PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4799, 9 August 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, August 8. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at 2,30 p.m. PETITION. The Hon. WI TAKO presented a petition from forty-one natives, praying for the issue of a Crown grant for certain land. PAPERS. - • Certain reports, &c., were laid on the table. NOTICE OP MOTION. The Hon. Mr. MANTELL gave notice of a motion for the production of all papers and other information relative to the body found in the Summer Cave, NEW ZEALAND DEBENTURES. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN informed the Council, that a communication had been received by telegram that £1,200,000 of the 5 per cent, debentures had been subscribed foy at par, of which £BOO,OOO had been paid. COMMISSIONER OP PUBLIC DEBTS SINKING FUND'. The debate on the question,—That the Commissioners of the Public Debts Sinking Fund be summoned to appear at the bar of the House to explain the cause of their having failed to send in their report within the time required by law—was further adjourned. THE WHITE , EAGLE AND THE STRATHMORE. : The Hon. Colonel BRETT asked the Hon. the Colonial Secretary,—lf any inquiry has been made, either by the Provincial or General Governments, respecting the White Eagle having been at the Crozets Islands on her passage from England to Auckland ; and whether it is true that she saw signals of distress upon the island and rendered no assistThe Hon. Dr. POLLEN stated, in reply, that he had received a letter from Mr. J. Montresor Baldwin, who had been a cabin passenger by the White Eagle, The substance of the letter was that on the morning of the 13th September last, when the ship passed the Crozet Islands, he was on deck. It was blowing a strong gale at the time. He could aver that no signals of any kind were observed, then; they were not aware until afterwards of people being on the island. Dr. Pollen considered the letter he had read sufficient answer to the newspaper paragraph on which the hon. member had founded his question, and had therefore made no further enquiry. „ TIMARU GAS BILL. This Bill was read a third time. STEWART ISLAND GRANTS AMENDMENTS BILL. The -above was read a second time, committed, reported, read a third time, and passed. SECOND READING POSTPONED. The second reading of thS Masterton and Greytown Lands Management Amendment Bill was postponed till Tuesday next. REGULATION OP LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL. The Hon. Mr. G. R. JOHNSON moved that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of inserting a new clause, authorising proxy voting under certain restrictions. Some discussion ensued, the arguments on either side, for and against, being very similar to those already reported on previous discussions.—The Hon. Mr. Buckley pointed out that under this clause there was nothing whatever to prevent a man being solicited for his vote, and so destroying the principle of the ballot. On that ground alone, if for no other reason, he should oppose the clause. On a division the clause was negatived by 10 to 12. The Bill was then road a third time. The Council adjourned at a quarter to four p.m. till the usual hour on Friday next. ,

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, August 8. Tho Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock.

PETITIONS, ETC. ~ Several petitions were presented and notices of motion given.

THE SEPARATION RESOLUTION'S. j The adjourned debate on Sir George Grey s separation resolutions was resumed by Mr. BUTTON, who said that when he moved the adjournment of tho debate he did not intend to subsequently make any lengthy remarks, but during the interval he had become so convinced of the importance of the resolutions that he would have to claim the indulgence of the House for speaking at some length. The importance of the principle embodied in the resolutions could not be too highly estimated, and if the hon. member who

