OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4489, 9 August 1875, Page 3

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

(from our own correspondent.) Sydney, July 30. It is usually the cry with correspondents that there is nothing to unite about, but that is not my case this month, for never had colonial writer such rare pabulum as “ your own.” Such a choice of sensation, scandal, and events of a noteworthy character is rarely at the command of a scribe, and I scarcely know which delicacy to pay attention to first. However, to take the viands as they come in order as to time, I open with a brief account of the Parliamentary battle of the removal of public monies. My account must be brief, for I have to explain a number of other matters of importance, that have kept and are now keeping our political and even social world seething like a stew or a bubble of the alchemist. To be very brief, the Bank of New South Wales, though not a national bank, has hitherto done all the financial business of the Government, and been the depository of our surplus cash, and the manager has accommodated the Treasurer as he would any safe private customer. Things were mutually satisfactory till the Treasurer, like the French nobleman, was troubled with wn embarrass dc richesscs —a very plethora of gold. The current revenue is more than ample for our wants, and the accumulation of cash for land sold got frightful. The Bank of New South Wales was the repository of the bulk of this inconvenient “ wen of gold,” and enjoyed the use of it without paying interest. Mr. Forster, the Treasurer, thought it had done pretty well out of the country, and consulted the manager as to the advisability of his paying interest upon the money. Mr. Shepherd Smith refused to accede to his terms, and the Treasurer, it appears, sought other financial magnates, and without asking the nabob of the Bank of New South Wales to compete, but with the advice or concurrence of the Treasury and Audit departments and his colleagues, gave his cheque on the bank for sums amounting to £250,000, which he transferred to the City and Oriental Banks, at 4 per cent, interest for eighteen months. You may be sure Mr. Shepherd Smith bruited this abroad. He felt that he had been acurvily treated. There was an agreement, he considered, made by the late’ Treasurer that his bank was to have the surplus for three years, and it had been ratified virtually by the successors, the present “ ins,” You can fancy a tigress robbed of her whelps, but she is a mild animal compared to a bank manager deprived of the use of a quarter of a million of gold suddenly. ' Mr. Forster, the Treasurer, it is known, was a director, and is a largo shareholder in one of the favored banka (the City) and Mr. Parkes, who attributed the financial panic in the city to the sudden displacement of capital, after asking a number of questions in the Assembly, called for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of the Treasurer. Mr. Forster contemptuously refused to sit on it, but attended and gave evidence. All the

best financial and legal authorities in the colony were consulted, and the committee after mature deliberation came to the conclusion that though the Treasurer was personally blameless in the matter so far as his honor was concerned, the money had been moved contrary to an agreement, and in a manner detrimental to the interests of the country. Mr. Parkes then moved the adoption of the report, and the battle commenced. The forces were arrayed, and the fight was a hard one, as of coarse it was not fought on its merits,. You need not be told that where a bank—and a very powerful bank —is concerned, a good deal of pressure is brought to bear upon those elucidating any matter in connection with it. It was freely stated that circular and private letters had been addressed to members of the Assembly, threatening them with instantaneous winding-up if they dared oppose the adoption of the report. Several prominent members who had supported the Government through thick and thin went over to the enemy, while others were as conspicuous by their absence from the debate. Almost every member of the House spoke on the question. It was argued by the Opposition that the money had been moved illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Audit Act ; that an agreement with the Bank of New South Wales had been broken ; that the interests of the country had not been consulted in distributing the coin ; and (as a sort of side charge) that the Treasurer had acted even fraudulently. The last charge was repudiated on all hands ; but the arguments as to the other points would fill a book. The Government quoted the most eminent legal advice, to disprove that a transfer of bullion by the Treasurer’s cheque was illegal, or contrary to the letter or spirit of the Audit Act, and the same counsel denied that a binding agreement had been made or broken with the Bank of New South Wales. The debate