WELLINGTON.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 672, 15 August 1876, Page 3

WELLINGTON.

{From a correspondent of the Press.') August 12. There was a little “ divarsion” in the House on Friday afternoon. The third question on the paper stood in the name of Sir George Grey, who asked if the Government would lay before the House the reports they have received from the Native Laud Purchase Commissioners in the Poverty Bay district, to which answer was made by the Native Minister that the usual annual reports by the Commissioners had been laid on the table and printed, with the exception of one which reflected on the character of certain officers of the Government: and the Government did not consider it expedient that that report should be laid on the table until the officers referred to had had an opportunity of replying to the allegations made in the report. Sir George at once got on his feet to press for the production of the document, when exception was taken to his right to address the House, and to put himself in order he moved the formal adjournment of the House, The correctness of this step was immediately challenged by Mr Wakefield and the Premier, the more pointedly by the former, who asked the Speaker’s ruling. His contention was that, according to the standing orders, no debate could ensue upon the reply of a Minister to a question ; but the Speaker ruled that the member for the Thames was in perfect order, In the hour’s discussion that ensued, not a little time was occupied in discussing points of order; and once a “ scene” all but took place. The member for Geraldine having appealed to the Speaker paused

for a reply, but being assailed by cries of '• go ou ” from the Otago section, turned round upon them with the observation that he “ would observe toward the chair those courtesies that usually characterised the debates of gentlemen which might have led to an unpleasant retort, if the member for Auckland East had not provoked the indignation of the House by rising twice to a point of order before the Speaker had ruled on that raised by Mr Wakefield, and so diverted for the moment attention from the latter’s remark. All this time Mr Wakefield remained standing, forgetting that he, too, was transgressing—a fact that those opposite to him soon made him aware of. Then there was a little difference between Sir Chorge and the gallant baronet who represent i Marsden. which for a moment threatened to be ferious. Alluding to the demand for production of the document in question, Sir Robert Douglas 'asserted that the motive was to prejudice the separation debate; to bring in by a sidewind some accusation against the Government, and to make more reckless accusations. Rocketlike, got up Sir George, with the assertion that the statement of the member for Marsden was shameful; but the latter persistently stuck to his opinion. Then Mr Wakefield addressed himself to the question, stoutly supporting the production of the papers, and condemning as “ eminently unsatisfactory ’’ the reply of the Native Minister. This brought out the Premier with an explanation, which, if made by his colleague, would have prevented the debate. The Premier was of opinion that hon members did not understand the course the Government thought it right to adopt on this matter. The simple fact was that an officer in the Government service had sent in a report, in which he made accusations of a grave character against several officers in the public service, including a judge of the Native Lands Court. The document was brought under the notice of the Government, who considered that, before it could determine whether or not an inquiry was called for, the document should be submitted to the various officers implicated, with the view of asking them to make an explanation, The Government had not the slightest concern in the matter. There was no objection to producing it, even before that explanation was afforded, but the responsibility must rest with the House. But he was bonud to say that he would oppose such a course, and he trusted the House would support the Government in refusing the production of the document until the affair was in a different position to what it then was. In what had taken place Mr Stout professed to find the best argument in favor of separation, because, said he, “ here is a question about which we of the South know nothing, and don’t desire to know anything.” It is a weakness of the learned member for Dunedin, which was strikingly exemplified in his speech on the separation debate, to say that the Southern people take no interest in native matters; and the occasion was considered by Mr Stafford to be an opportune one for reading him a lesson on the subject, which he did by asking Mr Stout when he in future addressed the House to be more modest in his utterances—not to speak for “ we of the South,” but for himself; as there were Southern members who did know something about native matters, and took some interest in them. By way of making a personal explanation, Mr Stout disclaimed all intention of alluding to the member for Timaru, who admittedly had no geographical status. The reply of Sir George travelled over every question that had the slightest affinity to the native question ; and so frequently did he transgress the rules of debate in importing new matter into his reply, that the Speaker found it necessary to call him to order at almost every turn. Previously to Sir George replying, the Minister, in answer to a question put by Mr Macfarlane, had expressed the belief that he would be in a position to produce the document within three weeks, Sir George, however, contended that there were good reasons why it should be produced within a week; but was obliged to accept the assurance of the Government, and withdrew his motion. Another debate, even livelier than the one j u st referred to. was occasioned by Mr Sheehan. On the first reading of the Native Lands Sale Bill he opened up a debate on native policy by discussing indirectly the principles of the Bill—a most unusual course under our standing orders. Ostensibly his object was to bring on a discussion which should occupy the remainder of the afternoon, and in this, being silently aided by the member for Newton, he was thoroughly successful. Some of those who talked say they did so out of consideration for the member for Christchurch. But I rather fancy that with most of them there was a desire to throw over into the next week as much as possible of the unexhausted talking power upon the separation resolutions, in order that the country, as represented by Auckland meetings, may have the opportunity of pronouncing in favor of separation. The moral effect of this is likely to be thrown in the’ teeth of the minority of the Auckland members on the question when the Superintendent of that province replies. I have already said that some of the speeches were lively; those of Messrs Wakefield and Sheehan for instance. The latter cannot be accused of want of outspokenness when he discusses native questions; and is unsparing in his condemnation of the Minister and all his works. The member for Geraldine bit all round, but was especially severe on the WaTta Maori, which he is going to try to wipe off the estimates as a scandal and a disgrace to the country. How little lore there is between the member for Geraldine and the Native Minister has been shown on more than one occasion this session; but hardly so markedly as yesterday. The action of the Minister in reference to the Native Land Sale Bill excited his admiration, as the most remarkable instance of assurance that the Minister had yet displayed. The severity of the member tor Geraldine’s attack on the Native Minister naturally brought him a lecture from the Premier, who said the House need not travel so far as the Native Minister for an example of assurance, if it wanted one. If the member for Geraldine was occasionally intemperate in his language, some of the suggestions he made were valuable and met with the approval of many members. Since the Government have undertaken tocircrrlate their Bill extensively, and to allow a reasonable time to elapse between moving its second reading, besides relegating it to the consideration of a Select Committee, there is not likely to be heard anything more of this discussion, which was interrupted by the dinner hour. Mr Stout was not far out on Friday when be incidentally remarked that the present sessiou was likely to be called a point of

