WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 390, 11 September 1875, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

(From a correspondent of the Press.) September 9. The preliminary canters are over, and we are to-day to enter upon the real work of the Abolition Bill—going into committee. After the formal business on Tuesday was got through, Major Atkinson addressed the House in over an hour's speech, in which he criticised the speech of the member for Akaroa, and, like that hon gentleman, went into an elaborate statement of figures, in which was set out a kind of prophetic analysis of the probable state of the various land funds of the provinces, and of the revenue and expenditure of the colony during 1877-8. Why the Treasurer should have be n at such pains to look ahead two years, when what the country really wants to know is the present financial condition of the colony, and what will be the state of the finances should the proposed changes be brought into immediate operation, is very difficult to imagine. However, for one part of that speech the House and country should, be thankful. His declaration that the the Government do not contemplate selling the land for revenue purposes, but will conserve it as far as possible, being fully alive to the necessity of enabling immigrants and the youth of the colony to obtain a footing upon the soil, will give general satisfaction. The Treasurer's speech was sent to you on Tuesday very fully, with the exception of the concluding sentences, which your reporter was not able to transcribe in time to catch the telegraph office. They had reference to the proposed Education and Boards of Works Bills, which the Government have promised to bring in, to show their good faith in regard to the localisation of the the surplus, more or less, that would accrue during the next two years to the various provinces in the possession of land funds. These Bills, the Treasurer contended, in no way affected the principle of the Abolition Bill, at which declaration Mr Macandrew and other members of the Opposition laughed greatly. Hon gentlemen opposite, continued the Treasurer, have asserted, and doubtless would continue to do so, though he hoped after what he had stated that afternoon they would be a little more chary in their assertions', that the object of the Government was to seize the land fund. This he flatly denied, as he did the contention of the Opposition that the intention of the Bill was to secure to the House the voting of the surplus land fund. It was to remove this impression that the Board of Works Bill was introduced. It would assure large communities in the enjoyment of their land fund so long as any remained, the sole object of the Go vernment being to secure a system of colonial finance. For the third time in the coursi of his speech he pointed out that by the Act of the House the land funds were pledged for

the interest on railways constructed within the bounds of the various provinces, and the Provincial Councils had themselves pledged those funds to the fullest extent they could bear during the next two years by the large engagements they had entered into. Seeing that such was the case, he invited members on both sides to turn their attention to the practical side of the Bill ; and to the Opposition he threw down the challenge to controvert, if they could, his assertion that the land funds of the various provinces wore already pledged to their fullest extent. With the announcement that the Government would not abandon one single principle of the Bill, but would press it steadily forward to its conclusion, the Treasurer sat down. Mr Ftout and Mr Murray were very anxious to know when the new Bills would be brought down, but had to be content with the reply they received on a former occasion—when the Government were ready to do so. What brought Mr Montgomery immediately to his feet was to explain away an incorrect conclusion the Treasurer had formed from something he had said in a previous debate. The Treasurer had credited Mr Montgomery with holding- the opinion that the land fund should be used for colonial purposes, but the member for Akaroa has no such belief. He explained that what he did say was that he would not allow indifferent Government to obtain in any part of the colony, but that it was the duty of the colony as a whole to take care that good Government was established in every part of it. The land fund was a sacred trust to be used for the benefit of, the land from which the revenue was derived —to make roads and bridges, and to promote settlement in that part of the country—but it had never entered into his mind that the land funds of Otago and Canterbury should be used for colonial purposes in any part of the colony. Then he proceeded to combat many of the Treasurer's figures, arguing first that it would have been fairer to have taken as a test of the probable receipts from the land funds the average for ten years, which would have been £428,367, instead of £580,000 for five years, which would have left a difference of £120,000 to be accounted for ; secondly, that the railway receipts were overestimated by £70,000; third, that we must look forward to increase of crime, which meant a large addition to the police force, —and to a reduction of the price of wool, vshich was probable, and would involve an almost entire cessation of the purchase of land ; for which very possible contingency the Treasurer had made no provision. From Mr O'llorke we had an all-round speech, and a vigorous one from Mr Macandrew, who wanted to know how, if the province of Otago, which supplied nearly one-third of the general revenues, was practically bankrupt, as the Treasurer alleged, the colony was to get on. He was with the Treasurer in the belief that the land fund would soon cease to yield : when the colony would have to adopt one of two courses to get over its difficulties : either to borro pv more money, or to go in for retrenchment on a large and severe scale. His own mind favored the latter course ; and as the first means towards that end he would abolish the Native and Defence departments, now costing over £150,000 and nearer £200,000 a year, and would be prepared to abandon the San Francisco service, thereby saving £45,000 yearly. This >vuuia bu really a sacrifice on Mr Macandrew's part, seeing that next to Sir J. Yogel, no man in the House has worked harder for the service than he.