lasted five days, and was of the most acrimonious kind. Half the time was taken up in arguing points of order. Mi - . Buchanan, our most outrageous, but at the same time, one of the best members, lashed the late Government, and denounced them as tools, minions, myrmidons, and creatures, &c., of the bank. He declared that it wanted to dictate a policy to the country. And what was this monster? he would ask. Why, it was as rotten as a pear, and one year’s pleuro would see it in the court. Of course this was horrible, and hon. members rose by the score to interpose, but the Speaker ruled Mr. Buchanan in order, but in bad taste. The debate could not be described, for the incidents during it would occupy a good-sized volume. It was a perilous time for the Government, for they had to accept the resolution as a vote of censure, as the Ministry had been consulted about the removal of the money. At last, after the fifth night, and in the small hours of the morning, after strategy had almost exhausted itself, and the Opposition could not delay it any longer, a division was come to, and on the Government benches were 28, faced by 23 hon. members. Then arose cheers and counter cheers, and amidst the hubbub the ex-Treasurer, Mr. Lloyd, member for Newcastle, and the present Minister for Lands, Mr. Garrett, leaned over the table. And says the man from Newcastle, “ Where’s your ten majority ?” To which he of the Lands made reply, “ How about your tie, and making it right ?” Whose name he mentioned is not known. Mr. Garrett said it was Stephen’s, but the Speaker rose and asked him if he dared hint that he would oust the Government by a casting vote if the division came to a tie. There was a great disturbance, but matters cooled down, and mutual explanations followed. The affair did not rest here, for Mr. Parkes tabled another motion, to the effect that the sum of money transferred was removed from the bank without the legal formalities having been gone through, and against the interests of the colony. Alas for our great Boanerges, his motion was negatived by a thumping majority, while one from his arch enemy, Mr. Dibbs, to expunge his (Mr. Parkes’s) from the records of the House, as being a reflection on the honesty of the Colonial Treasurer, was carried by as large a one. This affair delayed business for a week, and excluded all other from the Assembly, thus lengthening the session by that time. But worse was to follow. A Mr. Twaddle, eke a squatter on the Lachlan, whose station, he pleaded, was utterly ruined by diggers at the time of the rush there, claimed several thousands of pounds compensation in consequence. The matter has been before the Assembly for some years, and Mr. Garrett, the present Minister for Lands, when a private member and a land agent advocated Mr. Twaddle’s claim somewhat persistently. The other night, while the matter was under discussion, and the item was in a fair way to be passed, in rushed Mr. Scholey, member for East Maitland, breathless and hor-ror-stricken, and declared that a well-known political agent named White, who once was imprisoned for two years for subornation and corruption during an election, had offered him and Mr. Hanley Bennett £25 each to vote for the motion. Mr. Scholey likewise said that a Mr. Dransfleld had told him that Mr. Garrett was to get ten per cent, of the money voted, and he could prove it by letters that had passed between them. Instantly there was a commotion ; the vote was negatived, and the adjournment of the House was moved. Then followed a discussion, in which the great political scandal-mongers had their full fling. Mr. Garrett declared that he had been fifteen years a member, and was forty-five years old ; he had never attained his position by influence or wealth, but had worked honestly for all he possessed. Several motions were put and argued, and negatived, and ultimately it was resolved to call Dransfleld to the bar of the House. He was summoned and appeared, but like a Yankee, he began by asking instead of answering questions. He wanted to know whether he would be protected by the ceyis of the House. A long debate on this question followed, and ultimately Dransfleld withdrew, and was not recalled. Then Mr. Scholey was called, and several hon. members questioned him. Thousands of rumors at once got into circulation, some of which wore traced to Mr. Parkes. Mr. Garrett refused to act as a Minister till his character was cleared, which the House did by resolution. Then the next night (the third wasted on the subject) Mr. Garrett moved the adjournment again, and charged Mr. Parkes with conspiring to take away his character. He said it had come to his knowledge that Mr. Parkes, Mr. Sutherland, and others, had met like conspirators at the house of Mr. Sutherland, who was lately Minister for Works, and naturally wishes to get back to place and pay, even if he climbed over the fallen character of Mr. Garrett. Several other people were, he alleged, implicated