brought them down had duly considered this ou tw, d 1 i ave P ut Ministers on their trial u e wa ?. apprised that Sir George Grey should have linked such questions with the fate of the Ministry, If he thought that these resolutions found favor with the people of the colony generally, he would advocate a plebiscitum for theirjdecision; but as they only found favor-with the people of Auckland and Otago, and were merely now brought down because Sir George Grey and the Auckland party had been defeated on Mr. Whitaker’s resolutions, he could only consider them as the result of mere party feeling, and net pat forward in the interests of the colony. In the*" name o£ that humanity which Sir George Grey so often professed to speak for, he (Mr. 'Button) would ask that gentleman to now consider his action. The attaek of Sir George Grey and of others on Sir Julius Vogel reminded him of Cicero’s oration against Ferres, and led him to conclude that many members of the Opposition might cut passages from the classical authors and repeat them against Ministers without any regard to their applicability. Sir George had asked why Sir Julius Vogel had not at the commencement of the session come down and said that some years ago he had found the country prosperous and had now brought it to ruin. Sir Julius Vogel could not have said this, because it was not true. He had found the country anything but prosperous, and it was now prosperous in every sense. . True, a temporary depression was looked for, arising from circumstances beyond the control of the Ministry—from the fall in the price of wool for instance, for which latter even Sir George Grey could scarcely accuse the Ministry. But he (Mr. Button) would ask whether it was patriotic in the face of a temporary depression to offer a factious opposition? The Government in providing for local government, as a consequence of abolition, had not acted with the palsied hand of which Sir George Grey had spoken, they showed every disposition to act with energy, but were continually thwarted by the aide issues raised by the Opposition. It was not contended that the Government measures were perfect, and the proper course for the Opposition to adopt would he to assist in shaping them, remembering that all good constitutions were matters of slow growth. Creatures of quick gestation were rarely long lived. _The_ first resolution linked finance with separation inseparably, from which it was to be gathered that the rights of humanity and the good of mankind were esteemed by Sir George Grey, just as some more sordid minds esteemed them, as mere matters, of pounds shillings and pence. The Opposition deplored that the Government had drifted deeply into debt, and they proposed as a remedy the creation of three governments. And the same remedy was proposed for the corruption with which the Government were charged. And in this connection he could not help deploring the continual charges of corruption brought against the Government. It was a principle of importance in all communities that those who held leading" positions should not revile the powers that be, and so bring them into general contempt. Every facility for a specific charge of corruption against the Government should he given by the House, but if the system of hurling unsubstantiated reckless charges against the Government were persisted in, a day might come when the Opposition would have a real grievance, but would be like the shepherd boy who cried wolf,. and would not be listened to. The Opposition had brought forward no reasons to show how a federal form of government had advantages over unity. Federation had been always "accepted as a mere compromise where closer connection could not be obtained, and Sir George Grey had himself mentioned the want of compactness in the Grecian confederation as its principal blot. What was the disturbing element that had arisen in New Zealand to cause the wish to separate ? He could only find it in the land fund. Auckland wanted to get quit of its ungenerous brother, Otago, who had refused a share of its land fund, and Otago was willing to cut adrift" from ■ a needy relation by paying its debts and giving it a bonus. Was the whole colony to be broken up on this account ?. Was the body to he severed because the head and tail quarrelled ? As -a representative of one portion of the body, he objected to this anatomical operation. The tendency of all patriotism was to promote unity. Great Britain had been gradually united, and the last American war arose because the patriotism of the North refused to allow the State to be broken up at the caprice of the South. Mr. Buttou quoted the remarks of Earl Carnarvon, in introducing the Bill for uniting the North American colonies of England, in support of his argument. The separation resolutions were based on a, proposition that each island : was to contribute a certain proportion towards the annual charge for the national debt, and Auckland and Otago agreed upon a basis in this respect ; but supposing it should happen, as happen it might, that one part of the colony was unable to pay its share, what would then happen ? Would not one part have to come to the rescue of the other ?. " The argument that bad been advanced, that after, financial separation each island would he in a better position to borrow, seemed to him an anomaly. Each island would only be able to offer a secondary security. And here he would ask, what would the public creditor think of these continued efforts at constitutional changes, this bringing forward of wild schemes,, because the North and South disagreed ? If the whole colony was to be shaken because, two. disagreeing members wished to withdraw, it would be better to let them withdraw, and preserve the harmony c r the middle. (Opposition cheers.) It had b said that the interests of the North and S