In moving his amendment to refer the question of abolition to the constituencies, Mr Stout advanced nothing new. The only part of his speech which secured notice was that in which he advanced,-as a reason for the course he proposed, that there were members who were supporting and urging the immediate passage of the Bill, because they well knew that they would never again be returned to a seat in the Assembly. Bold speaking this, for the newly elect of Caversham, But not content with asserting that such was the case, he'proceeded to name the members for Dunedin, Dunstan, Mount Ida, and Wakatip, as those to whom his remark was intended to apply. It is, however, only fair to the hon gentleman to say that when subsequently brought to book by the Commissioner of Customs, who was of course alluded to, he denied that he had said anything of the kind, because he felt sure that hon gentleman would be returned. It is, however, somewhat strange that a good many people's cars should, to all appearances, have played them false upon this occasion. It was only natural to find the gentlemen singled out by the member for Caversham as the especial " non-representatives ' of constituencies jumping up to deny the allegation. First we hsd Mr Shepherd, who was quite violent in his denial, and reminded the member for Caversham that people who lived in glass houses should not throw stones, his own position as the representative of eleven people not entitling him to speak in the manner he had. But when the member for Dunstan went ou to say that had such insinuations come from his bete nob; the member for Tuapeka, he would have treated them with the contempt that they deserved: but coming from the member for Caversham, !or whom he had a high respect, he was deeply grieved to hear " vulgar claptrap," the use of which had caused the hon member to fall somewhat in his estimation, the gravity of the House was fairly upset, and was only restored when Mr Mervyn, smarting under the doubts that had been cast upon his position with his constituents, retorted that the member for Caversham's insinuation was a " gross piece of impertinence," which, of course, led to the interference of Mr Speaker, and to the withdrawal of words so unparliamentary, though the member for Mount Ida afterwards found means to convey the same idea in other words. Mr Reynolds was the next to get up to set himself right with the House and with his constituents, and he did so in a twoioli manner. First, to draw from Mr Stout the denial to which I have already made allusion ; and in the next, to explain the change that had come over his views on the matter of abolition since he addressed his constituents towards the end of last year. Then he was clearly of opinion it was not advisable to abolish the provinces of Otago and Canterbury; but the course of events and the feeling exhibited in the matter by the people of those provinces showed to him how undesirable it would be to leave those provinces in an exceptional position. And so far from thinking it wise to delay abolition, he expressed his individual opinion that it would be unsafe to leave the matter to Superintendents for six months longer, and that it would be a strong Government indeed which could watch the Superintendents. Sir George Grey next treated the House to one of his earnest appeals, as his friends delight to call those efforts of his in which oratorical flights