in this Guy Fawkes arrangement, amongst them Mr. Piddington, a notable opponent of the Ministry. They met also at his (Mr. Piddington’s) shop, and afterwards at the office of Mr. Barker, Mr. Parkes’s solicitor. The charges they sought to establish were, first, that Mr. Garrett, in 1870, had accepted through Mr. Dransfleld the sum of £ls for getting a billet for a Mr. Scriraes. It appears that in that year Mr. Scrimes, through Mr. Garrett’s good offices, had been appointed a tide-waiter in the Customs. Sirs. Scrimes waited upon the then Treasurer, Mr. Samuel, and expressed her indignation that her husband had got so mean a place considering the price he paid fur it. Mr. Samuel discharged Sir. Scrimes, and instituted an inquiry, and it cameout that Mr. Scrimes had paid £ls for his billet, but it was handed over to Mr. Dransfleld, who, in his turn, gave it to Mr. Garrett. A statutory declaration was drawn up by Mr. Barker’s chief clerk to the effect that the money had been paid to Mr. Dransfleld, who, in Mr. Scrimes’s presence, had given it to Mr. Garrett. Mr. Scrimes, however, it is asserted, only wanted the declaration drawn out to hand it over to Mr. Garrett, and this he did. Literally, the whole charge fell to the ground, because in all the letters from Mr. Garrett to Mr. Dransfleld no reference was made to payment tor his services. Several members lashed Mr. Parkes for his treachery and meanness, but he sat, and refused to reply. Out of doors he was in no better plight, being universally condemned. The next night again Mr. Parkes moved the adjournment to reply to the charges of conspiracy, claiming that he had been actuated by patriotic motives in endeavoring to criminate Mr. Garrett. And so the matter stands. Mr. White, the first cause of the mischief, is to be criminally prosecuted, and will * bo brought up before the Water Police Court

on Tuesday next. It is certain that no business will be done till the matter has been fully settled. The affair has strengthened the Government, and every motion inimical to them has been triumphantly rejected. It has also raised the question as to what powers the House possesses to deal with such matters. It is evident that no one can define them at present, and the widest diverging opinions are expressed. There is no doubt that the character of the Assembly has suffered considerably, and it has almost become contemptible. There are charges of gross corruption made, and hurled back with interest. Bribes are offered within the precincts of the House, and it is asserted that a complete system of sale of offices is carried on, yet the Assembly seems powerless to investigate the matter, and the police courts have to be applied to. This question of privilege has for some time occupied the attention of politicians. Air. Hanley Bennett, the member for the Liverpool Plains, who had agreed to a verdict of £l, with costs, in an action brought against him by his opponent, Air. Alacquarie, for libel, was unable to pay the expenses, and he was arrested under a writ of ca re, and imprisoned in Darlinghurst gaol. He was there for several days, and it seemed to be accepted as a fact that members of Parliament have no immunity from arrest even during the session. However, he was liberated, and the Premier, Air. Robertson, on being questioned, replied that the House would not allow one of its members to be arrested and imprisoned for debt, but as Air. Bennett had not complained, there was no official -notice given that such an informality had been committed. Following that, the opinion of the Attorney-General was published. He decided that though Colonial Legislatures do not possess the powers and privileges of the English House of Commons —which are peculiar to it through immemorial custom and well established precedents —they have conferred upon them such powers as are necessary for their existence by their very establishment and creation. He was therefore of opinion that the sheriff could not keep possession of a member of Parliament if the House demanded his release. This opinion has been questioned, and it is likely that the whole question of privilege will be subject matter for a motion, and the powers of the House will be defined by statute. It is certain that never in the history of Colonial Parliaments has a House of Assembly been made so ridiculous, owing in the main, I am bound to say, to the weakness, inexperience, and incapacity of the Speaker, who was elected by a casting vote, and whose vacillating weakness has done much to bring about the numberless scenes that have disgraced our Assembly this session. ' In the meantime, a collection is being made to defray Air. Bennett’s liabilities. You will think the foregoing a pretty good dose of political scandal, but it dwarfs into insignificance when compared with the new stirring up of the Gardiner question. That notorious bushranger has been responsible for more mud throwing and disturbance than ever disgraced a