PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4795, 4 August 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Thursday, August 3. The Speaker took the chair at half-past seven o’clock. EASTERN MAORI ELECTION, The SPEAKLR stated that the clerk of writs was in attendance for the purpose of en«dorsiugthe name of KaraitianaTakamoana, and if the House was pleased, would now endorsethe writ. The House signified Its assent, and the clerk of writs (Mr. Cooper) was introduced and endorsed the writ, PETITIONS. A number of petitions were presented. CALIFORNIAN MAIL SERVICE. The committee on the Californian mail service obtained a month’s extension of time. QUESTIONS. Mr. TOLB asked the Government When the proposed Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1872, will be submitted to the Legislature ; and if it is the intention of the Government to insert in the said Bill a clause to amend the 35th section of the above Act so as to enable any local board of health, or their duly authorized officers or servants, to enter at any time in the day or night any premises whereon any trade or business, or any process connected therewith, and injurious to public health, is suspected of being carried on ? The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL replied that the Act would be introduced as early as possible, and would contain such a clause as the hen. member had indicated. In reply to Mr. Sheehan, The Hon. Sir D. McLEAN said the Native*’ Lands Bill would be brought down next week. In reply to Mr. Richmond, who enquired whether it was intended to introduce this session a General Scab Act for the colony ? I£ not, whether the present provincial Acts are to remain in operation after the provinces have been abolished? The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL said no. Owing to the importance of the question, they would not attempt to deal with the matter this session. A short Bill would perhaps be introduced, to continue the provincial Acts in foroeA DENIAL. Mi’. STOUT said before the-House proceeded to the next business he desired to make a personal explanation. In that morning’s New Zealand Times there had appeared an assertion that by the “ able clerical assistance of Mr. Stout and Mr. Sheehan,” the Opposition had been telegraphing to all parts of the country for the purpose of getting up public meetings. He might be allowed to state that the assertion that he had sent telegrams was utterly without foundation. He had never sent a single telegram, nor had he known of any being sent ; and as for the principle of the thing, he'quite disagreed with it. He did not look upon the promotion of public meetings as a constitutional course for members of that House to take. Mr. SHEEHAN said he would like to say a word or two. Certainly he had not sent telegrams, nor had he acted with the hon. member for Dunedin city, for he had not even seen him on the previous day. He did not quite agree with that hon. member when he talked of advising with their constituents being unconstitutional. He believed it quite constitutional; and moreover he thanked the New Zealand Times for having suggested to the Opposition what its duty was. He considered it rather good to have one’s name put in small capitals in the leading columns of a paper and at the same time get good advice. Within the next few days no doubt he should do a great deal of telegraphing. (A laugh). Mr. MACANDREW said it was a rather peculiar circumstance, but he had neither received nor sent a telegram during the past three days. Mr. READER WOOD considered the matter of the gravest importance, for it seemed very clear that even the telegraph office was not inviolate from the Premier and his editors. Mr. REYNOLDS protested against imputations being cast on the integrity of the telegraph officials. Sir "JULIUS VOGEL said the hon. member for Parnell seemed to cast a doubt upon the veracity of the member for Rodney and the hon. member for Dunedin city. Those gentlemen said distinctly that they had not sent telegrams, but the hon. member for Parnell declared that telegrams had been sent, and that the Telegraph department had violated their trust. As to the remarks of the paper, there were a great many rumors flying about just now—(hear, hear) —and of course it was to be expected that these rumors would get into the papers. SEPARATION RESOLUTIONS. Sir GEORGE GREY moved— That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the colony requires that its financial and constitutional arrangements should be reconsidered. The unity of the colony should be maintained. There should be two local governments; one for each island. The Colonial Government being responsible for the colonial debt, for which the annual charge for interest and sinking fund is £315,000, the North Island shall be charged with £190,000 per annum, and the South Island with £625,000 per annum. With the exception of those matters of great colonial importance which must be reserved for the Colonial Government, each local government' shall have the entire control and management of its own affairs and the disposal of its own revenues. The seat of the local government of