GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 674, 17 August 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Per Press Agency .) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, August 16. COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC DEBTS SINKING FUND. A reply was read from the chairman of the Commissioners of Public Debts Sinking Fund, in answer to a letter from the Speaker, stating that the accounts of the commissioners were prepared and passed by the Board within the time required by law ; but that owing to a heavy pressure of work on the secretary to the commissioners (who is also accountant to the Treasury), and perhaps also owing to the absence of the chairman from his office through indisposition for some days, the copies of the report and accounts to be laid before the two Houses of Parliament were not prepared until some days after the time required by law. The commissioners express regret at the delay. BILLS INTRODUCED. A Bill was introduced to amend the Ordinance relating to Disease of Sheep ip ttfe province of Canterbury ; also a bill to deal with certain laud in the Diocese of Christchurch. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, August 15. The House met at 7.30; SEPARATION DEBATE. Mr Rowe continued, saying that tho promises of subsidies made to boards by the Government must be faithfully carried out, and he for one believed those promisee would be kept. The hon member, iu criticising the Counties Bill, said that while it would be regarded as a boon tp a great many parts of the colony, there \yejfj others for which it was not at all adapted, but the principle was not to be found fault with, aad nothing gav* nim greater pain than to bear his say that he should propose that M- Bill be read that day six m Mr h KENNEDY opposed the resolutions as being calculated to injure the credit and retard the nrosperily of the colony. The hon gentleman defended his district agamst he accusal ions that it secured a larger share of public expenditure than it was entitled to. The proposition for establishing two provinces appeared to bipj. likJy to create an exaggerated form of that provincialism so much objected to, and be a great misfortune to the colony. He disagreed with the idea that three Parliaments could be more economical than one. He saw no necessity whatever for the- Counties Bill, though be thought the principle was good. Road Boar*’

would meet all the requirements, he believed, of the colony, certainly of his district. Sir B. Douglas was surprised at the turn affairs had taken. The Opposition, after wasting the time of the House and impeding business in every kind of way. and after carrying on this debate so far, now sneaked off, leaving the Government supporters to finish the debate. The hon member referred to the charges made against him that his support of the Government proposals had been purchased by an expenditure of £IO,OOO on public works in his district. The hon gentleman, after explaining the whole circumstances of the case, to show he acted in a perfectly straightforward and irreproachable manner, maintained the charges were utterly uncalled for, and without any foundation. He was always opposed to provincialism, and because ho recognised in the Government measures an attempt to give the people ' local government, he supported them. He cared nothing for the name Counties Bill or anything else. One great reason why he dreaded separation was the fear of the ..dominating power of the large centres of population.. . „ ‘ Mr Hamlin did not agree with the last speaker as to the good intentions of the Government towards the outlying districts, and quoted from the speech of Sir J. Vogel id 1865, .Iwhen he strongly supported Mr Bussell’s separation proposals, and when he said that he had been a aeparationist for years. Again, in 1866, he reiterated his opinions, and predicted that the desire for it would never die out. The hon gentleman argued against the unwisdom of trying to govern both, islands under a cast-iron rule. What snited the South island did not suit the North, and he asked, in the name of common sense, why attempt to reconcile things that could, nob be reconciled 1 It appeared' to him that the ast Parliament was a tool of Government, and knew no more than the matting on the floors what would succeed the system being swept away. He was utterly at a loss to know how anyone

could ; place any confidence in the proposals of one whose whole Parliamentary career ryfMlhiftjandTacillating, and whojhad always - trimmed his sails to catch the passing wind, They were, .told that Cook’s Straits was a bond of union between tha two islands. Why-not go further, and say that the strip of sea between France and England cemented the bond of union between those countries and prevented war. Fortunately they had an alternative scheme before them, that of Sir G. Grey’s, whose antecedents .were the very reverse of the gentleman at the head of the Government. He "held that those who would

pnpport Sir G. Grey’s resolutions would be , true representatives of the people. Last i' session the representation of the colony was increased ; but how was it done but to obtain more votes for the Government; and if they were beaten now, it would be by the pocket boroughs of the Government, who were about forcing upon them laws utterly