were so dissimilar that they could no

governed together. This was an argur that in the face of the present facilitie

interchange and intercommunication was e day losing force.- That might have beer argument years ago, but after having exi. so long in harmony, to now disturb their lations, when all reasons for doing so had disappeared, would be a false and fatal step. Mr. Thomson had said that with two governments the people would be better able to keep their eyes on the Legislature. That was an argument that would prevail more strongly in favor of provincialism, and the country had almost unanimously decided against provincialism. As a matter of fact, with Auckland and Christchurch as legislative centres, the bulk of the people would be practically further from the centre of government than they were now. What the people really wanted to look after was. the administration* and the Government measures were designed to bring that administration to the people’s doors. _ He ridiculed the idea, as stated in the resolutions, that those resolutions proposed to preserve the unity of the colony. Why should the colony be broken up ? Was there not throughout the colony one heart and sympathy, and should a native war break out, as was predicted by the Opposition, the most southern part of the colony would sympathise with the afflicted district, not only by words but by deeds. Was the feeling that they shared m common as the result of a descent from a common stock to bo broken up for a paltry quarrel over a land fund ? He _ hoped not • he rather hoped for continued unity and o-ood feeling. (Loud cheers.) ° Mr. HISLOP rose with considerable trepidation, after Mr. Button, to give his reasons for voting in favor of>’fee resolutions, when, he considered that Mr. Button came from the province of Westland, which had always been disuniting itself from its parent district. He was encouraged to speak on this occasion by the very little that had been said against the resolutions by the ministerial supporters. He would give the reasons which had induced him to become a condemner, not only of the system brought down by the Government, but of the Government themselves. When he heard the Premier in answer to the charges brought against the Government only raise a cry ad mtserecordiam, he must accept those charges as proved, and when he heard the Defence Minister in the face of numerous charges merely attempt to disprove one, he could not hut conclude thatthose charges were correct. The Ministry appeared to act upon the principle that speech was lead, and that the more they used of it the more likely were they to melt it in the furnace of public opinion. The Premier had characterised the arguments of . Sir George Grey as indefinite. That was strange, considering the importance the Premier had attached to those resolutions when they were first