are served up with a large mixture of " bunkum." It seems that as long as this Parliament lasts, or rather so long as Sir George has a seat in it, we shall be f i voreri with declarations concerning the rii'.las and liberties of the people and the happiness of the human race, fach of which, according to the Knight of Kawau, is dependent on the existence of provincial institutions. This string of Sir George's riddle was played on to a greater extent on Tuesday night than on any previous occasions. First of all the House was told that the measures of the Government would bring about the disruption of the Empire. Next, that many members believed with himself with a religious faith that the step the Government was taking was unconstitutional, wrong, and wicked, and that it was their duty at all risks and hazards to prevent it being carried out; that to carry it out would result in calamities to to the country, the extent of which could not be foreseen ; and so he went " piling on the agony" until he reached the climax, in which the following choice passages occurred : "We stand here in a different position to any human beings on the face of the earth. . . . This measure will destroy a constitution which promised so well for the happiness of the human race. It is directed not only against the happiness of the human race here, but against the happiness of the whole human race, because it will be a shocking example of people giving up valuable rights." Could the force of folly further go ? But Sir George was inconsistent besides. While in one breath he said that he believed with a religious fervour that the' thing was wicked at all points, and should be resisted to the death, he went on to say that if the question was referred to the people, and they saw not its wickedness, he would throw up the sponge. The Tribune sums up the speech fairly. Either Sir George's position is untenable on the high ground he claims for it, or he is prepared to fling principle to the winds at the bidding of a majority of the people. Sir George, in the course of his speech, made a comparison between the Treasurer and an old market woman who carried eggs from town to town, but the people would have none of them; and paraphrased an old nursery rhyme about the aforesaid old woman, in which he made pedlar Stout cut off the woman's petticoats to hej knees to spy her nakedness, as he said. Fye! Sir George; you are almost as wicked as you would have the country to believe the Treasurer to be. Iu another part of his speech Sir George instituted a comparison between the action of the Government and that of the member for Onehunga, in such adulatory terms towards the latter as to compel that hon gentleman to retire from the chamber. The member for Onehunga was described as having given up emoluments and position rather than principle, and retired to a cottage on the sea shore at Onehunga, where he (Sir George) had admired his greatness as he saw him living in contented happiness, feeling that he had done his duty. This very touching simile had the effect of exciting the risible, facu'ties of some of the occupants of the Treasury bench, and one Minister " a scornful laugh laughed he," whereat Sir George waxed wroth, and, scowling on the occupants of those benches, said :—" The hon gentleman laiigliS SCOrnruily. Shamo upon liim. Whon will he be actuated by such a great sentiment as was the member for Onehunga? when will he sacrifice so much to principle ?" Sir George also threw down the battle gage, and he and Mr Reid, Mr Macandrew, and Mr Fitzherbert, his trusty lieutenants, took up the cry, " We will fight to the death ;" and to-day the contest is to begin. Yesterday the Opposition met in caucus, when twenty-three members were represented personally or by proxy. As the proceedings were, however, strictly secret, nothing reliable has leaked out ; though it is understood that the meeting pledged themselves to fight it out to the bitter end. On the other hand, there are the Government no later than Tuesday declaring they will abandon nothing, but press the Bill steadily forward. Which must give way—the Government or the Opposition? The former have a majority of two to one ; and if they adhere to their determination, can only hope to save themselves, and then I have strong doubts on the subject, by causing the House to sit en permanence till the Bill passes through its final stage, The Opposition have two strings to their bow. They can impede the progress of the Bill, by using all the forms of the House for that purpose, and again, there is the vexed question of the date when the present Parliament expires by effluxion of time. It is true that the Solicitor-General fixes the date at February 25th ; but he is careful enough to suggest the desirability of avoiding any doubt on the point by dissolving by proclamation some weeks before that. I see the Post last night again revives the question, and asserts that the 12th of January is the proper day on which the Parliament expires, inasmuch as on that date in 1871 the first election, Mr Rolleston's for Avon, took place ; erg», as the Parliament commenced on that day, it expires on January 12th, 1870. Really, the whole- thing is getting very mixed, and I cannot see my way clear to arriving at a solution of the difficulty.

On Tuesday afternoon, Mr Buckland raised a curious point of privilege. It will be remembered that Mr Rolleston has on several occasions called in question the position of the member for Franklin in the House, and eventually succeeded in getting a committee to consider it. Altogether, Mr Buckland has not had a pleasant time of it since then, because a few members have most persistently indulged in references to the Disqualification Act, the intent of which can admit of no mistake. Mr Buckland says he has satisfied himself that he is perfectly safe. But his study of the Act has led him to the conclusion that as the fifth section of it disqualifies all persons appointed or nominated to office by any executive officer of the Government of tbe colony, Provincial Secretaries or Treasurers are in eligible to hold a seat in the Assembly, insomuch as they are appointed by Superinten dents,- who, he contends, are executive officers of the Government of the colony ; wherefore he moved the reference of the question to a select committee. Mr Macandrew did not think the motion went far off, and moved the addition of the words "of all persons drawing public moneys," which provoked considerable discussion. Mr Reid considered the only solution of the difficulty was a dissolution. Mr White treated the whole thing as preposterous. Mr Andrew and Mr Wood argued that the Law Courts were the proper place to determine the point; and Mr Sheehan, while himseli