to them. Mr Cox said the resolutions reminded him ~ of a certain paragraph he had seen headed “ Mark Twain on bad musicians.” The hon gentleman, in the course of his remarks, in dealing with certain statements made during the debate, referred to the satisfactory state of the natives in what, not long ago, was known as disaffected districts; He looked on the resolutions as very dry bones, that wanted the breath of life breathed into, them j but although there had been a great deal of noise and rattling, they were still dry bpnes. ;The hon gentleman protested against the member for the Thames saying the House was not a representative body, and spoke at considerable length in oppo ition to the resolutions. The hon member read Several telegrams from some of his constituents, some expressing satisfaction at the Government proposals, and others requesting him to support separation. Well, when he . yyas. canvassing. for bis: election lie made all of his ebnstitnents perfectly well acquainted with his opinions upon separation and abolition, and then declined absolutely to support the views of Sir Geo Grey on these questions, H|s, constituents made a mistake if they thought he would be dictated to and vote - 1 contrary to his convictions; but he knew howi these expressions of opinion were obtained from his constituents. Had they been left to themselves they would not have been guilty of such a piece of bad taste. Mr Babff deprecated the tedious waste of time caused by the Opposition. Here was a dreary debate mainly without argument on one side, and now they were threatened with two more. Why not attack the position of Government at once, and not attack their policy piecemeal, and allow the public business tp be proceeded with. The bon gentleman, after relating how Westland was driven to secede from Canterbury, said that if Sir fttifford bad' the boldness to adopt the policy drawn up by the tooraMooral party in 1868, much of the evils of provincialism, which had since ensued would have been avoided. He considered Auckland a shocking bad example of the effects of provincialism. It would bo the best day for Auckland that J evCr she knew when provincialism was done away ;, with 1 ! It appeared to him that when these resolutions were tabled those who supported them Were perfectly well aware that they , could not be carried. A weak device of the enemy was to float a rumor that the Governgent ht;d agreed to abapdou theiv Counties ill. He was glad to know that it was utterly untrue, because, although not prepared to swallow the Bill wholesale, he held that it was a measure that might be very e isily amended, ' Mr Oabbington opposed the resolutions. Mr Fyke made a personal explanation with regard to a certain speech of his to his constituents, in which he supported insular Separation, with the object of repelling the charge of inconsistency. Then he advocated separation which advocated the creation of lame districts with endowments and powers to carry on- the functions formerly performed bv provincial councils, and when the Premier. made hia Wanganui speech, he felt (hat the views expressed in that speech were so perfectly in accord with his own ideas, tbnt'hO felt bound to give them a loyal adhesion! Coming to the resolutions, he must say he never yet saw anything so (skilfully’ devised. But, unfortunately for Opposition, there was no such thing he an agreed opinion respecting theie-xegplu iious. First came the mover, who appeared t oknow nothing about tbe meanicgof the resolutiocs Then came the member for Waikato, who seemed to know more about the scope and otj-ct of the resolutions than anyone The member for Parnell, who followed, quite upset, all the argument of the member for i. Waikato, and when the member for Taieri ppoke he supported the resolutions by a melancholy wail for defunct provincialism To him the resolutions appeared to have two meanings. It was a conning device; to restore provincialism, The way would be

