MR GILLIES AT AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 50, 6 January 1872, Page 15

MR GILLIES AT AUCKLAND.

[lndependent.] Mr T, B. Gillies, the Superintendent of Auckland, and the member for Auckj land City West in the House of Reprej sentatives, lias been enlightening his constituents regarding the proceedings of Parliament last session, and the part he took therein. We regret that the demands on our space prevent our publishing his speech in full, not that it contains anything worth reprinting for I the edification of the public, but , because we should have liked to afford j our readers an opportunity of see- ! ing : about the most notable inJ stance of a Member of Parliament j who had assumed to himself a posi tion of importance in the House, delivering a speeeh as puerile and vulgar as could possibly he addressed to any constituency. Mr Gillies entered i Parliament as an avowed opponentdf the ! present Government. He had allied ito himself Mr Pieader Wood and | Mr Creighton, and from the moment ! that he took his seat he assumed the • position of a quasi leader of such an I Opposition as could by hook or by crook ;be got together. Mr Stafford had, by ‘ his undecided action of the previous ! session, alienated most of those who formerly fought under his leadership, and when, ihe new Parliament met, his influence became weaker and weaker every day, until he found himself almost alone. Mr Gillies and he, through the mutual sympathy of discontent, approached each other, and with the few | men they could command, commenced j a guerilla warfare against the Ministry, ' which could only irritate, and do no ! positive damage. Day after day the time and patience of the House were wearied by the utterly useless discussions that were created by the childish questions and motions that proceeded from Mr Gillies’s side of the House. Scarcely one of them had any practical bearing, or commended itself to those members w ho were unpledged to either party, and each day that this system of tactics was pursued added to the ranks of the Government. We doubt if in any session—paiticu larly the first session of a new parlia--1 ment-—there ever was such a melancholy exhibition in the shape of an Opposition as that provided under the auspices of Mr Gillies and Mr Stafford. Without the smallest rag of a policy, without any respectability in numbers, and absolutely devoid of men who could command the respect of the House as political leaders, the Opposition had to descend to the use of the most contemptible weapons as the only manner in which it could possibly make its existence known! The unfortunates who were deputed to do the dirty work of the business were really to be pitied. There was Mr Collins who was so palpably blinded by the lustre derived from his close connection with Mr Stafford that lie did not hesitate day after day to make himself ridiculous to the mingled amusement and disgust of the House and the quiet chuckles of his leader. His familiar friend Mr Ingles displayed a similar loyal desire to immolate any reputation for capacity he might have been supposed to possess. The pompous and pretentious way in which these inexperienced gentlemen propounded their nagging questions and motions was really a delicious treat when their inutility and really harmless character were taken into consideration. Mr Gillies had his henchmen also, —foremost of whom we must name Mr Creighton—a gentleman who throughout his public career has proved that his political opinions are of the most accommodating kind. “ Them’s my sentiments, but if they don’t suit you they kin be altered,” is Mr Creighton’s motto, and he has religiously stuck to it. But Mr Creighton must not be classed in the same category as Messrs Collins and Ingles. He is always “ something,” and was perhaps the most respectable opponent the Government had. But what did he do ? He brought forward some i ad captandum motions, which lie sup- (( ported by tolerably good special pleading: but he never did anything but generalise.

Mr Gillies tells his constituents frankly that the attempt to form a strong Opposition was a complete failure, and that no attempt was made to turn out the Ministry, because “ they had none from among themselves to form a Government.” Surely a greater compliment could not possibly have been paid to the present Government. Its most snarling

antagonist confesses that the Ministry had enlisted the support of all the administrative talent in the House." Of course it is not to be expected that Mr Gillies would make this confession without attempting to find a reason for it. And, of course, any reason supplied, by him must be ah uncharitable one. He sajs that at the commencement of the session there was a strong feeling against the Government, and “ had there then been an organised Opposition, it would have been a very strong one but " from the hour of the Financial Statement, there was a marked change in the House. Those who had been strong opponents of the Government now took their seats alongside of them, why, he could not say, but perhaps it was the Board of Works had something to do with it' 9 How does Mr Gillies account for the fact that the proposal to establish the B«»ard of Works first came from the Opposition, and that the recommendation to withdraw the proposition came from the supporters of the Government? And how does he account for the fact also that after the withdrawal of the proposal the ranks of the Ministry gained in strength whilst the Opposition dwindled down to such contemptible dimensions that its leader became utterly ashamed of bis following and left it in the lurch ? Mr Gillies is more frank with regard to some of the tactics of his own party. Whilst on one hand he says “ There was no idea of turning out the Ministry as far as he knew of,” on the other he admits that Mr Creighton’s attempt to force the Government to take back their estimates and reconstruct them with a reduction of £50,000 “ looked like a motion of ne confidence” and that “ the Ministry indeed could not look at it in any other light.” And yet Mr Gillies, who had “no idea of turning out the Ministry,” voted for a motion which the Ministry could not regard else than as one of no confidence. Charming consistency trulyl

It is but natural that Mr Gillies must have a general fling at the Government. He says he opposed them because he considered Ministers to be “ dishonest” and “ reckless,” and because they made promises to the provinces which they had not fulfilled, With the full knowledge by personal experience of the ease with which large sums of money raised by loan can be utterly wasted, he measures the Government by his own standard. Because the railways are not yet actually constructed, nor the immigrants landed and settled, he says (drawing upon his own experience) “ it is the policy of Ministers to spend the revenue in creating billets, in making appointments and frittering away the largest amount of money for the smallest amount of good to be obtained.” He should have referred to the expenditure of the Three Million Loan as an instance of profitable expenditure, and then one might have believed him. But Mr Gillies was not too proud to accept any good thing the gods were willing to send him. Cordially as he hated the Government and distrusted their policy, he supported the proposal to advance £60,000 for roads in the northern part of Auckland, “ because he believed all that could be got was to the good.” And he voted for the original proposition that the amount should be £IOO,OOO, “because he thought it would put the Government in a fix.” His explanation of the course he took respecting the question of the removal of the Assembly next session to Dunedin is worthy of the man. He says he “voted for the change of the Parliament from Wellington to Dunedin; he had done that to give Wellington a slap in the face. He hated Wellington intensely. It was a disgusting place. But he believed , had he been a member of the Ministry he ivould not have voted for a temporary removal of the seat of General Government.” The italics are our own, and the distinction is made in order to draw the attention of the Government and the public to the light in which e\en the most prominent supporters of the motion regard it. Mr Gillies did not unfold any new policy to his hearers. He expressed himself as dissatisfied with everything and everybody, and wound up by expressing his conviction that “ Provincial Institutions were coming to a close,” and that “ the provinces would be more cheaply governed under a Central Government.”