the NorthIsland to be at Auckland. The seat of the local government of the SouthIsland to be at Christchurch. The seat of the Colonial Government to remain, as at present, in Wellington. On rising the hon. member was received with, cheers. He commenced by referring to the nature of the resolutions which, he said; wereof greater importance than appeared at first sight. Of the first part he should say very little; it related to thepast. Tho Premier said this was a year of difficulty to meet, and there might be a difficulty next year, and that the securities of the colony occupied a low position in the market. It was clear, therefore, that the first resolution was true, and if any further evidence was wanted it was to be found in the Financial Statement. He spoke of the debentures which had been hypothecated, and pointed out that if the Treasurer had been ingenuous he would have told the House in the Financial Statement that the promises of last year had been altogether broken through, and that the colony was in a condition of ruin. Why had the Treasurer not told the House the facts ? Why had he not told the House that he had taken charge of the colony when it was in a prosperous state; that he had had untold millions at his command; and now, having brought the colony into its present state, he was willing to hand it over to others to revive /• its prosperity ? The ’ colony beyond a doubt ' was in a very depressed condition, and he v . should endeavor to point out to the House a course by which its credit could be improved and its finances placed in a sound position. Hon. gentlemen would agree that he need hot say that the state of the colony was such that it was necessary to have constitutional changes. All agreedthatthere was anecessity forohanges, even the Government wished to make changes but it was now his duty to show that the proposals of the Government were improper proposals, and could only be treated with the scorn they deserved, and it was his duty also to show that this was a great opportunity for the country to place itself in a position which would lead to prosperity. In his remarks he might have to refer to the past; and he hoped for any remarks he made he would not be charged with, making’ personal allusions, and that unworthy motives would not be laid to his door in proposing changes which now became necessary, because he had upheld the old regime in times gone by. Changes were necessary sometimes, and this was one of those occasions. In truth, ho desired to say nothing illfeeling,. unbecoming, or severe in anythin-* he might have to speak of. He then proceeded to remark upon the past constitutional history of the colony. When the constitution was about to be conferred on the; colony, he receieved a letter from the Secretary of State, to say that an elective Upper House would be a feature of the new constitution, which would have prevented much of the ills that had occurred to New Zealand. But there was a change in the Home administration and then he received another letter to state ;that her. Majesty’s new advisers were desirous of altering the 1 constitution; and one of the • alterations was that the Upper House should not be elective. Changes had

thus been made which the people never desired. Then, again, at one time gentlemen were elevated to the House only by the warrant of ’ the Queen after due enquiry; but this had been changed' because of private despatches. And the same thing had occurred in reference to the alteration in the Constitution Act by which power, had;been given to abolish the provinces. That change in the Constitution Act had been made unknown to the people, and so had many others, which had at last so mutilated the constitution that it had become contemptible. And on this mutilated constitution the party- in power were attempting to rear a series of institutions which were undesirable, and which would never be accepted by the people.. (Cheers.) The people themselves - should be allowed to build up the institutions ■ which were to govern the “ out-distnots, as gentlemen liked to say. He referred to the defeat of'Mr. Whitaker’s resolutions, and said it had been brought about mainly by the cry of interference with abolition. And this abolition, what was it ? What had been abolished ? —a hnge Civil Service, a rash expenditure, a corrupt Native department ? Were those the things which had been abolished? ho; it was the provinces—those powers which had stood between the General Government and extravagance. A"d now that these valuable institutions bad been destroyed, what was proposed in their place? The Governmenthaddestroyed, butcould not rebuild ; at any rate, all their efforts were worked by a palsied hand. He asked why there had not been a change in the constitution of the Upper House, which, though composed of disinterested gentlemen, did not reresent the country. Neither did the Lower or those resolutions he was now proposing would be carried. Otago and Auck- - land contained respectively and onefoufth of the entire population of the country; and though these provinces, which contained tliC larger proportion of the people, were to a man ! he might say, in