that when',the seat of Government was placed ab Christchurch Otago would say, “ Oh, wo cannot go up tb Christchurch, and we must have our own Government.” The fact was, they wanted to again roll in the bag of provincialism from which they had just been dropped. He would ask, could her Majesty’s Opposition do nothing better than this. Why they were unworthy the name. They were a mere accidental combination of fragmentary atoms. Referring to the remarks of Mr Gladstone in dealing with the constitution of the colony the hon member quoted from a despatch of Bari Grey in 1860, which went to show that it was the intention that the General Legislature should gradually absorb the powers given to the provinces. The hon gentleman then quoted from the speeches of Sir W, Molesworth, Sir J, Pakington, Lord John Russell, and Mr Gladstone, to show that it was the intention that the central legislature should, if the people chose, be enabled to cut down and generally curtail the powers of provincial legislature. The hon gentleman, dealing with a statement in Mr Macandrew’a speech, said that during the last ten years the Otago goldfields revenue was £376,076, and If; as was said, there was £46,000 per annum spent on the goldfields, he could only say there was nothing to show for it. He was absolutely ashamed to have had to listen to the grossest charges against Ministers that were utterly unproven, unfounded, and untenable—and more especially against Sir X Vogel; but he had no doubt when these mists of political and even lower prejudices were cleared off, it would be admitted that to no one was the colony so much indebted. The hon gentleman referred to the practices of bpposition in trying to obtain supporters. In regard to himself, he had been subjected to cajolery and terror, and had been told in the streets of Dunedin that if he did not vote for Mr Macandrew he would be mobbed when he came back. Telegrams had been sent to his constituents, and also those of the Wakatip, to influence them. The hon member referring to Mr Macandrew’a expression that Otago’s revenue was more to her than the unity of the [colony, said he blushed for the hon member when he gave utterance to such a sentiment, and for the Otago members when they applauded it. The hon gentleman went on to argue that separation would end in creating two hostile units without common sympathies or common aims, and indicated that the true policy was to cherish unity by all means, as he looked forward to a federation of all the Australian colonies, and probably in the future a federation of all the Englishspeaking race. Mr Wakefield, who had waived his right of speech in favor of Mr Nahe that afternoon, moved the adjournment. It was opposed iby Mr T. {Kelly, but Sir G. Grey supporting it, it was agreed to on the voices, and so the House adjourned at 12,40. Wednesday, August 16. The House met at 2.30, QUESTIONS, Mr Stout asked (1) whether Government have received any memorial or petition from the pastoral licensees, hankers, merchants, and others in the province of Canterbury referring to the Canterbury runs (2.) If so whether the Government will lay the same before the House, together with a map of the runs shewing by colors the lands sold in runs ? Hon Major Atkinson said such a memorial had been presented within the last few days. Government would have no objection to lay it on the table. As to the second question, the matter would be much more expensive and difficult amoperation tbanwas anticipated. If it was found that it could be done before the end of the session, ho would do what could be done, otherwise be did not propose to have it done. Mr Murray asked the Minister for Public Works if the Government have any objection to lay before this House a copy of the engagements and conditions, together with the certificates of qualifications, relative to the appointment of Mr Oarruthers as Engineer-in-Ohief, Mr Blackett, as Assistant Engineer-in-Chief and Marine Engineer, Messrs Higginson, Knorpp, and Passmore, as Superintending Engineers, and Mr Clayton, as Colonial Architect, and to state whether any or all of these gentlemen have been and are allowed to carry on private practice, and whether the services of any or all of them can be dispensed with after three months’ notice, such as has been given to other officers of the public works department. Hon E. Richardson said the Government had no objection to lay before the Honse a copy of the conditions relative to the appointment of the Engineer-in-Chief, and the other officers named. As to the certificates of qualification, that was a somewhat different matter. As to whether or they had a right to carry on private practice, the Engineer-in-chief was permitted by the terms of his engagement to take private practice, provided it did not interfere with his duties. Mr Higginson and one superintending engineer were not allowed to take private practice without the consent of the Government. On one or two occasions they had done something at the instance of a Provincial Government. No permission had been giyen to the other two engineers to undertake private practice, The nature of an engagement with the colonial architect had been sufficiently discussed in the House so as not to require any information. As to dispensing with these officers’ services, Mr Oarruthers, Mr Blackett, and Mr Passmore, could be dispensed with at one year’s notice, the others at three months’ notice, ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SEPARATION. Hon Major Atkinson regretted the way that the Opposition were conducting their business, especially when such great questions as the finances of the Government, and the form of local Government, were to he considered. Owing to the waste of time by them, he believed it would be now impossible to consider those questions with the time now at their disposal. He asked, had a scintilla of light been thrown upon the financial position of the colony in all the debate ? The whole question was one of book keeping, and the veracity of himself and his colleague, the Colonial Treasurer. Well, he proposed to discuss the figures of Mr Reeo, who said that there WAS' an uuaooountod for amount of £40,010 to be explained, and further, mar the table he prepared last year did not accord with the statement of accounts of this year. The fact was that Mr Rees did not see the way the accounts were drawn. The hon gentleman went into details explaining how it was that the figures and his did not agree, and which explained the apparent discrepany: of £40,000. Had the hon gentleman ' been prepared to discuss the accounts in a

