THE HOUSE AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 179, 20 July 1876, Page 4

THE HOUSE AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

The Wellington correspondent of the Canterbury Times writes under date July 7 :— The Financial Statement, eagerly as it waß looked for, was received with, I think, less demonstration than any Statement of the kind I ever before heard. One reason for this, probably, was that members felt that all matters contained in it were too weighty to be hastily dealt with, and did not wish to commit themselves to any expression of opinion on the spot. Another reason, perhaps, was that the great majority of the members but very indistinctly heard what was said. The Premier was evidently not well ;—indeed, he asked the indulgence of the House on that score, and he lead the Statement in a much lower and less distinct tone than he usually employs in speaking. The Statement itself was actually not ready for delivery whea the Houbo met at half-past 7 o'clock on Tuesday evening, and despite the general impatience, the House had to go on with other busiaess until shortly sifter 8, when the PrenfSer came in ready to deliver himself. Even after he began, the Secretary of the Treasury entered with a paper of figures, which were handed to and used by him in speaking. Of the scene which ensued on the delivery of the Statement I remember no parallel. The House sat til! about half-past 3 in the morning, discussing the rise-in-the-price-of-iand resolution, although the Government made it most distinctly understood that passing that resolution was not to be j taken as committing the House to anything. Land policy in every phase was discussed, and all sorts of subjects entirely foreign to the one before the Committee were engaged in. Messrs. Rees and Stouf, between them, made 27 speeches during the nighf, and there were two divisions. Sir George Grey and Mr. Murray-Aynsley suggested amendments, which the Government consented to accept until Mr Stout and Mr Reid pointed out that Sir George Grey's amendment would make matters much worse. Mr. Macindrew and a number of Otago members contended very strongly that the proposal to raise the price of land was a blow purposely aimed at the prosperity of Otago, but Mr Macandrew counselled resignation as ineviiable. Some of the Auckland members professed great sympathy with the wrong done to Otago, and opposed the proposal, although they said it would not nlfect Auckland, as already the land sales there were practically nil. Others agaiu declared that Auckland would suffer greatly, while one Auckland member (Mr Macfarlane) supported the motion, because he saw in it the first step towards making the Land Fund Colonial revenue. The Canterbury members sat calmly, content that the proposal did not aff-et them, until Mr. Rees advanced the novel doctrine, that because they were not concerned directly, therefore they had no right to vote. Then they fhred up in defence of their privileges as Colonial representatives, some rather smart sparring taking plice between Mr. Rees and Mr. Wukefisld. Mr. Stout's efforts were chiefly directed to exempting what in Otago are known as special value lauda, and lands held under deferred payments regulations, from the operation of the resolution, but he did not try this in a very conciliatory manner, and "as he refused to accept the promise of the Government that the Chief Commissioner in Olago should be instructed that these lands were not to be included, they opposed his proposed amendment., aud bent him on a division by 42 to 18. Subse- ! quently, however, they accepted an amendment to the same effect, moved by Mr. Bastings.