legislative body. For months nothing was talked of in the Assembly and out of it but this scoundrel and his release. He was the cause of a powerful Alinistry going out of office. He brought the Governor into conflict with the people; and his release and the justice and advisability of it were the cause of hundreds of meetings and petitions. The agitation was not confined to this colony, for the question occupied the attention of the Imperial authorities and was the subject of any amount of despatches. Now it has cropped up again in a more objectionable form than ever. You will remember that Lord Lisgar (Sir John Young, once Governor of this colony) made some remarks in the English Parliament about the close relation in which the friends of prisoners and Alinisters of the Crown moved in this colony, and the undue influence brought to bear upon those responsible for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The words were true enough in one sense, and indeed harmless enough, but they caused great indignation, and were commented upon very severely by colonial legislators. Air. Parkes in addressing himself to our Assembly on the subject caused certain papers referring to the Gardiner release and the exercise of the prerogative to be laid upon the table, and amongst them were Sir Hercules Kobinsou’s despatches and correspondence with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject. Our Chief Justice, Sir James Martin, discovered through them that Sir Hercules Robinson had assigned as one great and indeed the chief reason why he had liberated Gardiner, that the Chief Justice, who was the prosecutor for the Crown at the time of Gardiner’s conviction, was of opinion that the punishment awarded was excessive; that he had been punished sufficiently, and that there would be no danger in releasing him even in Sydney. Upon reading this Sir James wrote a letter to the Herald, calling Sir Hercules Kobinson in point of fact a “liar,” and a “dishonest” man. He complained that the Governor had led the Horae Secretary to believe that he (Sir James) had advised the Governor to promise Gardiner his release, and he explained matters in this wise ; The Governor had promised Gardiner his release—he was blamed for doing so—his Ministers deserted him and refused to adviso him, and he was in a mess. He then in this strait sought Sir James Alartin and inveigled him into a conversation on the subject. Sir James was of opinion that he had acted unadvisedly in promising the scoundrel Gardiner his liberty, and asked if his word was pledged; to which the Governor replied “ Yes,” and that the lustre of the vice-regal honor would be dimmed if he retracted. He pleaded that Messrs. Parkes and Co. had thrown him over after allowing him to commit himself; and then Sir James gave his opinion as to the danger of letting Gardiner loose, and the amount of punishment he should have had awarded to him, but at the same time, he said that if it was excessive he deserved worse for crimes he had committed and had not been tried for. Sir James was indignant that in the face of this, the Governor had used the gist of this conversation to show the desirability of his making the promise in the first place, whereas it had been given months before the interview had taken place, and then ho had doubted the wisdom of it. The letter was couched in an angry, defiant tone, and bristled with discourtesy. It fell like a bombshell into the colony. The idea of a Chief Justice slangwhanging a Governor in a public paper. But worse was to follow, for the next week came the Governor’s reply, and several letters that passed between the parties. Those of Sir James were marked by extreme rudeness. He evidently forgot everything but the fact that he had been, as he imagined, wronged. Ho objected to the Governor styling himself his “superior officer ” and told him that ho must not think he was still in a “ severe Crown colony.” You will see the letters, and no doubt comment upon them editorially, so I will not dwell upon them. There can bo little doubt but that Sir Hercules Robinson in his official despair sought any way out of the difficulty, and calculated upon not being found out. In fact, his chief excuse for his conduct seems to bo that his communication to Lord Carnarvon should have been considered private. What the upshot will be I cannot foresee, but I don’t think the Governor can stay in a place where he has been publicly rated by the highest legal and judicial authority, unless that officer is rebuked or punished, and such a course seems entirely impracticable. The people, upon the grounds perhaps that “ the king can Jo no wrong,” or because Sir Hercules is a patron of sport and a Corinthian, side with him, and at the theatre the other night gave him a tremendous cheer on his entrance. There is also some talk of a public meeting to sympathise with him. The Stamp Duties Bill, which had advanced through all its stages in the Assembly, and occupied several sittings, was summarily thrown out in a very curious manner. Mr. Prddington took the objection that it had not been initiated in committee of ways and means, and though all sorts of arguments were used to show that the taxes to be levied by it wore not for the current year-, and that the measure was only the revival of one that had lapsed, it proved fatal. Air. Buchanan’s motion to prevent the clearing of the galleries, except upon a successful division on a motion for the purpose, without debate, was discussed one night and adjourned. It is pretty generally understood that some alteration will bo made in the present practice of one membershutting out reporters, which ought to be as obsolete as it is rnconvenieut; but it is doubt-