brought down. The Ministry had no right to assume a supercilious indifference, and to ride roughshod over honorable members. Such arrogance on the part of a majority was apt to raise in a minority a feeling that if they were not allowed to use the weapons of reason they might have recourse to those of force. He did not say. that this would be the case on the present occasion, but pointed out how the feeling could he aggravated. It had been said that the Government had not answered the Opposition speeches because they were of too personal a character. No one could more regret tba-u himself the accusations made by Mr. Rees, an"i lie : was sorry that that gentleman had founded them on what had been written by Mr. Handers* as to the hospitality of the Premier, but Mr. Bees had advanced much of an important character that deserved answer. He had heard that silence had been commanded by the Hon. Mr. Stafford, hut he hoped to show that this was untrue, although there did hang around that gentleman the atmosphere of mystery which hung about all great leaders of the people, in the past. Mr. Hislop read extracts from the speeches of Mr. Stafford in 1872,. to show that he would never sit silent under such circumstances, and that he had predicted that a Nemesis would overtake the Premier, under which he would fall and pass out of power. These speeches showed that the member for Timaru could not open communication with the Government, which was in the position that he predicted in 1872, and it was a slur on Mr. Stafford to say that he could be in union with the Government. He should rather recognise in Sir George Grey the Nemesis that he had predicted would overtake a Government that could not answer the arguments of the Opposition, or face the just indignation of the people. Sir Julius Vogel, m Dunedin, had promised the people that if they would support the Public Works scheme it would bring about the financial separation they desired, and he should now therefore be found supporting the resolutions for separation. Those resolutions were not indefinite, hut seemed to him (Mr. Hislop) very definite. The carrying of these resolutions would have no disastrous effect on the country. The House had not been able in the past to overtake the duties prescribed for it by the Constitution Act, and what it had done had been done moat ineffectually, and they were asked in the face of the strongest evidence of this to put upon it in the future all. the duties that had been hitherto performed by the Provincial Councils. The first reason alleged for abolition was the demand foi - money by the provinces; but as the tendency to demand money had been fostered by the General Government, that argument could not stand. He did not think that abolition would cause a cessation of the purchase of support by Government of the representatives of particular districts. • It had been 1 said that one member’s vote had been purchased by the promise of £10,009, to he expended in his district. Knowing what he did of that gentleman, he did not believe the accusation; but it had been reported, and so had other instances. It was not likely that what had been thus commenced would be discontinued; and in such a system all principles of justice and law would disappear. The question as to whether three governments would not cost more than one was to him (Mr. Hislop) of no importance. This was not a question of expense. The people wanted good government, and in order to give it to them cost should be disregarded; but at the same time he did not admit that the three governments proposed in the resolutions would cost more than the present cumbrous system; on the contrary, he.thought they would cost leas. That government was the best which placed most harriers in tbo way of corruption, and the principles before the House, he considered, contained the true germs of the beat form of government. Were they adopted, it could be no longer said that Judges were appointed ta free the Government from the consequences of the public works system, or that a Resident Magistrate who offended the Government was removed on that account. It did seem unjust that an Assembly, elected by a few, ■ should be ■ allowed to deal with the national liberty; and it seemed unjust that an Assembly elected by all the people should deal with property. These contradictions would be reconciled by adopting the principles embodied in the resolutions. As to the remarks made by Mr. Button concerning the body of the colony, he (Mr. Hislop) did net claim to belong to the body, but could claim as much patriotism as Mr. Button, and if he thought the resolu-l tious aimed at the complete political separation! of New Zealand, he would not be found! voting for them. , The legislation would stUll be general for the colony—it was_ only the! adnfinistration that would he localised. Hel looked forward ultimately to -the confedera-|j tion ’of all the Australian colonies, which! would find , its origin in the example thew might now set, by showing how easily federal tion could be brought about in New Zealand! If they went on the present system of bavinfl parochial matters dealt with in that Honsel they, delayed the achievement of AustraliaE| federation; but if by passing the resolutions! they altered that system, they opened up the! door for the creation of a great federated!, nation, and the removal of the wretched fiscal restrictions which divided the Australian colonies. He hoped, in conclusion, that they would now have the Government reasons for not supplying, the' wants of the people who demanded separation. j 3<lr. "WOODCOCK felt at hi 1 coming after two professional gentleman] whose business in life it was to talk. business was to work, and .he" hoped fo| consideration under the circumstances.. H| vas alleged that, the finances- of the. country; ere in a very unsatisfactory' state owing to e large stuns of money borrowed by the| ivemment, of which they had expended a| rge portion in purchasing hangers on and| importing a Civil Service* of a gigantief f! fature. It was said that unless this was put a] Stop to ruin and disaster stared the colony in| the face. But what was the remedy proposed! for this state of things ? Why, by preserving the unity of the colony by _ dividing it into two distinct parts. And in order _ to! effect retrenchment in the .Civil Service,! the Opposition proposed to add two other civil services to the present. He feared that the separation resolutions and the speeches in favor of them would be a puzzle to the future historian of New Zealand, who would have to discover that unity was to be achieved by division, and retrenchment by ; multiplication. A great deal had been said about the national. indebtedness. But, supposing the indebtedness was greater than it should be, whose fault was it? Why, the fault of the representatives of the people in authorising the borrowing of large sums. The whole blame should not be cast on the Ministry, to do so was to say that the representatives of the people had been unfit for the trust reposed in them. He was of opinion, however, that far too much had been made of their indebtedness, for nothing had been said of their assets. If the assets of a State or firm exceeded their indebtedness, that State or firm, was in a sound financial position, and increased indebtedness was often a mark of increased prosperity. If a person could borrow at 5 per cent, and invest at 10 per cent, he made a clear profit. The real question, therefore, was whether the money that had been borrowed by this colony had been profitably invested. He contended, despite all the accwSttions against the Government, that the increase in the value of the national estate or property in the colony was in excess of their " increased national indebtedness. It was alleged that the people of New Zealand were heavily taxed. The pressure of taxation depended on the ability of the people to pay; and it did not follow that because the people of one country paid £5 a head of taxation, and the people of another country 10s. a head, that therefore the hitter were practically more lightly taxed. It all depended on the ability to pay. There were gentlemen who maintained that whilst the policy of the Government had been successful, and had benefited the country, still that it would have benefited the, country more had the borrowed money been more judiciously expended, and that far more good would have been done for New Zealand. But were not the various works carried out authorised by the representatives of the people in the House, and therefore those representatives, as well as tbe Government, should be blamed for any injudicious expenditure? The Government was continually represented by the Opposition as a