favor of these resolu- ' tions, yet they would be overborne by a small majority, and by what means—by giving three members to Taranaki, three to Hawke’s Bay, and to forth. ’ He referred to a practice of elevating civil servants to the Upper Housemen who would not be able to get a constituency in the colony ; and then spoke of correspondence between “Dear Pollen” and “Dear Vogel,” a correspondence which was a disgrace to ths colony. A civil servant had been raised to the Upper. House to be virtually Governor of the colony, and it was through this person that demands were made ’for enormous expenses—for four guineas a day and an allowance of £ISOO a year, which was increased to £4OOO, and then to £4250. (Cheers.) He shuddered when he thought of it, and he hoped that in time to come there would never be a man holding office as Premier of the colony while his master went Horae, and who meekly laid down his office when his master came back. The people of New Zealand had been insulted ; such a thing had been .unheard of before. That was one reason why he raised bis objections to the Government proposals. ' So'far, he had traced their arguments. Now, however, he came to his own proposals, and he believed the resolutions he held in his hand would command universal respect and esteem, as’ an instance of patriotism. It would be seen that the constitutional changes proposed were propositions which ought to be put before the House and the colony. They were struggling against wealth, degradation, and despotism- They proposed to maintain the unity of the colony however. They proposed that there should be two States, as it were, two local governments, one for each island. The people of New Zealand were well capable of framing a constitution better than that which now existed; and what right had the Ministry to prevent the people from choosing what form of government theirs should be? The people would judge wisely, they might rely upon it, for their own future good and welfare. What could be more noble than to make the land fund of the Middle Island common to the whole colony? He denied , that the natives in the neighborhood of the King country were of the native policy of'the Government, which the natives in those districts strongly denounced. The Opposition proposed a scheme which’would make the public loans readily saleable in the market. They believed that by allowing the people of New Zealand that control of their affairs which they ought to have 'they would form a Civil Service contrary to that which they had under the present forin .df government. Did anyone believe that hearts nurtured- here alone could feel much for Auckland, Invercargill, or elsewhere? They could -not -have that knowledge which, as iheu’ willing and able to help their country,-they ought to have. In respect toseparation, the Opposition had left the details of government Under those proposals for’ future consideration.; He believed there would be a general acquiescence as to the seat of Government, and all those who agreed with’him had no desire to restore the provinces to the positions they formerly occupied. But they would to the utmost' resent any attempt to prevent ■ them chosing their own form of government—all the means of justice and right, to prevent a majority oppressing a minority.. Tfiey’wouldresent the attempt to take away from the people the' rights which as colonists they were entitled to. With regard to this question, ’ he ' said it should, by carrying Mb proposals,- be referred to the people, and he would be prepared to abide by the majority, on whichever side it might hap- 1 pen to be ; but if it .was refused to refer to refer -the-question to the people, he would use ; every legitimate means in his power to prevent 1 the tyrannical minority imposing their form of 1 government upon the majority of the, colony. ] lii conclusion, he stated that his one and only. < desire was to see justice done to the colony of i New Zealand, ; ’ Sir JULIUS VOGEL saidhe could scarcely 1 understand from the remarks of the hon. gentle- < man what were, the proposals.for a new consti- 1 tution, although he professed to explain. ’ Indeed the resolutions on the notice paper 1 seemed to give all the information the hon.. gentleman proposed to,afford. When he read i the resolutions of which the hon. gentleman I had given notice he confessed that he had no i inconsiderable amount of difficulty in comprehending: them. They had been many weeks in preparation, and he had thought, therefore, that they would be a literary production, and not a reproach to those who had constructed them. ■ The speaker then proceeded to criticise tjhe resolutions as they stood, and with reference to the first sentence, said that what was intended to refer to the colony actually referred tg, the House. He thought it would have been p re respectful to the House to have taken to construct the sentences more carefully. He ftieta referred to the difficulty of satisfying people as ,to the seat of Government, saying that the resolutions were of a telegraphic form, being impossible to understand without interpretation, arid unfortunately the interpretation was not supplied. With