ful whether Mr. Buchanan’s motion will be carried, as it is urged that the business of the Assembly could be indefinitely delayed by continued motions for clearing the galleries. Air. AlcElhone’s petition to unseat Air. Hunger-ford for the Upper Hunter, on the ground that a poll was opened twice at Belltree, was successful, and the same candidates go to the elector-s again shortly. The nomination takes place on Thursday, and the polling the week following. It is generally thought that Air. Hungerford will be returned again. His opponent is a violent ill-conditioned fellow, whose chief recommendation in the eyes of those who voted for him is that he promised to give the squatters h—l. At the end of last month we were visited by tremendous gales of wind, accompanied by heavy rains that flooded our streams again, and threatened to inundate the Hunter and Hawkesbury country. I see that you suffered at the same time. Several vessels were wrecked on this coast, and a few lives lost. The now celebrated racing sire, the Duke of Athol, is really declared to be no more. I told you of his having been stolen from Air. Tiudale’s place at Bylong. He was taken away to the Liverpool Ranges, and the thieves, finding there was no possibility of getting away with him, backed the poor beast over a cliff, and then partially burned the body. It was at first denied that the remains found were those of the Duke, but they were afterwards fully identified. The horse cost £2OOO, and the expenses of looking after his captors amounted to another £SOO. It is proposed to recoup Air. Tindale this sum by public subscription. I ailures, though not so numerous, have not ceased. The estate of Air. Cape, placed in the curator’s hand, with a schedule showing liabilities of over £200,000, and assets under £4O, is found to be not quite so rotten as that, as several of the alleged creditors deny that it is indebted to them. Another miller has succumbed, viz., Richard Simms, and the firm of Row and Co., druggists, have filed. Air. Harley, eke AI.L.A,, a great man amongst the admirer's of Prince William of Orange, and a Hill End claim owner, has gone into the Court clean picked. He frittered away and lent to the “unco guid” some £30,000. The concerts at the Exhibition for the relief of the sufferers of the Garonne flood realised the handsome sum of £4OO, which, with commendable forethought on the part of Air. Joubert, the promoter of the affair, was sent Horne by telegraph, and reached Paris the same night, though the banker’s message took twelve hours in transit. Thus, really we were the first almost to relieve the sufferers, though situated at the uttermost part of the world. The Gold Duty Abolition Bill, a very popular measure with members of the Assembly, who passed it through all its stages quickly, and gave it little or no opposition, is not finding favor in the Council, and there is a rumor that it will be emasculated by the Lords there.

O’Connell’s centenary is to be worthily celebrated here by—item: A grand procession of trades and admirers of the great patriot ; item: Air oration by Archbishop Vaughan in the Exhibition building, subject the “ Life and Times of Daniel O’Connell ; item; A concert and sports in Prince Alfred Park ; item: The foundation of an O’Connell scholarship in St. John’s College. Already, in fact long ago, there has been a disagreement, without which Irishmen, unfortunately, can never do or attempt anything. The original appeal to the Irishmen of New South Wales that appeared in the papers has been repudiated by the secretaries to the committee. The rupture however has been healed, and all promises to go well. Not so in Queensland, where there has been a wide divergence of opinion. In Brisbane on Friday an amendment was carried at the public meeting for the purpose of considering a resolution to celebrate the day, that as Britain had so many illustrious sous, it was undesirable to single out for honor one whose labors benefited solely the Catholic Church. I expect this was at a thin meeting packed with Orangemen, because the amendment is not true, and everybody must own that O’Connell did a great work without shedding blood, while its collateral results, at least, were not exclusive.