The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1878.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIIL, Issue 99, 26 April 1878, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1878.

In speaking of the Laud Bill the other night, and of his endeavor to persuade the Governor to disallow it, Sir George Grey made use of the following words:— "Men view things in different aspects. One (aspect in which I viewed this question is the following: — I never could see before me, in going through the country as I do, large crowds of children brought before me— thousands jof children assemble before me in some [places — without putting to myself this question, ' What right has every one of these little ones for the next ten years to forego some comfort, perhaps some absolute necessary, in order that they may pay something towards putting large sums of money into the pockets of private individuals, gentlemen who hold great runs in Canterbury.' " Now, every one who heard this would naturally think that Sir George Grey would have adopted every legitimate means in his power

to prevent a Bill which was to produce so injurious an effect upon the people of New Zealand for tbe next ten years passing through the House, that he would have taken a determined stand and have treated the passing of the clause to which he objected as a hostile to te, or eren if he had not gone so fac as this> that he would at least hare lost no opportunity o£ entering his solemn protest against so iniquitous a measure. Did he take any one of 'these steps? Let tfa»c ar <£ answer the question. That i'ecord of the proceedings of our 'representatives in Parliament does 'not report the discussions that taße place when the House is in Committee upon a Bill, but simply states what amendments were nioyed, and what were the results of the divisions. We cannot, therefore, ascertain what remarks were made by the Premier when Mr Stout moved that section 110, which grants the extension of the leases, be struck out, but that he did speak in favor of the amendment there can be no doubt. But in looking through the division list, which shows that the clause as it stood was carried by 36 to 28, we find that one of Sir George Grey's own colleagues, the Colonial Treasurer, who, next tc the Premier occupies the most important and influential position in the Cabinet, voted w>^ the Noes. It is clear then tfcat Sir George did not considPv the matter which has since B1) .a him with so much grief of sufficient importance to be made a Ministerial question. He was' perfectly content to hold office as the Premier of a Government, one of the leading members of which sanctioned by his vote the grievous wtfong that was to be done to the children of New Zealand for the next ten years. And so the Bill passed through Committee. The next form of procedure was the third reading of the Bill. On such occasions it is not customary for the measure to which the House has agreed in detail to be debated again, but it frequently occurs that the leader of the party who has opposed the Bill, does, if it be one of any great importance) point out the evils it is likely to produce, and raise a protesting voice against it. Bid Sir George do anything of this kind? We again look to Hansard, where we findj after the last division had taken place in Committeej "Bill reported with amendments and read a third time " Not a word did the Premier then utter of the fearful consequences that were to follow. Again when the Bill came back from the Legislative Council, their amendments were accepted in silence, and not a dissentient voice was heard. Once more Sir George had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Bill. It was on the Bth of December, the last day on which the House met for business. On that occasion, on the motion for going into Committee on the Appropriation Bill, Sir George Grey said (we quote from Hansard) " I understand, Sir, it was agreed that a discussion* should take place on the motion for going into Committee on this Bill, and, therefore, I wish to offer a few remarks to the House. In the first place, I think, at the close of so long a session, the longest since the General Assembly first met, I ought to make some observations with respect to some of the leading measures carried this session with which we have been connected, and also Borne remarks on the probable course of public business during next session." He then proceeded to refer to these measures, but curiously enough he never alluded in auy way whatever to the Land Bill that was to create so much misery throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand for the next ten years. This appears to us to show more clearly than any other action or inaction of the Premier's to which we have referred that to his mind it did not at that time seem to be a measure of such great Importance as he has since sought to make it appear. The session closed, not a hint was given by Sir George of the course he intended to pursue, and nothing more was heard of the Land Bill, which had passed the House by a considerable majority, including one of the members of the Government, until the colony was startled by the following telegram from Wellington : — "Just before the formal prorogation, Sir George Grey advised the Governor to veto the Land Bill, which had not been sent up for the Governor's assent with the other Bills. The Governor refused point blank to take such an unconstitutional step, the Government themselves having carried the Bill through both Houses, without a hint while Parliament was assembled that they intended to prevent the Bill becoming law." In due course, the Wellington papers, with the full particulars of the extraordinary proceedings, came to hand, and the Post, a supporter of the Grey Ministry, gave the following account of the affair, which, as it has never been contradicted, we may assume to be the correct version :— " The political scandal with reference to the Land Bill does not, on further enquiry, assume any less serious complexion than before. It appears that when the Bills were sent up for the formal assent and signature of the Governor, he discovered that the Land Bill was not amongst the number. Why the Bill was missing cannot be easily explained, but His Excellency's discovery that it was not there, led to its ultimate production. But the signature of Sir George Grey waa not attached to it, and Mr Sheehan and Mr Macandrew waited upon him to obtain his formal assent. Then, it is said, there was a ' scene ' between the Premier and his colleagues. Sir George Grey positively refused to sign the Bill, and actually advised His Excellency to veto it, and it was not until the latter threatened to make a general call of the Assembly that the Premier withdrew from the position he had taken up, and allowed the Bill to become law." Anything more discreditable it ia scarcely possible to conceive. The Bill which the Premier had suffered to pass through the House without offering to it such opposition as lay in his power, which he had permitted to go to the third reading without a word being said against it, and which he had not thought it worth while even to mention when reviewing the leading measures of the session— this Bill he now sought to nullify by sheer dodgery, and then, when detected, by striving to induce the Governor to refuse his assent. Such arguments as he adduced the other night to show why the Governor should have exercised his right of veto are really calculated to raise a smile, if they did not at the time when they were so eloquently and earnestly urged from the platform when the speaker, by his fascinating manner, carried all hia hearers with him, at least when they are quietly perused in the study. " There is another reason in my mind," he said, •• why the Governor ought not to have given his assent to that law — a reason which I think will carry conviction also to the mind of everybody who hears me, and it is this : That wherever a power is given to a certain individual of interfering with the votes of other persons, it is given upon a solemnly implied condition and trust, and that is, that he must exercise that right by what is called voting with the " noes ; " that is, that he must exercise that right in such a manner as to secure the reconsideration of the question which is submitted to him." And he then went on to illustrate hi3 meaning by informing his hearers what was the course pursued by the Speaker of the House when there was a tie between the Government and the Opposition. Wherein lies the analogy between the two cases we cannot possibly understand. In the one, the Speaker is supposed to be entirely impartial, and it is not his place, when the House cannot make up its mind a,s to the merits or demerits of the party in power, to bring about a change of

