaint was that constitutional reform is not so much wanted as reform of the Central Legislature ; the curtailment of its powers, with a corresponding increase of those of provinces, which should however be strictly defined. In a word, Mr Macandrew only gave expression to the fondest wish of his heart—-his day dream—the creation of Otago as a separate and independent colony. In many respects the speech of Mr Bunny, who at the evening sitting had to fill up a gap, was very clever. According to his manipulation of the figures Wellington stands to lose about £40,001) a year by the Government proposal. The member for Wairarapa was also successful in keeping the House in a tolerable state of merriment, and provoked roars of laughter by the innocent way in which he convicted himself of speaking at random. Evidently he had set himself to the self-appointed task of speaking an hour ; and when he had all but exhausted his stock of argument, Mr Reid, who sits immediately on his left, handed him a piece of paper, on, reading which

he let the House know that he could not do it as he had a cold. The intent was obvious, so off ho started again, this time ch.verly bringing in a reference to the Hull and Wairarapa meetings. At the latter, he was good enough to tell the House, be was questioned about Ihe Local Government Bill, and be had candidly told them that he had not even read it, because.be had felt there was no necessity for so doing, as the Abolition Bill would not pass. Now it was but in the previous breath that the number for Wairarapa had been instituting comparisons between Mr Hall’s and the present Local Government Bills ; but how ho could be in a position to do so, without having read the latter, as he himself admitted, was more than ,l any fellah can understand.” Mr Joseph Shephard, who followed, carried the debate up to within ten minutes to ten, when there was a considerable pause, followed by cries of “ adjourn,” it being customary to adjourn at ten for twenty minutes. But Mr Speaker declined to leave the chair till the proper time ; and cries of “ question ” and “ divide ” followed his decision. At one time it seemed very imminent that the division would take place : indeed the Treasurer was all but on his feet, when as the result of a hurried consultation between Messrs Header Wood, O’Rorke, and Sheehan, the only prominent membersof the Opposition in the House at the time, Mr Dignan was put up to stave off the division, and he moved that the Bill bo read that day six mouths, on which amendment. Mr Sheehan found himself obliged to speak in a way that led some people to infer he was talking against time. There appears to have been a misunderstanding between the two parties ; but which is to blame for that misunderstanding I cannot say. Ihe Oppotion regarded it as an understood thing that Mr Walter Johnson was to have spoken when the House met at 10.20, while the Government through their whip, deny that there was any such arrangement, or that they were bound to put up a man for every Opposition member who spoke. I think it is pretty near the real fact that the Government were determined to put up as few men aspossible, and to force a division without delay. But when Mr Sheehan had succeeded in carrying the debate into Wednesday morning, and as, through the next sitting being given up for private business, the division could not by any possibility be taken on Thursday, if then, before the newly-elected member for Caversham, Mr Stout, could have an opportunity of speaking to the question, it was deemed inadvisable to countenance the amendment, which, having served its intended object, was negatived on the voices. On Thursday, Mr Walter Johnson led off with a capital speech, and was followed by Mr Bradshaw, whose matter was very gpod, but his delivery is so wearisome that it is little to be wondered at that he should have been listened to by a bare quorum. At the evening sitting we had a capital speech from Mr Ormond, who had been preceded by Mr Swanson, who was at times decidedly amusing. Of Mr Ormond’s two hours’ effort there is much difference of opinion. Ministerialists consider it the most convincing speech of the debate. Certainly, they were delighted with it, and cheered the member for Clive vehemently in his trenchant criticism of the Opposition leaders. On the other hand, the Opposition declare that no speech will so damage the Bill as this same speech. They profess to see in it that the question of the seat of Government will be raised, and affirm that the reference to a property tax —which they regard as a seraiMinisterial declaration of future pokey—will at once create in the other branch of the Legislature a strong feeling hostile to the Bill. The debate had gone so far well, that it was hoped there would be no occasion for the Commissioner of Customs to get up to speak, and those who dreaded to hear Mr Reynolds were pained to see how grievously he put his foot in it by declaring that it would be competent for the House, if it so pleased, to stiike out from the Bill the name of any province. The veriest tyro in politics knows the power of Parliament in reference to all Bills, but to the House it was an invitation to alter the Bill by making omissions in the way suggested. It need hardly be said that the Government have no intention of abandoning their position on the question of abolition, whole or none, and Mr Reynolds was obliged to make a withdrawal of his foolish statement, and a very poor hand he made of it too. A speech from Katene, and a few observations from Mr W. Kelly, brought the sitting to a close.

