WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 385, 6 September 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

{From a correspondent of the Press,) September 2. The second stage of the Abolition debate has been reached, and with it the now ever recurring question, when will the debate have a final conclusion ? And echo answers, when ? The debate was prolonged till Friday solely to allow Mr Stout to speak, and at the evening sitting themember for Caversham rose for the first time to address the House. By his own party bis speech is regarded as a most convincing one ; by his opponents as a skilfully woven web of sophistry. It was, to my mind, chiefly remarkable for this fact: That it was the first and only declaration made during the debate that nothing better than provincialism can be given the people. Mr Stout’s belief is provincialism pure and simple ; and his argument went to show that in Otago at least, for he dealt solely with that province, it has more than done its work, and for efficient administration is much superior to the Colonial Government. There was a little of the land question, on which the member for Caversham is an authority, and will, if I mistake not, be soon heard of as a disciple of Mill in advocating that all Crown lands should be leased and not sold. Throw in a savage fling at that grasping, covetous, selfish class, the squatters, and a disquisition on true government, and you have the essence of the member for Caversham’s speech, which was admittedly well delivered—indeed, I never knew him to speak indifferently—and occupied barely two hours. It would have been a very great relief had the Treasurer then and there made his reply; instead of which the House was called upon to listen for a couple of hours to the member for Tuapeka, more dreary than usual, and scarcely as audible. He had evidently been at very great pains to prepare a series of tabulated statements showing the position of Otago, as it would be affected by the proposed change ; and through these he waded with a courage worthy of a better cause. Whether he was really delivering himself of a set speech, or was, after a certain period, talking against time, is a matter upon which the House appears to have agreed to differ. Not a few Ministerialists declare that the member for Tuapeka was put up to talk till midnight, so as to carry over the division till the next day ; while others assert that Sir George Grey, if he had been in the House at the time, had intended to have raised the question whether a division could be taken on a day that the House did not sit. The latter is, I should say, a very ridiculous idea, and not worth of a moment’s thought ; but the fact remains that exactly at midnight the member for Tuapeka resumed his seat. There some members on the Government side who were very anxious to speak ; but they were forced to reserve their eloquence for a more opportune moment, Ministers having determined to bring the debate to a close at once. Accordingly the Treasurer got up, and with wonderful celerity touched off the principal speeches on the opposite side, reserving Mr Fitzherbert’s remarks for a more convenient occasion. He was particularly hard upon MiReader Wood and the credit balance of Auckland, which, thanks to the advances made from the colonial chest, the member for Parnell had on the first day of the debate alluded to so self-confidently.

The division gave the Government a larger majority than they anticipated. Even the Opposition were disappointed at the result; but they have been consoling themselves with the reflection that the majority will have grown beautifully less, till it has been reduced to a minimum, when the final division shall have taken place. Difficult as it is to arrive at anything like a correct idea of when the final stage of the Bill will be reached, it is even more so to calculate upon the probable strength of parties when that final test takes place. I however incline to the belief that the majority will then be found to be a very respectable one—twelve or thirteen at the least.

On Tuesday the Bill was advanced a little bit further by being carried through committee of supply—a formal proceeding, by arrangement between both sides. Mr Wood and Mr Keid, determined to have all the information they could get, poured into the Treasury Bench a broadside of figures, by