order session, by reason of the number of questions that have been raised in relation to the mode of conducting the House’s business* But if it is so called, it should be recollected at the same time that the member for Dunedin has been the main cause. No man in the House more frequently troubles Mr Speaker on points of order. The one that was raised on Friday afternoon was very important—more so than many members are yet inclined to regard it. The ruling of the Speaker did not find acceptance with the Premier or Mr Stafford, aud it is not improbable it may yet be questioned. The precedent for it, cited by the Speaker, was, as I understood him, the O’Farrell case in 1869 at home, when, on a question for the production of papers relating to O’Farrell’s execution in Sydney, the interrogation of the Minister brought on a debate by taking a course similar to that adopted by Sir George Grey on Friday. But, if I am not misinformed, there was a good reason for the action taken in the English Parliament. It was a case of extreme urgency, and as such regarded by the Speaker and the House of Commons. Here, no such reason was advanced by Sir George Grey. And, if the course he took can be adopted without limit, it is plain to see that business may be indefinitely prolonged by debates being brought on at the will of any individual member who is dissatisfied with the reply he may receive to a question he may put to Ministers. The other day Mr Wakefield put the question whether any reports, or other information had been received by the Public Works Department with regard to tin unsafe condition of parts of the Great Southern Railway, particularly the timber viaducts in the approach to Timaru from the north; to which reply was made that the Minister of Public Works had received no communication in regard to the safety or otherwise of the two viaducts mentioned : at all events his attention had not been directed to the matter lately, nor had any communication been received by the department. On previous occasions bis attention had been directed to these viaducts. When constructed they were designed for use by the lightest class of engines impoitcd. When he first saw them he ordered the Engineer-in-Chief to report upon them, with the view of removing any possible doubt as to their safety. They had been strengthened, and he was assured by the Engineer in-Chief that they were sufficiently so to carry the heaviest class of rolling stock the colony possessed. It was the intention of the department, when the enlargement of the Timaru station took place, that the material excavated from there should be taken in that direction to strengthen the approaches to the viaducts. However, he was quite sure they were perfectly safe at present. I hazard the opinion that the separation debate cannot be brought to a close much before Wednesday next, because of the increasing desire on the part of new members to speak; and the unpreparedness of the Opposition to close it until they see the outcome of Sir George’s stirring up of the Northern constituencies, by telegram and otherwise, to pronounce on the question at issue. So far the best speeches on either side have been made by Mr Stafford and Mr Whitaker; and in my judgment second honors must be awarded to Mr Ballance against the resolutions, and to Mr Reid for them. Mr Stevens, who spoke last night, was in such a state of high nervous excitement, that he was not able to do such justice to himself or his subject as his friends hoped from him, or those unacquainted with him had expected from his position in the House as a financier.