THE "STONEWALLING."

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 214, 8 September 1881, Page 3

THE "STONEWALLING."

The recent struggle in tbe House has not yet loat its interest, and we need not therefore apologise for publishing the following (dated August 29) which appeared in the Christchurch Priss from a Wellington correspondent. When they come to the last sentence we wou'd ask our readers to remember that th? correspondent is generally supposed to be Mr Saunders, wbo was one of those who voted for fining Mr Gisborne because he wanted to know upon wbat authority the Chairman of Committees told members to "shut up" whenever he pleased : — "The past week has been celebrated for little but " stonewalling." That process has been conducted, on tbe whole, in a better spirit and temper tban it usually is. But, perhaps, that fact has robbed it of an? possible iaterest or excitement that might have relieved the dreary monotony of the business to those who are not engaged in it. Left to themselves the Neison members would have acted with reason, but witb such allies aa Seddon and Speight tbere is no saying how reckless tbe waste of time may be. Tbe leader of the Nelson members, Mr Pitt, is no great "atone waller" himself, but he is a skilful tactician, and, so far, bas completely oot-generailed the Government. With Buch an overwhelming majority at their command it waa clearly the policy of tbe Government to bave kept on without intermission until the stonewallers were exhausted. It is wonderful to see the effect that one night's loss of sleep has on the strongest men, and on Wednesday evening even Mr Seddon could hardly be dragged back to the House at 8 p.m. If tbe Government bad kept a firm upper lip through Wednesday night the contest would bave been over, and the stonewallers would have surrendered at discretion. Bat they consent tc a loose compromise on Wednesday evening — take private business on Thursday, and after giving the obstructors of the Bill two nights' rest, begin again on Friday, and after losing another day give their opponents tbree nights in for certain, leaving them to begin again to day as fresh as ihey ever were. Another matoeavre that was most successfully practised on tbe Government was one by wbich they were induced to accept on Wednesday evening an amendment proposed by Mr Moss, giving a leasehold qualification to electors . It was clearly a thing that had no bu&iness ! in such a Bill in any case, and one that was Bare to create a division amongst their supporters. It came too from tbe bitterest enemies of the Government, and its effect on the after progress of the Bill was quickly Been by Mr Pitt, who brought up his sleepy followers to support the mischeiv6uß- amendment. It is said that Sir George Grey prepared the clause for the purpose of getting the Government into a ns, but I believe that the clause was really as well as nominally prepared by Mr Sheehan for the purpose of getting a large number of Maoris on the electoral roil, and that it was secretly: supported by Sir George Grey with tbe same view, Mr Mos9 b-ing always ready to father anything for either of the Thames members. As soon as it was passed beyond recovery, Mr Jones came forward, and in bis own wrathful and violent language declared that the Government by adopting the clauae bad proved themselves " Conservatives and Tories of the very worst description." In this onslaught he was backed up by annmber of bis own friends, and Mr Hall was not a little astonished to hear such terms applied to him for having good-naturedly accepted an amendment prepared by tbe magnates of tbe great Libera! party. A free flght went on all round. Mr London declared that it was all right, as it wouid enable him to get no end of Maoris on the roll, but most cf bis party declared tbat it waa a villainous addition to the present power of plural votiDg, and would give tbree persons a vote on auy little bit of property — a freeholder, a leasebolder, and a resident. Mr Moss looked thunderstruck to find himself accused so etrongly by bis friends, and Sir George wa3 puzzled to know which side be ought to take as tbe " Liberal " leader. He avoided committing himself by slipping out of the dcor jost before it was locked for a division The whole thing was very laughable, and brought out the weak points of many an actor in the scene. Ie will give a lot of trouble to the Government, as many men will not vote for the Bill wiih Sheehan's amendment left in. aod the opponents of the Bill will not let it be struck out if they can help it. Sir George Grey looka delighted with the stone-wallicg, end evidently wishes himself free to take a pirt ia it. Had he foreseen that the old frien's of tbe Government wtre prepared to fight against them so sternly, he would not have committed himself to the Bill, but wouid have shaped some coarse that would have enabled him to profit by such sturdy assistance. If it lasts much longer he will not bo able to resist the temptation, but will find a way to get a finger in the pie yet Mr Hall's proposals to give a power to put down gtooe- walling, adopted from tbe rules of

the House of Commons, will most likely be seized npon by Sir George to-night as a fine opportunity to go to work with his new allies. It was, I think, a mistake to bring them forward just now, as they will only furnish a fruitful topic upon which to continue the stone-walling with a certainty of getting plenty of assistance. But there can be no doubt that some such measures are necessary to protect the reasonable members from such insuppressible windbags as Seddon and Co. There is a most logical (?) article in the New Zealand Times this morning, condemning Mr Hall's motion as too stringent and interfering too much with the liberty of members, and then coolly proposing that the Speaker alone, without any law to guide or restrain him, should have the power to tell any member to " shut up." I would not give much for that Editor's ideas of liberty of speech.