GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 691, 6 September 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

{Per Press Agency., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, September 5. The House met at 2.30, MR PARNELL’S PETITION. The report of the committe in Mr Farnell’s petition was read, and Sir R. Douglas asked that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into certain charges made against Mr Farnall in the evidence, especially that of Dr Buller. On the advice of the Speaker, Sir R. Douglas gavejnotice of motion in the usual way. THE LOAN. In reply to Mr Montgomery, Hon Major Atkinson said the Government were not yet in full possession of all the information relative to the recent sale of debentures representing £1,250,000, but as soon as they received complete information it would be laid on the table of the House. GREY GORGE BRIDGE. Mr Wakefield asked when the report on the accident to the Grey Gorge bridge would be laid before the House, whether the Government consider the Commissioners of Audit the proper persons to inquire into an engineering matter, and whether those gentlemen would be furnished with proper independent professional assistance to enable them to make a thorough investigation of the disaster. Hon Major Atkinson said the report and evidence were in the hands of the printer and would be laid on the table in a day or two. Owing to the illness of the Hon E. Richardson, he was unable to give more detailed information regarding the matter. Hon F. Whitaker gave notice that he would move for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Attorney-General’s Act. THE AGENT-GENERALSHIP. The debate on Mr Andrew’s motion—“ That the House does not approve of the proposed offer of the office of A gent-General to Sir Julius Vogel,” was taken up, Mr Andrew, in moving his motion, said it was only a sense of public duty that made him bring forward a motion that did violence to his personal feelings, because that hon gentleman had many noble qualities, and he believed that the great majority of the House must wish that gentleman well wherever he went. The hon gentleman went on to argue that Sir Julius Vogel’s health was too precarious to justify them in sending him away as Agent-General—one whose health might at any moment give way. The member for Wanganui was no doubt an exceedingly capable man, but he hoped in the words of the ballad, that there were 600 as good as he, and for that particular office perhaps more so. In one who generally supported the Government, this motion might be considered inconsistent, but it was not so, as he had always spoken out against Government when he deemed there was occasion. He referred last year to certain clouds that hung over the proceedings of Sir Julius while at home, and some of these clouds had not been cleared away. It was not to the interest of New Zealand to send Home Sir J. Vogel under these circumstances. Besides, an Agent-General should be one who would act in a subordinate capacity and act harmoniously with people. From Sir J. Vogel’s passages with the Banks and the Agent-General he seemed not to possess the quality of agreeing with people. Another instance he might mention was, what had occurred between Hon Mr Waterhouse and Sir J. Vogel when the latter occupied an inferior position. He had also seen £3OO subscribed for pictures of a local artist to be published, that was never sanctioned by the House. The hon gentleman then referred to Sir J. Vogel’s action with regard to the San Francisco mail service. All these things showed that Sir J. Vogel was quite unable to act in a subordinate position. He was never able to understand why Sir J. Vogel went home last time, except that he wished to go. Besides the intention of making the visit was deliberately kept back from the House all through the session of 1874. It appeared to him that Sir J, Vogel always trampled upon the rights of the House when it suited his interests or convenience. These were not qualities suited to an Agent-General, Another important point was that it was undesirable to encourage the growth of professional politicians. Then, as there was every probability of the Agent-Generalship being wound up at no remote period, and Sir J. Vogel never gave, any indication that he possessed qualities required in winding up, though he had sufficient boldness to launch great undertakings, to send Sir J. Vogel home would be a slur upon the Crown-Agents who had served the colony long and well. He hoped hon members would not give their vote upon personal grounds, because if he Voted that way himself he would be compelled to vote for the member for Wanganui. Hon C. C. Bowen thought it was admitted that at the particular crisis it was necessary to send homo an Agent-General, as there was an important and delicate negotiation there now uncompleted, and it would be necessary to have an Agent-General at home just now to deal with financial matters. (“ No, no and Yes.”) The House should remember that it was requisite an Agent-General should be a person intimately acquainted with the affairs of the colony, and be a person in whom the House had for some time placed confidence. Of course he would not say how the question would be in twelve months, or whether it would be necessary to send home another Agent-General at all. The hon gentleman then quoted several in? stances with regard to the appointment of Agent-Generals in the Australian colonies, to show that the course now pursued was strictly in accordance with the precedent