proper spirit—that is, to think Government innocent till they were found guilty —he might easily have put himself right by merely applying to the Government, who would have furnished all the information required. The hon gentleman proceeded to deal with the other statement made by Mr Rees, that the balances shown last year were incorrect. Well, he should only refer the House to the table, where they could see the signature of the Auditor certifying to the balance of over two millions in the Bank, If any hon gentleman coul 1 prove that any of the figures he adduced were incorrect, he would be very happy to hear him when they next debated finance. Then, as to the charge about the alteration of a balance by a stroke of his pen, he asked the hon gentlemen to turn to the Gazette, where they would find a general statement and a summary. The whole thing had been merely a question of bookkeeping. He objected to the mode in which a certain account had been kept as not being the best and clearest mode, and he had transferred the amount and placed it under another heading. The money was there, though the account was divided. The hon gentleman explained at considerable length all the charges made by Mr Bees with regard to the finance of the.,polony, to show that he was altogether simply because he bad not taken any trouble'to properly inform himself. There was no doubt the member for Auckland East had taken a great deal of pains to examine the public account, but the fact was clear that he lacked the elementary knowledge of the system of keeping the accounts of the colony. In explaining the statement with regard to the expenditure on constabulary, Hon Major Atkinson showed that although there had been an expenditure of £IO,OOO a year, there had been received back into the Treasury £14,000 for clothes supplied to men. This of course had to be accounted for. The treasury thought it was not necessary for the Treasurer to inform the House of more than what was the exact cost of the constabulary, Mr Rees also said that the interest was to be paid on the London account, but he was again hasty, for it was shown in the accounts that during the year £27,000 had been received as interest upon the London account The hon member dealt with several other points in Mr Rees’s remarks, quoting the figures published in the official return to show that Mr Rees’s conclusions were all astray. But coming to another point • if the hon gentleman did not know anything of finance, wbich no one reading his pamphlet would expect that he did, he ought at least to be expected to know something of the law. The hou gentleman said that there was no provision whatever for the disbursement of sums of money at home, and that anybody could draw out what he liked. He wondered how any one who had read the Public Revenues Act could make such a statement. Hon Major Atkinson then explained that so far from there being no check upon the disbursement of money, it was surrounded by a complicated system of safeguards that many thought was excessive precaution. As to the statement that the Premier had drawn more money at home than he was entitled to, well this was on par with other statements. The Premier had not drawn on the funds at home, and as a matter of fact the colony was indebted to him. When he arrived here he paid his own expenses, and then came to the House to recoup him. Coming to the resolutions, he considered their real meaning was a vote of no confidence in the Government. Instead of setting up two provinces with a loose federal bond, he presumed the member for the Thames would be Governor-in-Ohief, and Mr Macandrew Governor for the South, which would no doubt be a near approach to perfection. He would suppose a native war imminent—which he did not believe in, but which the member for the Thames did—what would be the position of the case ? The North would be unable to borrow any money ; the' Qovernor-in-Chief would have all the revenue in his hands. Under the circumstances, he would have to act at once. With a man like him, who was above all authority, when it suited him, at the head of affairs, would he hesitate to throw the cost of maintaining, and rightly, the cost of the war upon the colony ? He held that it was the great strength of the colony, that the South Island members went there and discussed the requirements of each part of the colony, as welt as of the whole colony. The bon gentleman then analysed the financial conditions of the resolutions, to show that there could have been no account taken of the cost in connection with the constabulary and natives, which could not be less than £120,000. Why, when they went into calculations they would see that all they now would have with which Jo carry on the work of the Government, was £36,000—a magnificent sum truly. But it was idle to suppose that the financial separation was the object of the resolution, the real—the only object, was to rehabilitate the Provincial Councils. Take some of the principal speeches in apparent support of the resolutions, they were nothing but a laudation of the benefits of the provincial form of Government, Supposing the resolutions carried, did any sane man suppose that Wellington, Hawke’s Bay, or Taranaki, would submit to be governed from Auckland. No, they had a lively recollection of what it was twenty-three years ago. Then there was nothing for it but to reinstate provincialism as of old. The member for the Thames was fond of telling them he represented the North Island, but he had no right to arrogate such a title. He succeeded in getting by his personal influence eight or nine members elected ; but even then he could not speak for the southern part of the North Island—not even for a great portion of the Auckland province itself. The hon gentleman analysed the division on Mr Whitaker’s motion to show that in any case Sir G Grey was not justified iu putting forward such claims. The hon gentleman then went on to argue that, under the system of two provinces, the questions of their public credit and political management could not be carried on as satisfactorily as u nder one G over n • ment. Notwitstanding all that had been said by certain members, and the return of a few against abolition ; the country accepted abolition and approved of the Government measures. Last session the Opposition pro mised that, if beaten, they would assist the Government to carry out ana irame tneir measures. But now they cried out for more time; and so as to have their own way, and carry out the autocratic will of Sir Q. Grey, they prepared to plunge the whole country into confusion, regardless of Jthe con«equenc.