regard to the financial position of the country, to which the honorable gentleman had referred, he said that a great deal of the present difficulty arose out of the disposition of honorable gentlemen who were opposed to the Government of the day to allow themselves to give expression to opinions prejudicial to the colony. But he would say notwithstanding that New Zealand had no cause to fear. As to what Sir George Grey had said about the amount of money spent since he (Sir Julius) had held office, he might say that frotn 1869 he had been in the Government, and it was perfectly correct that a very largo amount of money had been expended since he had been in office; but he was quite willing to trust to the people as as to whether that expenditure had not been wise and of benefit to the colony. But the hon. gentleman, the mover of these resolutions, was of opinion that it was requisite for someone else to be in power in Order to bring back prosperity to the colony, and it was but natural to suppose that that someone else was the hon. gentleman himself ; but he believed the public of New Zealand would sooner cut off their hands than give their votes to place the country’s affairs in the hands of the hon. gentleman. As to the hon, member’s talk about “ the people of New Zealand,” he no more represented “thopeoploof New Zealand” than ’ any other gentleman in the House, and “ the people of ’ New Zealand” would be very sorry to tee the hon- member directing the affairs of the colony. .They remembered perfectly well that, when the -hon. gentleman

■ did occupy a leading position in the : colony he was - never easy unless in the ; midst of those disputes in which he i delighted to revel. In the past he had been [ continually quarrelling either with the Imi perial' Government or its representatives, and ■ this kind of thing was not at all required now. ; We were getting ’ on very comfortably ; the l Imperial Government did not desire much of ns, and we were not making unreasonable i demands upon the Imperial Government; but • if the hon. member for the Thames got into power, there would very soon be an ill feeling , generated. What had drawn the hon. member back into public life but the hope that he would be able to satisfy his grudges against the Colonial Office ? (No, no.) .Then he had spoken upon the question of the constitution of tkeUpper House, as he generally managed to do each time he made a speech ; and his remarks with reference to that body were as undeserved as they were uncalled for. He (Sir J. Vogel) bad no hesitation in saying that during the last two or three years the Upper House, had been of good service to the colony. He had had on several occasions to say severe things about the Upper House ; and when one had carefully prepared schemes, got them through the Lower House, and then found them rejected in another place, it was not unnatural that some little annoyance should be felt; but he would say this—and in saying it he did not speak in the nature of an apology—that judged of by results the Legislative Council had done a very great deal of good for the country by improving and checking hasty legislation. It might be that in time to come there might be modifications, but it was not his purpose to suggest the desirableness of such a thing nor to say it was necessary. What he bad to do that evening was to deny the general assertion that the Upper House had been disastrous to the best interests of the country. Then the hon. member must talk about “ a corrupt Government.” This was another subject which must be introduced into every speech he made ; and in doing so, as it seemed to him (Sir J. Vogel), he insulted not only the Government, but the members of the House who supported the Government. Why did he not bring forward instances of conniption, and ask the House to turn the Government out of office ? Such a course could at least be understood. As to the reference to his (Sir Julius Vogel’s) personal expenses whilst visiting England in the public service of the colony, he should not discuss it. Possibly it might be found from the records that his expenses had not been so large as had been allowed on previous occasions to other people; but that would be for the House to consider, and he should not discuss it.. (Hear, hear.) It would be out of place for him to do so. As to the services which he had rendered, or attempted to render, to the colony during the past few years, he could only say that if they were not appreciated he had wasted much valuable time. He had been exceedingly sorry to find that the hon. member had bad sufficient bad taste to attack personally? a member of the Government who was notin the House, and who had no opportunity of replying. He (Sir Julius Vogel) was prepared to characterise the conduct of the hon. member for the Thames. It appeared as if he had a deep-rooted aversion to every public man in the colony but himself, and he seemed to think the desire to gain money was the beginning and end of their existence as public men. He (Sir J. Vogel) regretted exceedingly to see such a spirit, for such an idea was not only exceedingly ignoble, but exceedingly mistaken. There