established by these colonies. The hon gentleman pointed out that ever since the death of Dr Featherston the minds of all men in the colony turned towards Sir J. Yogel as the most suitable successor to the late AgentGeneral, and the House actually as much as told the Government that they would do no business until they ascertained what they intended to do with the Agent-Generalship. As to the arguments that he was not capable of acting as subordinate, he could only say that Government had not found him to be so while acting at home for them. In fact, he not only carried out the instructions of the Government generally, but had done so in instances when they must have been very distasteful to himself. As to the charges against the hon gentleman’s character, he did not feel called upon to defend him, because he felt that when the heat and toil of party strife passed away, the true character of Sir Julius Vogel would be borne testimony to. The Government were strongly of opinion it was essential to appoint Sir J. Vogel Agent-General. There were various reasons for it, although there was no doubt that in another year the House would be called on to discuss the whole question. . Mr Rolleston deprecated the Ministry staking their existence upon this question. That was not a proper thing to do. One reason why he looked with disfavor on the action of the late Premier, was that he was to a certain extent expected to remain in the post of danger, in carrying out the great work for which he was mainly responsible. The Minister of Justice had not been very clear as to the exact duties of the Agent-General; but from what had fallen from him, it would appear as if the office was antagonistic to the Crown Agents and Colonial Office. For his own part, he considered the acceptance of the AgentGeneralship by Sir J. Vogel would be disadvantageous to the colony. Nor was it desirable for a person in failing health to enter upon the duties of what might be called winding-up the Agent-Generalship That office itself was far too costly, and altogether out of all proportion to the results, and enormous as compared with the AgentGeneralship of all the other colonies. It was time a reform was effected, and he held that the House would do wrong if it did not refuse to sanction the appointment. He pointed out that since the advent of the hon gentleman the whole character of their system of government had been changed ; from simplicity it had turned to extravagance ; they could see it on every hand, and it was time they returned to simplicity of habits, which would no doubt have the effect of considerably improving their credit at home. Mr STOUT said this motion should never have been brought down in that way. If the Government were not to be trusted to appoint a subordinate officer, a motion of want of confidence should be brought down. It was a most extraordinary thing to see the member for Wairarapa bringing down such a motion, because he had consistently supported the late Premier from first to last, If he was not fit to be Agent-General, he certainly must have been unfit to be Premier so long. He knew Government would have a majority on the question, attd thus if anything went wrong at home in connection with the office of Agent-General, the onus would be thrown upon the House. In order to dispose of the whole matter he moved—- « That the question be now put.” Hon Mr Reynolds explained in relation to the alleged quarrel between Hon Mr Waterhouse and Sir J. Vogel, that himself and Sir J. Vogel were in Sydney at the time, and he was at a loss to account for tuch a charge. He had known Sir J. Vogel about fifteen years, and if he had the appointment of Agent-General he thought he could find no more suitable man. As for his inability to work amicably with others, he could only say that his experience was that Sir J. Vogel invariably displayed the utmost courtesy to those who acted with him. He believed the Agent-General’s office required reorganising, and there was no better man to do it than Sir J. Vogel. , Mr Reid saw nothing unreasonable in the course adopted by the Government in regard to the appointment. It had been the custom of the House to assert that it was desirable that the Government should take the House into its confidence before making such an important appointment. His own opinion was that the colony could not do without an Agent-General, though he was pware many members thought an Agent(general unnecessary, but how they could think so, with the colony in the middle of a great public works scheme, was a mystery to him. Were they not aware that in the past the provinces maintained their own AgentGenerals, and with the very greatest advantage—at least in the province of Otago. He did not believe the colony would do without an Agent-General for many years. Although be had had been one of the most consistent opponents of the late Premier, throughout his career he would oppose the motion, and for this reason: he believed Sir J. Vogel was a very expensive man, and was largely answerable for the demoralised state of the House. It would be a benefit to the cblony if it was for a time relieved of the presence of the late Premier, who, he firmly believed, would make an excellent AgentGeneral.

Mr Murray opposed the appointment and condemned Sir J. Yogel for deserting the colony while grave financial difficulties hung over it. The hon member went on to show that the financial negotiations of the late Fremier had not been so advantageous to the colony, as those 'of the Crown Agents. He thought any member who would support this appointment would be held up to public opprobrium, as such an appointment would be disastrous to the colony, Mr Wason asked if the Government would accept the amendment of the member for Dunbdiu. [“Yes, yes,” from the Government Benches.] Well, he could only say such a proceeding was opposed to all true party warfare, if for no other reason than that Government would make the question a party one. He would support the motion of the member for Wairarapa. Sir Donald McLean said whatever course the Government pursued, it would be condemned by a certain section of the House As one of the oldest colleagues of Sir J. Vogel in office, he maintained that no more Suitable person could be selected. The hon gentleman then paid an eloquent tribute to his high personal character and great ability, find said he would yet be ranked as the greatest statesman of the colony. Mr Reader Wood said the question w s not only highly unpleasant, but highly improper, and should never have been brought down before the House. They should have announced to the House that they bad made the appointment, and have