Mr Swanson denied that the question of abolition had been fought, although he ad* mitted that he did not want provincialism

as it had been in Auckland ; he would not have that at any price. The hon gentleman related a great deal that came under his knowledge since he had been in the House to show the circumlocution of the system of Government, the waste of time and money, by the legislation and the perpetration of a vast amount of injustice. He had several times seen the House adjourned for the purpose of going to balls, but he doubted whether their constituents sent them there for that purpose. That was not the practice, with Provincial Councils. The hon gentleman proceeded to comment upon the arrangements of the House, upon the luxury of Bellamy’s; how special crockery was imported for it, and the best tipple to be obtained, and how circulars were occasionally sent round to members to pay their grog scores, instead of sticking up the names of defaulters. He would like to know whether these gentlemen were centralists or provincialists. The hon gentleman referred to certain scenes which occurred in the House, and which he attributed to Bellamy’s, and said, was this the high toned and intensely respectable House that should sneer at Provincial Councils, where there never were seen such exhibitions as he just referred to. Coming to the resolutions, the hon member said that two great advantages to be derived from the proposed change would be that having separate Governments in Auckland and Christchurch would be more convenient for the attendance, and greater still, they would not have an organised Civil Service over which they could exercise no power, for he verily believed our Civil Service was more powerful than the Government itself. Taken altogether, the Legislature at Wellington was a failure. In reply to the charges that the people of Auckland were ready to profit at the expense of their neighbours—of the people in other parts of the colony—he instanced the conduct of the people of Auckland when news came of the •Poverty Bay massacre ; how one gentleman stepped forward and offered to guarantee the cost to send a steamer down there, coal, food and water having been liberally provided, and 300 armed men then offered to go to the assistance of these people of Poverty Bay ; but the General Government told them they had made other arrangements. At any rate, this showed that the Auckland people were not as cold-blooded and mercenary as some hon members sought to make out. [Mr Swanson had not concluded whan the House rose at 6.30 p.m.J Upon the House resuming at 7.30, Mr Wakefield supported the resolutions in a long and eloquent speech, denouncing the corruption of the Government, but chiefly that of the Premier and the Native Minister. He excepted Major Atkinson and Mr Bowen. Sir G. Grey replied, and moved the first resolution. This was objected to. After a discussion, the Speaker was appealed to, who ruled that the resolutions could be put separately. The Premier then announced that the Government would support the first, second, and last. The two first were carried on the voices. On the third (for local government in each island) being put, the House divided with the following result:— Noes—47. Mr Andrews Sir I). McLean Major Atkinson Mr G. McLean Mr Baigent Montgomery Ballance Moorhouse Bartf Murray-Aynsley Bowen Ormond Brandon Pierce Brice Pyke (teller) Bunny G. E. Read Button Richardson Carrington RolLston Cox Rowe Curtis Russell Sirß. Douglas Seynrur Mr Fitzroy Sharp (teller) Gibbs Stafford Harper Stevens Henry Twiti Hunter Teschmaker Hursthouse Tribe Johnson Sir J. Vogel Kennedy Mr Williams Kenny Woolcock. Manders Ayes -31. Mr Brown, J. O. (teller). Mr O’Rorke Burns Rees Delatour fieid, D. Dignan Seaton Fisher Sheehan Sir G. Grey Shrimski Hamlin Stout (teller) Hislop Swanson Hodgkinson Takamoana Joyce Thomson Lumsden Tole Lusk Tonks Macandrew Wakefield McFarlane Wason Murray Whitaker Nahe Wood, R. G. The fourth resolution was negatived by 46 to 32, > ir B. Douglas voting for, and D. Reid being absent. The sixth and seventh were negatived on the voices. The House divided on the Bth that the seat of Government remain at Wellington. The resolution vas rejected by 44 to 30. The House adjourned about midnight. The following are Sir George Grey’z resolutions 1. That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the colony requires that its financial and constitutional arrangements should be reconsidered. 2. That the unity of the colony should be maintained. 3. That there should bo two local governments, one in each island. 4. That tho Colonial Government being responsible for the colonial debt, for which the annual charge for interest and sinking fund is £815,000, the North Island shall be charged with £190,000 per annum, and the South Island with £625,000 per annum.