were a great many men in New Zealand doing their best for the colony, and he would say this, that any man who tried to serve the public instead of himself would be a great loser thereby. A man who had sufficient abilities to attain a leading position in public affairs would do very much better if he applied those abilities to the furthering of his private interests. The comments upon Dr. Pollen were exceedingly unfair. With regard to his resignation of the Premiership, it was very well understood what course would be taken when he (Sir J. Vogel) returned to the colony ; but he . might say that he had requested Dr. Pollen to retain the Premiership, but he had declined, and had asked him (Sir J. Vogel) to resume the position. To hold up his colleague to ridicule and prejudice was ungenerous. Each successive administration for a long series of years had acknowledged the great services of the hon. Dr. Pollen; and he would add this, that it would be . much better for the colony if there were a few more men of the stamp of Dr Pollen in the colony—men who could not only talk but. act—for no public man in the Colony had more thoroughly won his way into the hearts of the people. The hon. member then had spoken of people building up their Own institutions; but what more could the people do than they had done ? There had been a new Parliament elected, and elected solely upon the constitutional question; and if the people did not express their wishes through their representatives, who had charge of their interests, how could they do. so at all? The Government did not exist to destroy the institutions of the colony without indicating what was to take their place. (Derisive cheers). Hon. gentlemen need not cheer. So far as the Government were concerned they had a perfect knowledge of what they proposed to build up in place , of the institutions they had done away with. They proposed to give the districts the power which had been exercised by the provinces in olden times, and these counties would be more important in power and wealth than were the provinces originally. The hon. member in making this crude proposition for separation seemed to proceed upon the wrong assumption that each island represented a distinct community of interests, and that the several aggregations of people were bound together by common ideas and feelings ; but on the face of it this was very absurd. If the hon. member thought the provinces of the North Island were united in their interests and totally differing from the provinces of the South Island, he made a great mistake. Eor instance, there was far more sympathy between the Province of Canterbury and the Province of Wellington than there was between the Province of Canterbury and the Province of Otago. (No, no.) (Hear, hear). Hon. gentlemen might say “ no, no,” but it was the ease ; and why ? Simply because Otago assumed to have the right to dictate to ths whole of the Middle Island. Again, Nelson and Wellington were more closely allied than Nelson and Otago, and the same thing applied to the West Coast of the Middle Island. Thenifhewent to the .North Island what did he find ? That the inhabitants of a very large extent of territory north of Auckland had complained very loudly that from first to last they had been entirely neglected by the Provincial Government of Auckland, and they to the General Government for aid afid assistance. How many of these membere coming from the north of Auckland would the member for the Thames carry into the lobby with him ? Sir GEORGE GREY: If they have any regard for their constituencies they will .all do so. Sir JULIUS VOGEL: Then it was said that all the Otago members would vote for these resolutions. Mr. MACANDRW; Most of them will. Sir JULIUS VOGEL ; But how many of those members would go into the lobbies happy in the knowledge that the motion would not be carried, and that the leaders of the Opposition would not have the government of New Zealand. Ho was perfectly convinced that when the people of Otago came to know and realise the full effect of the proposals put before the House by the Government, there would be a very great revulsion of feeling in those parts of the province which at present were the strongholds of the hon. member for Dunedin. Sir Julius Vogel then referred to the remarks of Sir George Gtofcr in reference to land legislation, and deprecated the holding out of promises in respect to cutting up runs, in order to, catch votes. The land question should not be a party question at all. It was a very difficult and delicate matter to deal with, and members would have to devote their best attention to it, without studying tho interests of party. It was a question upon which.men might conscientiously differ without accusing each other of impure mojives. He was not going to make vague promises as to what .was, : to he done, nor would the hop, member*, do so if -he were in p responsible position, ■ The Go-