stood or fell by it, instead of bringing down an appointment such as that as the first part of their policy. As to Sir J. Vogel’s statemanlike qualities, he for one said that he never saw in that gentleman a single statesmanlike quality, and he could never admit that he had ever performed a single service for New Zealand. He had demoralised the House and colony. Any one in the House who chose to sell himself could always do so in that House. What better proof could they have of broken promises and unrealised expectations than the contrast of this year with 1870. He had drawn on his imagination for his facts, and appealed to the very lowest passions of humanity ; and he was such an excellent judge of character that he was able to do it successfully. What had he done for the country ? He had given them taxation, taxation, taxation; year after year he had made everything dearer; the food they ate, and clothes they wore. He was not like a statesman whose imagination might have misled him, but who would not abandon those who confided in him. In the case of the member ior Wanganui, however, he led them bit by bit into the swamp, and then basely deserted those who so blindly followed him. On the question of economy alone he would support the resolution, because he believed we could easily get our business in London transacted much more economically than with an A gent-General, If, as Government told them, this question would be dis cussed next year, why not discuss it now? Another objection was the personal unfitness of the hon member — He was perfectly shocked at the conduct of that gentleman while at home, as was shown by the correspondence, and especially that with Dr Featherston. It was palpable from that correspondence that the late Premier taunted Dr Featherston to so great a degree, that the only object could have been to drive him to resign the much coveted office into which he had now schemed himself. That conduct towards Dr Featherston should be a warning to the House, and he ought to be told ‘‘you don’t know how to behave yourself when yon have to deal with gentlemen, and they will have nothing to do with you.” The hon gentleman referred also to the Crown Agents and others, with whom Sir J. Vogel did business at home. In any business the honorable gentleman transacted it was absolutely necessary to have everything in writing. Surely it was not safe to trust one who had so treacherous a memory. The hon gentleman quoted largely from the letters of Messrs Julyan and Sergeant in support of his statements. It was impossible to conceive a more contemptible action than that of the Government in dealing with the of the loan agents. But it was not only at home, but also here that the same question had arisen as to the memory of the late Premier not being in accordance with other people’s. The hon gentleman then quoted from Hansard, of 1871, when the member for Timaru interrupted him by saying what he was stating was false, and that it had never been contradicted or apologised for. The House rose at 5,30.

When the House resumed at 7.30 the discussion as to the Agent-Generalship was continued, and kept up with great vigour until a late hour. Much of the same ground that was travelled over in the early part of the sitting was again gone over, and a great deal of matter imported that was considered irrelevant to the question, the Speaker interposing several times to keep the members closer to the subject. Mr Lusk said Sir J. Vogel was not the right man in the right place ; he was not a man to economise; in fact, he possessed not a single requisite for the office. He was so extravagant that it would be dangerous to appoint him. Mr Wakefield spoke at great length, in general terms of condemnation, saying he never had the interests of the colony at heart, being utterly and entirely selfish and only actuated bv personal aggrandisement and ambition. He had all along meant to get the post of the Agency for himself, and deceived the House and the colony as to his intentions. It would have paid the colony to have given him sixteen thousand a-year for the last five years to have kept him in some remote part of the world. During his term of office he drew £30,000, besides enjoying two trips to Europe, and received twice as much money for his services as the many Ministers since the passing of the Constitution Act. His patriotism was to live on New Zealand, not in it. He was overbearing and quarrelsome in disposition. The job was the most iniquitous ever perpetrated in the colony. Mr Pearce defended the late Premier, and denied the rights of the House to interfere in a matter purely executive. He maintained that the agency bad not been unduly expensive, when they considered the magnitude of the work to be carried out, holding that the cost would have been five times as much if they had no Agent-General, and paid a Commission, as formerly was the practice. He adverted to the long career of usefulness to the colony of the late Premier, of which evidences were visible all over New Zealand, and dwelt on his high capacities and intimate knowledge of the colony as eminently fitting him for the office._ Mr Rees took much the same view as Mr Wakefield, and accused him of corrupting the pubilc service and demoralising the House. His character was a little too well known at home for him to be any assistance or credit to the colony there. He denied he possessed a single quality to fit him for so high an office. He was irritable and quarrelsome in temper, and had a treacherous memory that militated against his holding confidential intercourse with people in the transaction of the business of the country. If any man more than another should remain in the colony during the present crisis, Sir J. Vogel should. Mr Rowe supported the appointment. There could not be a more suitable man. Mr Montgomery would sooner see £SOOO given to send the Premier home than make him Agent. He disapproved of him leaving, as embarrassments were approaching. He had undoubted ability, but his policy was to borrow money and rule at all hazards. Mr Hodgkinson considered him imprudent, extravagant, and insolent. Sir G. Grey said the expense of the agency was entirely unnecessary, and the cost was shameful. Sir J. Vogel should not leave at this crisis. The Premier and Mr Whitaker defended the proposed appointment, the latter replying in detail to the more pertinent and specific charges. He denied that Sir J. Vogel was to blame so much in the correspondence referred to, He knew and respected the late

Dr Featherstone, but he would always have his own way. He did not carry out the instruction of Government, but Sir J. Vogel did. He said the appointment would only be for twelve months, and his instructions would be to gradually curtail the expenses of this department. He had been assured by all his colleagues that Sir J. Vogel strictly adhered to instructions and was neither arrogant nor did he act without consulting his colleagues. Both agreed in defending his action regarding the transactions with the loan agents, and said it was well for the colony he acted as he did. The House should not have been informed of this appointment till after being made ; then if the House disapproved, it would have been its duty to remove them. A division was taken on Mr Stout s amendment, and lost by 41 to 24, which was equivalent to carrying the previous question. The House adjourned at 11.10,