which they sought to prove that the Treasurer had—by some conjuring process, as the member for Parnell termed it, or by the discovery of a mine of wealth hither! o unknown, according to the member ;or the Taieri—furnished sums such as no manipulation of the provincial balance-sheets which they were capable of, could enable them to arrive at. The Treasurer maintained the correctness of his figures, and the determination of which set of calculations is correct must be left to the discussion on the financial proposals of the Government, which will be commenced on Thursday, on the question of going into committee of supply. The week has been unusually prolific of breaches of privilege. First, on Friday we had Sir George Grey coming down with one of his fiery speeches. On the previous evening Mr Ormond had, in the course of his speech, made some reference to 'Auckland, which sir George, “ from information received,” for he was not in the House himself during the time the member for Clive was speaking, chose to consider of such an insulting character to the 80,000 people whom he represented that he felt under the necessity of demanding an apology from Mr Ormond. He also called upon the Government, of whom he was the agent, to apologise for having inferentially encouraged him by themselves describing Auckland’s financial condition as a public scandal. Mr Ormond very quietly assurred the House that he had no recollection of having word “rotten,” so offensive to Sir George’s ears and feelings, to the people of Auckland. On the contrary, his impression was that he had applied it to the Provincial Council of that province, the subserviency of which to the dictates of the Superintendent, he contended, warranted him in such language ; and he declined to make any apology until he had satisfied himself, after seeing the authorised report of his speech, whether or not he had used the words in the sense imputed to him. Mr Macandrew and Mr Wood made some expla nations, the purport of which was understood to be that their recollection of what the member for Clive said, led them to believe that the term “ rotten ” was applied to the Auckland people. Mr Sheehan followed, with explanations of Sir George’s action, in reference to taking over the police, and he was answered by Mr Buckland who contradicted everything the last speaker said, and he in turn was answered by the member for Newton in a speech of unparalleled brevity—“ You may contradict them as you like, but they are facts." If one can judge from the tone of his speech, Sir George must have been exceedingly angry when he replied, because he applied to the member for Clive harsher adjectives than he had used in introducing the subject. On Tuesday Mr Ormond recurred to the matter, and if Hansard reporters are to be relied upon as truthful (and I doubt if Sir George would venture to assert to the contrary), showed conclusively that, as he had previously affirmed, he had applied the word “ rotten” to a system of Government, and not to a people. And the appeal made to him to acknowledge in the face of this proof of that he had been misinformed and done the member for Clive an injustice, Sir George answered with silence.. A little diversion was caused on Friday night daring a part of Mr J. C. Brown’s speech, through Messrs O'Conor and Murray falling foul of the Speaker. It is necessary to mention that it is customary when the House sits at night for the Speaker to leave the chair, at ten o’clock, for a quarter of an hour for refreshments. This evening that practice was not observed, and after the member for Tuapeka had been on his legs a little more than an hour and a half, there arose from those members close to him cries of “ adjourn” which the Speaker did not pay any attention to. Whereupon Mr O’Conor rose, and complained of the Speaker not treating members with the same impartiality. The Speaker declined to notice the statement, but cautioned the member for the Buller that if he repeated such remarks he would call the attention of the House to his conduct; and turning to the member for Tuapeka, directed him to proceed with his speech. But Mr O’Conor was not to be put down in that way. First of all he tried to move an adjournment for a quarter of an hour, and being ruled out of order, moved the adjournment of the House, which enabled him to have his say out. He complained that on a previous occasion the member for the Hutt had been accorded the courtesy that had that evening been refused to the member for Tuapeka, to which the Speaker made reply, that the member for the Hutt having held a distinguished position in the House, was entitled to every kind of distinction, while the member for Tuapeka did not stand exactly in the same position. It was this unfortunate distinction that brought Mr Murray to his feet with the question, not over courteously put, whether all members did not stand on an equal footing, to which the Speaker would not condescend to reply, but called on the member for Tuapeka to continue. Then it came to the Speaker’s knowledge, apparently for the first time, that the hon member had himself asked, before the calls for adjournment were made, for the customary indulgence to be extended to him. The Speaker at once acceded to the request, and after intimating the misapprehension he had labored under, told the members for Bruce and the Buller that that was the last time he would permit them to take such liberties as they had taken that night. The member for the Buller was for resenting the rebuke on the spot ; but on Tuesday, when he called the attention of the House to the whole matter, he did so in a very temperate way, which was the means of showing that there had been faults on both sides. Mr Murray, however, managed to put hia foot in it once or twice, in meeting the Speaker’s statements with something more than contradiction.

Mr Eolleston has succeeded in getting a committee to inquire into the land purchases in which Messrs Buckland, Williamson, and Taylor, are concerned, and which it is alleged brings the gentlemen named within the terras of the Disqualification Act. Each day, till he got his committee, did the member for Avon bring up the question before the business proper commenced ; and so often did we have discussions on the very wide questions of the principle and methods of land purchases in vogue. In one of these discussions Sir George Grey raised the question of the Attorney-General having a seat in the House; but the Government were not to be drawn out. However, by constantly harping on the illegality of ‘the land purchases, Mr Rolleston got the Native Minister into something like fighting attitude, and yesterday, in replying to pretty general allegations on the same head from