An astonishingly largo amount of business was got through on Wednesday. The urgent necessity there is for at once placing the valuable library of the Assembly in a suitable and commodious building, which will not bs so liable to destruction by fire as the present building, was forcibly brought under notice by Sir George Grey, and admitted by all the speakers, the principal members of the Government included. The resolutions on which Sir George founded his motion were those of the library committee, as follows « (i) That in the opinion of the committee the time has come when the erection of a proper library building ought to be no longer delayed. (2) That considering the object to be attained, it would be desirable that the building should be designed and erected under the superintendence of a Koyal Commission. (3) That Sir George Grey be requested to bring forward a motion in the House of Kepresentatives for an address to the Crown praying the-Crown will issue such a commission, and will also cause a sufficient sum to be placed on the estimates, to be at the disposal of the Koyal Commission this year, to make an immediate commencement of the work.” The Government have in their possession two plans for a new library. The first is to place it in a fire-proof building situated between the two Legislative Chambers; the other, to build a separate building on the terrace, and to connect it with the House by a covered passage. The sooner the erection of a fireproof building is proceeded with the better, for a spark, or a hastily thrown down match, may work destruction which no money can replace.

The native laud purchases occupied a good deal of attention on Wednesday, and were the subject of some pretty severe talking, particularly on the part of Sir George Grey. On the motion for the production of returns showing in detail how the £700,000 vote for this object had been expended, Mr iiolleston raised the question how far the member for Franklin (Mr Buckland) had brought himself under the Disqualification Act by receiving moneys from the Government in respect to certain lands purchased from him. Mr Buckland’s explanation o! these purchases you have, and Bit' Donald M‘Leau intimated that the Disqualification

Act did not apply to those transactions. The member for Clutha did not appear to be satisfied with the Native Minister’s dictum, and wanted a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, but bis suggestion met with no response. Sir George had a good deal to say about the vicious principle of purchasing lauds at present in vogue, and made especial reference to the Piako block. On the next motion, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Piako-Waikato swamp sale, he urged his reasons for declining to serve upon the committee, and specifically brought this charge—a serious one on its face —against the Government: A person employed by the Government in the purchase of native lands on the Thames “ had absolutely claimed the timber rights over a block of land for a lengthened term of years. This person acquired the freehold from the natives, and handed it over to the Government, subject to his rights. This land was proclaimed under the Public Works Act, and became a portion of the provincial estate. The person then came to Wellington and applied by letter to the Colonial Secretary to have it withdrawn, enclosing a draft copy of the reply which the Government was to send to him. This reply was not sent, but a clause was introduced into the Public Works Act in 1873, in the Lower House, without explanation, and passed similarly in the Upper House, though the Hon Mr Waterhouse pointedly asked for explanation. Under that clause, the land in question was shortly afterwards, by the only Order in Council issued under the Act, withdrawn from control of Provincial Government and practically barred to settlement by the people.” Now for the other side of the story, which is told by the Tribune, evidently under inspiration. The suggestion in Sir George’s speech is—- “ That a clause was introduced by the Government into the Public Works Act, 1873, without explanation, in order to enable the Government to do something which “a person who came to Wellington” for the purpose wanted to have done. The “person” referred to was Mr Thomas Russell ; the application to which Sir George Grey refers was made in September of last year, 1874 ; and the Public Works Act, into which the mysterious clause was put, “ without explanation,” was passed in the previous year, 1873. Now, Sir George Grey cannot plead ignorance as an excuse for a suggestio falsi such as this, because the papers have been in his hands as chairman of the Talrua committee, and they give the whole history of the case, the facts of which are these: —Ggrtain blocks of land in the neighbourhood of Shortland, on the Thames, came into possession of the Crown, subject to the rights of persons to the timber growing thereon, previously acquired from the native owners. These persons had erected sawing machinery at great expense, were carrying on a large business, were employing a large number of workmen, and preparing to provide a valuable export for the colony. In June, 1874, the blocks of land in question were, with several others, declared to be Waste Lands of the Crown, by proclamation in the usual course, and they then came under provincial administration. It was reported that, carrying out the system of ‘ jumping,’ which has prevailed at the Thames, and which, having driven away capital, has paralysed industry in that field, applications were about to be made to the Provincial Government for licenses to cut the timber, the property of the “persons” before-mentioned. What was done by the Government, and done rightly, as all unprejudiced persons will admit, was to withdraw these blocks of land from provincial control. The moral and legal rights of the mill owners were thereby saved. The Crown still has the fee-simple of the land, and if gold is found upon it the gold can be worked. No wrong has been done to any ‘class.’” The sooner the fullest enquiry into all the matters, which, in their present unsettled state, cannot but do the Government harm, is made the better. They might even consult Mr Reeves’ feelings so far as to throw in two additional Opposition members, since the member for Selwyu having, in the first instance, tabled the charge, and committed himself to strong statements about the propriety of the Piako sale as a matter of public policy, declines to pursue the thing further.