Ministry. As Sir George said, he gives them time to reconsider the question in order that they may arrive at a conclusion either on one side or the other. But in the case of the Land Bill the House had by a decided majority expressed its will (whether it was right or wroug is not to the point), and yet the Governor, Sir George tells us. «""-' ing the advice of '• „ - -"'amaccepttjakmi *■ e rreaii er, not an un- * TT " member, but the leader of one side of | the Souse, and refusing to allow the Bill, have been placing himself in precisely the same position as the Speaker when giving, his casting vote with the Noes in the case of a tie on a no-confidence motion. A weaker or more erroneous compafisoh was perhaps never instituted. But supposing such a rule were adopted to what wolild it lead ? Simply to this, that in every case where a Bill is not passed unanimously the Governor ought to disallow it in order to allow of its being reconsidered. And as no' Bill of any general importance is ever carried through the House unopposed, every such measure would have to come before the Assembly certainly for twbj if not for more, sessions prior to its becoming law. That would be the result bf' Carrying Sir George's Bthibge theory into practice; for it must be remembered that if the principle he lays down is sound in respect to the Land Bill, it ia equally applicable to every other important measure introduced into Parliament. We ..really cannot, believe ihat Sir George ever followed ouf Ins" argument to its legitimate conclusion. On re-perusiug nis speech with the light thrown upon it by Haniurd we are forced to the belief that Sir George was either wanting in sincerity, or was unintentionally exaggerating, when he depicted the evil consequences that were to follow the passing of the Land Bill, for it is difficult to conceive how, if he really thought that it was to lead to such lamentable results, he could possibly have allowed the Parliament to be prorogued without placing on record an indignant protest against what, if all he now says of it be true, is an act of such gross injustice to the people of the colony.

<3> tj3 r-' i-ieOH<o*r> im -w ri • t^OfflfiMtoco t(* ■«-. 00 O — « CT) -*< « «M I ° CO Cl C 1 G>l -« 2 o .'. E-t /- 00 -i - __ S <" oi ". §* - « »-.-««> OQ o ■*« B SS^S" 2 pa EU~ — . i— 1 2o .2 oo o co eo -* eo eo EH "3-w rf SS™^ 00 £ fc^ ** oi "^ CO —~< ~. tH <_ „ fv< Be v _ i t ~' ° ._. o *-i oj eo CT> io to er> ■* co .do . 4> i_n !•■ m h co oo r- -« tn •» o> a i-i 32 _ £X.S -* w p <um 'f.P ._ S| S i :fl - : ; : : § "S.l -g ' « '' 'J PI ag £ a_ .2 O -g.S .S ojz; **-_ n n o o u a <u a o p. fc 3 Oco^Sop-i. J — — — — — — —