the Opposition, Sir Donald declared that he cared very little whether the transactions were legal or not, so long as they were fair and equitable, and made for the pu pose of securing lands for settlement. Later in the day, when taken to task by Sir George and Mr Stout, the Minister qualified the statement by saying he meant he did not care whether the transactions were legal in the sense used by lawyers. But he contended now, as he had ever done, that in the whole of these transactions the Government had fully acted within the spirit of the law. The Opposition seem to have altogether overlooked thb fact that these lands, about which Mr Reeves and Mr Rolleston are making such a fuss, are confiscated lands, and that under the Act, 1866, the Government have the power to enter into agreements such as they did with Mr Studholme and Messrs Russell and others, and to afterwards validate them by an Order in Council. The principle of the thing is, of course, open to question, and the fact remains that the Government have the fullest powers under the existing state of the law. It is noticeable that during nearly all these land discussions the feeling is showing itself unmistakeably in favor of the system of direct purchase from the natives being discontinued, and the Government being the sole purchasers, The necessity for this step is made more apparent by the large number of claims for compensation being presented by persons who, without the shadow of legality on their side, have gone among the Maoris —in some cases in ignorance of the law and in others in defiance of treated with them for lands which in five cases out of six have not passed through the Lands Court, and not unfrequently do not belong to the men with whom negociations were entered into.

On Tuesday evening and on Wednesday the Lower House managed to get through a lot of business. The principal discussion was on the Bill Mr Richardson hasi brought in to encourage railway construction by private enterprise. On the whole, the criticism was very favourable to the measure, though it was amusing to observe the difference of opinion that some of the clauses evoked. For example, one member supported it because it allowed the Government to control the tariff of fares, which would enable them to protect the travelling public, while another member as vigorously opposed it because that very clause, in his opinion, practically prevented any company being formed to construct branch lines. Otago figured very conspicuously in the discussions, the Port Chalmers and Ocean Beach railways being the especial themes. Another interesting discussion was that upon Mr Wales’ motion, re the apipointment of a Surveyor-General, while the Ministers, through the Treasurer, gave the flattest denial to the statement that Major Palmer had in any way been led to believe that he was to have the offer of the appointment, and Mr Stafford was able to support Ministers in so far that he gave the Major himself as his authority foi statiug that no such offer was made. Mr Filzherbert persistently asserted it was the fact. There appears to be an impression abroad, though how far it is well grounded I do not pretend to know, that the offer was made in an indirect way to Major Palmer, who is said to have gone home under the belief that it would be given him. If, as the reply of the Government to Mr Wales would indicate, they intend when making the appointment to first consider the claims of eligible men in the colony, the choice will, it appears to be the opinion in the House, lie between the present Inspector of Surveys (Mr Heale), the Chief Surveyor of Wellington (Mr Jackson), and the present Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands in Otago (Mr J, T. Thomson). The larger section of the Otago contingent, headed by the Superintendent, are strongly pressing Mr Thomson’s claims ; and rumor says he will be the man appointed.

As was expected, the Upper House again rejected the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, this time by a majority of six, the smallest majority the opponents of the Bill have had. Colonel Brett again distinguished himself by making a speech, which he, but no one else, thought was very funny. On Tuesday the Lords got up a discussion on lotteries, attention having been drawn to them by Mr Bonar, who said art unions of all sorts were becoming quite common, and that lotteries and art unions should be allowed subject to some restrictions, or disallowed altogether. He advocated the passing of an Act similar to the English Lotteries Act, which encouraged the disposal of articles of high art by means of art unions. Mr Waterhouse had a sly poke at a Church bazaar now being held in the town, and the matter dropped, the Premier having stated that there was already too much business to do to allow of this matter of lotteries receiving the attention of the Government this session.

What is to be the length of the session now depends entirely upon the tactics of the Opposition in reference to the Abolition Bill. According to Sir George Grey and the Auckland papers, they are going to fight it clause by clause and word by word. What does it mean? Simply, that if tho Bill comes out of committee of the whole under a fortnight it will take fully three weeks to get through iis next stage, which will have carried irs up to the end of the month. Something has to be done with the Local Government Bill, though it is not at all likely it will be carried beyond a second reading. However anxious they may profess to be to have it passed, the Government must see how utterly hopeless it would be to attempt to carry through a measure of 270 clauses, when the Abolition Bill has occupied such a length of time. If the provinces are abolished, the Government are well able to carry on for eight months with the assistance of the Eoad Beards already in existence ; therefore, in view of those two circumstances it is tolerably certain that the Local Government Bill will not bo pushed beyond a second reading, Mr Macandrew has on the order paper two proposed amendments upon clauses in the Abolition Bill. It is most likely the Government will agree to the proposal to vest the education reserves of Otago in a Board specially created by Act; but it is hardly probable that they will agree to the other proposal, which would at once be an invitation to every province to bring in Bills of the same kind, and, if successful in carrying them, to reconstitute Provincial Councils under the new name of Boards of Works. With abolition, insolvency, the Qualification of Electors, the loan correspondence, the Budget, and estimates, to say nothing of the Attorney-Generalship, the native land purchases, and railway matters, we have a pretty dish before us, which it will take fully two months to consume.