During the early part of Wednesday evening and the small hours of the night the House was engaged alternately in a Wellington row and Taranaki and Otago land fights. The first mentioned arose upon a motion by Mr Andrew, who in asking the House to agree to the second reading of a Bill to Repeal the Wellington Special Settlements Act, urged that the latter was liable to this abuse; that any person on his own purchase-money, by getting some one outside the province to lend bis name for authority for the purchase, could charge a commission. Being challenged to name any case of abuse, Mr Andrew mentioned first the case of a Mr Bridges, who had obtained a commission of 5 per cent on the sale of land which he had recommended to Mr Larkworthy in England, for an association to be formed there, but of the existence of which association he (Mr Andrew) had not after-every search been able to discover any trace. The second case was that of commission paid to Mr Buller here in respect to a purchase for a Mr May, an old Wellington resident now in London. From the latter case, Mr Andrew argued that he might as well go to Napier and from there employ an agent to purchase land for him in Wellington province; and that thereby he would be as much “ out of the province” within the meaning of the Act as this Mr May. To all this Mr Fitzherbert made answer rather savagely. He denied that there had been any abuse in either case. In Larkworthy’s case, when the application was made and granted, there was an intention to form in England a company to work flax according to a new patent, but the demand for flax fell off so much that it would have been unprofitable to go on with the business, and the land, on which a good deal of money was spent in drainage, See, was utilised for pasturage. May’s purchase was defended as quite legal. He charged Mr Andrew with bringing forward the motion for electioneer-, ing, and said to him some hard things in the manner Mr Fitzherbert alone is able to do. There is very little doubt the House would have responded to the member for the Hutt’e appeal to throw out the Bill, on the simple ground that no measure affecting the waste lauds should be introduced into the House except on the motion of the Provincial Council of the province, had it not been for the insinuation of the Colonial Treasurer that there had been an irregularity, inasmuch as he had not been able to find any trace of these payments under the Act having been known to the auditor, which needed to be

enquired into. In the face’of that declaration the Bill all but met with an untimely fate ; the second reading was carried by 29 to 27. On Thursday Mr Fitzherbert and Mr Bunny were even with the Treasurer. Mr Bunny produced a quantity of papers which showed that as matter of fact the only four payments made of commission under the Act were all made on the Provincial Auditor’s certificate in the ordinary manner. Mr Bunny placed the House in possession of the facts and charged the Treasurer with making unfound( d statements. Major Atkinson disclaimed having imputed any blame to the provincial authorities, and considered the auditor’s memo, a justification for his remark the previous night that there had apparently been an irregularity under the Act. This brought up Mr Fitzherbert, who fiercely attacked the Government benches, the Treasurer in particular, and told that hon gentleman that he did say what he said he had not—which is a polite way of calling a man a “ liar.” Neither was the Treasurer’s disclaimer acceptable to Mr Hunter, whose condemnation of the latter’s unfounded reflections upon the Wellington provincial authorities was every bit as strong as Mr Fitzherbert’s. It is plain the Treasurer misconceived the auditor’s memo., and an acknowledgment of that fact would have saved him and the House yesterday’s unpleasant business. It is due to Mr Bunny’s wonderful innocence to say that during the discussion of the matter he denied all knowledge of the Opposition having made, or intending to make, any charges against the Government. The Otago fight was upon Mr '-Mervyn’s little Bill, and the committee rejected the prircipal clause of it, which sought to extend the area of agricultural holdings on goldfields from 200 to 320 acres. The member for Mount Ida pressed for delay of the third reading, but the Otago members would not hear of it. Mr Mervyn then lost Ins temper, hit out at Mr Reid and others, and finally abandoned the Bill, which immediately passed through in its amended state.

Mr O’Neill carried his Plans of Towns’ Regulation Bill, by limiting its action to Government townships, though Mr Reid and others strongly urged him to let it apply to private townships to be formed in the future. Not a little amusement was created on Tuesday afternoon, when Mr Charles O’Neill, assisted by another hon member, advanced to the table and unrolled a petition from the Thames, which reached from below the gangway to the Speaker’s chair. It is signed by over 1100 persons, and the prayer of it was—- “ That your petitioners look with regret and alarm at any attempt made to induce your House to legalise the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sunday. That your petitioners believe that the Sunday will lose its character of rest and quiet, and its religious and elevating influence on the community, and will become a source of immorality, in proportion as opportunities are given for carrying on on that day or any part of it the traffic of intoxicating liquors. That your petitioners pray that no such opportunity will be allowed by your honorable House, but if any change in the existing law be made it will be to make more effective the prohibition of the liquor traffic on the Sunday.” This makes the 125th public petition presented to the House this session !

The modesty of some men is truly wonderful. Mr Murray, not content with framing constitutions innumerable, was anxious the other day to break a lance with the Minister for Public Works. It appears that fourpence per ton is charged for the conveyance of coals from Tokomairiro, on the Government lines in that province, while on the Auckland and other General Government lines the rate is only twopence, and the member for Bruce must needs know the reason for so great a difference. Mr Richardson having referred him to the provincial authorities for an explanation, the member for Bruce wrote a memorandum to the Minister, telling him that as the Government proposed to abolish provinces they should first look into and remove such an anomaly as he had pointed out. Though Mr Richardson answered by letter, and in the House, when the question was put in the House, that until the provinces are abolished he can scarcely interfere, Mr Murray is dissatisfied.