seeing nothing in the point raised, considered that the opinion of the law officers ol! the Crown should have been obtained, and; 'ip Government have led the House in the matter. Mr Stafford, while agreeing that i lie point was indefensible, contended that it was not a matter for the Government to be arbiters upon, and he urged the House to jealously retain its watch over all matters affecting the status and privileges of it« members. It is as well to say that, previous to Mr Sheehan speaking, the Native Minister had stated that the Government did not consider it a question for their interference, though they would not resist the motion for a committee, they having been advised that there was nothing in the point. Oi: course Sir George disagreed with Mr Stafford on the constitutional point, as he invariably does. In Sir George's opinion, if the Government thought that there was anything in the point (which they did not) it was their duty to atop the abolition measure, seeing that the position of so many members wan questioned. Dragging in the constitutional question and the liberties of the people, he weat on to say that he could believe it would be a grievous thing for the member for Timaru to see the Ministry broken up, aa would inevitably be the case if the contention of the member for Franklin was a good one; and that the member for Timaru, instead of directly contradicting the assertion on a previous occasion of the member for Parnell, that he (Mr Stafford) had put Messrs Atkinson and Bowen in the Government, had shrank back into his seat, and by his silence had admitted that the member for Parnell's allegation was correct. Speake:? after speaker ridiculed the idea of there being anything in the point; and the member for Franklin, seeing the feeling of the House, asked for leave to withdraw his motion, intimating that he would take another means of testing the question. But Mr Macandrew demurring to the withdrawal, a division was taken, with the result that his amendment was negatived by 40 against 23. For the second time, Mir Buckland asked leave to withdraw, but the voice of the member for Hokitika being heard in the negative, the question had to be put, and was declared lost on the voices, Mr Buckland being only one in its favor. The anxiety displayed on Tuesday by some hon members to push on the private business was not exercised on Wednesday, when we had a sort of half-and-half sitting, with barely a House, and did little or no real business. In moving that it is not desirable that medical men in active practice should hold the office of coroner, Mr Bradshaw made out that it often happened that doctors acting as coroners were often engaged with the dead when their services should be at the disposal of the living ; that they were given an unfair advantage over their fellow practitioners, because their names were gratuitously advertised, and by being placed in the position of being able to issue certificates of burial for their own patients, while thej could order an examination into the causes of the death of the patients of other practitioners. His proposition that magistrates and justices of the peace could efficiently perform the duties of coroners found favor with Sir D. McLean, who said the Government would, ae far as practicable, dispense with medical men as coronara. Similar views were held by Mr Sheehan and Mr Kelly ; but Mr O'Rorke saw in the proposal an attempt to cast a slur upon these doctors who acted as coroners. This Mr Bradshaw, in reply, denied, saying that he was moving solely on public grounds, believing that the present system was a very bad one. Mr Murray's resolutions on the subject of the representation came to nothing, as most of his motions do, Sir D. McLean having intimated that the questions raised in the motion would come more fairly before the House when the Representation Bill of the Government was brought down. Sir George Grey, however, considered that the Government Bill should have been brought down before ; .and he went on to show, not for the first time, that the Government and their supporters did not represent the people, pointing to Timaru with its one member for 1200 people, and the Thames with only one for 12,000. He and Mr Reeves made the charge against the Government of giving to certain of their supporters an idea of the probable effect of their Bill in certain quarters, and so enabling the latter—among whom Mr Moorhouse waß specifically named—to canvass the electors in anticipation, and so to gain an unfair advantage. The disoussion then took a wide range, each speaker comparing his own with his neighbor's district, though a general onslaught was made on Taranaki, which seemed to indicate that the province may expect to have one of its representatives lopped off. The Government having promised to lay on the table a list of the electoral rolls, and the latest possible returns of the population, and having informed the House that the introduction of their Bill would depend greatly on the progress that was made with " other business." the motion was withdrawn. In the evening the discussion was nearly confined to three subjects. On the Christchurch Drainage Bill, Mr Stout objected to giving plurality of votes in proportion to the value of property held by the ratepayers, 'and divided the committee on the subject, with the result that only Sir George Grey and Mr G. McLean (the latter to make a division) went into the lobby with him, while thirtyfour voted for the clause. To the second reading of Mr Harrison's Telegraph Messages Copyright Bill Mr Reeves objected strongly, saying that instead of being intended to protect the newspapers, its title should have been " A Bill to give the Press Agency a monopoly." The general feeling was that the Bill was premature; and if Mr Harrison wishes to carry it, he will have to make serious alterations in it, besides limiting its operation to cable messages. On the Oamaru Gasworks Site Bill Mr Stout moved amendment after amendment; but the House felt satisfied that there was no harm ia allowing the local corporation to erect a gasworks on a portion of a reserve when nearly the whole of the inhabitants of the town were in favour of the alienation of the reserve for that purpose, and the town possessed 329 acres for recreation purposes besides.

After a long fight, Mr O'Neill has had the satisfaction of seeing his much needed Plans of Towns Regulations Bill passed through both Houses. In the Lords there was but little or no objection to the measure. Colonel Brett saw something preposterous in some minor clause, and Mr Stokes took exception to the width of the streets being absolutely fixed; but the feeling of the Council wag unmistakably against him. Many persons will join with Mr Waterhouse in regretting that the provisions of the Bill have not been extended to private townships to be established hereafter.