5, That, with the exception of those mat tors of great colonial importance which must be reserved for the Colonial Government, each local government shall have the entire control-and management of its own affaire, and the disposal of its own resources. 6. That the seat of the local government of the North Island shall be at Auckland. T: That the seat of the local government of the South Island shall be at Christchurch. 8. That the seat of the Colonial Government shall remain as at present in Wei* lington.

POLITICAL NEWS.

(From- a correspondent of the Fress.')

Ten to one was the proportion of speechmaking yesterday on the side of anti separation, After the’Maori member only one— Mr Hamlin -spoke on the separation side, and his was no superior addition to the argument or style of the debate, Some of the others had evidently prepared to speak, but would not have spoken, unless for some reasons found by the Government, whips to prolong the debate and prevent accomplishment of the Opposition’s apparent desire for a division. After Mr Rowe had exhausted himself vocally and muecularly, Mr Kennedy made a short practical speech in retort against the insinuation regarding the West Coast votes, in illustration of the financial injustice to the Middle Island as a whole and in part, and in support of Road Boards and municipalities in preference to counties for his district. Mr Hamlin hammered the subject and the table for some time, but the expression of his sentiments was inferior to his physical exertions. Mr Cox, who followed in reply, was vocally feeble. His sentiments are left to imagination, being unheard. Mr Barff was strong in voice and sentiment as opposed to separation, and ap proved of the county in preference to the provinces, as illustrated in his Westland experience. Mr Vincent Fyke came in at the end, and made a really effective speech, one of the warmest during the debate or the session, though partly apologetic for the departure from separation, Sincere and ironical calls for division were then made, but when tested Sir George was averse to replying at that late hour, and Mr Kelly turned the responsibility of delay on the Opposition by seriously insisting that a division should be taken. The adjournment was preferred, and Mr Wakefield again became the subject of interest by proposing it, but to-day he was non est. On reassembling there was a pause. After the Speaker’s call on the hon member, and when Sir George Grey was called on, and was not present, there were demands for a division ; but he appeared in the midst of the outcry, and took his place. Hon Major Atkinson then rose, and especially as regards finance criticised the speeches of Mr Rees and others. Again a pause, and Mr Swanson followed in a speech so eccentric as to be extravagant, and evidently distasteful to 3 most but rampant separatioualists, and apparently, especially to Mr Rolleston and the contiguous Canterbury members. The impression is that the Government will be bound to make the Counties Bill permissive to have any chance of carrying it through. A Board of Works for Otago is spoken of, but is merely an outside suggestion.

All the Taranaki, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Nelson, Westland, and Marlborough members vote against the separation : also all the Canterbury members, except Mr Fisher and Mr Wasou, are expected to vote against. The four Maories are equally divided. All the Otago members vote for separation, except Mr Manders, Mr Maclean, and Mr Fyke, and all the Auckland members except Mr Cox, Bit R. Douglas, Mr Read, Mr Rowe, and Mr Williams.