vernment were possessed of the idea, and he believed that on: the whole thsse proposals would be found satisfactory. He twitted those provinoialists who last year were so rabid in their inconsistency, and said that by bringing forward these resolutions they had shown that last year they had not properly estimated the feelings of the country. They had asked for delay, on the ground that the feeling of the country generally was against abolition, and that the people would defend provincialism almost with their blood ; but this year, by bringing forward such resolutions as these, they admitted that their view had been wrong, and the view of tho Government right. Why had the hon. member for the Thames and his followers admitted this ? The resolutions had not been explained, and really there was very considerable doubt as to what they meant. It seemed to him that before such resolutions could be given effect to there must be Imperial legislation, and that this action was taken in order to bring pressure to bear on the Imperial Goverement. Why was not more information given on the subject ? Who were to be governors ? Wha was to be the system of government ? Sir GEORGE GREY ; Those were quite matters of detail. They would give the hon. member the earliest information, so that he might offer himself as a candidate. The SPEAKER said it was not well to have these interruptions. The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL went on to say that if he understood the resolutions aright it would appear there was to be no colony, but two provinces. The colony was to give up its revenues, and receive what the provinces might choose to dole out to them. But there must first be a repudiation of all liabilities. It was not sufficient for the provinces to say that we will give you this and that. The colony at present possessed a revenue, and certain engagements had been entered into. He went on to characterise the scheme as crude, and existing only in the mind of a few hon. members ; and pointed out that the hon. member who was responsible for the resolution, had precluded the possibility of its being discussed, because he knew nothing whatever of the matter except that there were to be two provinces, and had brought forward nothing for debate. He asked members to adopt it on his responsibility—that it was* a good scheme, but could not give members an opportunity of judging for themselves. The hon. gentleman pointed out the difficulty of settling the matter on a fair basis, as the House .was constituted ; thus the province of Auckland had 18 members against 16 for the rest of the North Island ; and Otago had 28 or 29 votes against those for the rest of the South Island. He would say this in contrast between the proposals of the Government and those of the hon. member. The General Government proposed to renounce all the powers it possibly could get rid of, and give to towns and country districts the power of local self government ; in fact it would bestow upon them pretty well all the powers which had been enjoyed by the Provincial Governments, and remove all intermediate bodies between the County Councils and the General Government. The propositions of the Opposition however, were to hand over these powers to two large provinces. He continued to dwell upon this phase of the subject at considerable length, and then proceeded to defend the civil servants from the imputations cast upon them. He stated that returns were being prepared which would show that the civil servants were worse paid and harder worked than the civil servants of any other colony. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS said for many years past he had been in favor of the colony being divided between two provincial governments. He was not in favor of separation, but was in favo'" of two provincial, governments. He felt sure that these two legislatures would legislate better than the central legislature. He. voted for the measures and not the men, and if he studied his personal feelings should vote for the Government and not the Opposition. He had seen with regret the resolutions of Mr. Whitaker negatived as it was, because he knew that many persons voted against their feelings. He knew this from personal conversation with such members. He was firmly convinced that if the members of the House were asked one by oue it would bo found that in feelings they were with the hon. member for Waikato. Mr. TRIBE pointed out that though he was not in concord with the. Government proposals in all respects—in fact was opposed to them in many particulars—yet that he must vote against Sir George Grey's party, who were obviously merely wasting time and giving a factious opposition to tho Government, not recog - nising that the present House had been elected on a distinct issue, and that it should not now be led away on side questions. The business of the country must be proceeded with. The Opposition seemed determined to prevent its going bn ; and if they persisted in this course it would simply compel himself and other hon. members to give a blind vote for the Government, and go into the lobby with them on every question. Mr. REES moved the adjournment of the debate. The SPEAKER declared the adjournment carried on the voices. On a division, there were for the adjournment, 46 ; against, 36. The House adjourned at 12.46 a.m. until half-past two o’clock this day.