monster of iniquity and tyranny ; but if they were, that was that the fault of represent!!tives, who should remove them. He could only blame the Government for one thing, that they had not in the past taken a firmer stand against provincial log-rolling, which had diverted a million and a half of borrowed money from the destinations for which it was intended. The Opposition now cried out that in consequence of the results of this log-rolling the country was in danger. He acknowledged that things were not so flourishing just now as they might be, yet he saw no danger, for despite the waste of the million and a half, he saw no disaster imgeuding on so rich a country, so wealthy in national resources. It was no good now to cry over spilt milk, for whatever had been done* badly the people, their representatives, and the Government were to blame in common, and it was unjust to hurl all tbo blame upon the Government. The wholo question now was how to bring matters to a successful ultimate issue. In the face _of the fall in the price of wool and other circumstances, they could not for the moment look for an increase of revenue; and even if the revenue should fall off, what they had to consider was to make the best of things as they were, and they could meet the difficulty by reduction in departmental expenditure. One gentleman had said he could save £2OO 000 a year in this direction. Well, let that gen tleman come down with a scheme to effect this, and he (Mr. Woolcock) would support him. Next, increased taxation was proposed. His idea was iu this direction to tax the property that had been increased m value by the Public Works policy. The owners of that property having become specially benefited by the expenditure of borrowed money, should specially contribute towards _ the interest on that money. In connection with this he might say that the question of a change in the incidence of taxation must be soon faced, or the latent discontent of the people would burst forth and demand it. If neither of the courses indicated were adopted, he held it would be a statesmanlike and legitimate course to issue Treasury bills to tide over a temporary difficulty. They should have no hesitation in borrowing money to provide for the construction of works undertaken, and of those absolutely necessary and safe to be remunerative. He felt confident that their credit would soon be better, and they could borrow favorably the money necessary for these purposes. He could not see the cloud impending or the breakers ahead that the Opposition dreaded. They, however, did see these things, and provided a panacea for all anticipated evils which would remedy none of them. They proposed to maintain the unity of the colony by a queer process that quite puzzled him. Expenditure was to be reduced by adding two governments to the present. He failed altogether to see the economical character of these proposals. If they had the three governments proposed, the same machinery now required for local government.would still be required ; therefore, no advantage in the way of local government would be attained. The same machinery would be necessary under three governments as there was now required under one. If by any process of reasoning he could arrive at the conclusion that separation would provide economy, would increase the development of the country, and advance its credit, he would support separation, hut he thought the resolutions would only increase discord, and would not promote the growth of that national feeling on which our future prospects considered it the duty of every member to express his opinion during this debate. The Opposition had been accused of inconsistency, but he thought unfairly, because, although they saw and admitted provincialism had gone, still they wished to secure for the future a system of government which would approach nearest to the old form. He quoted the Constitution Act to show that provincial government had been the foundation. of the New Zealand constitution, and argued that the great work of governing the colony had from the first been committed to the provinces, with the: exception of larger^duties which the provinces might refer to the General Government. He denied that the character of the early constitution at first was municipal, and that ,it- was intended that the General Government should gradually absorb " the small provincial governments. He read part of Mr. Gladstone’s speech, to show that that statesman hacrturetdld the difficulty which had arisen in consequence of tjie central Government being allowed to the action of , the provincial legislatures, and he also quoted to show that Mr. Gladstone was greatly in favor of the Legislative Council bein" constituted of -representatives sent by the district legislatures.. He considered. there had been a mistake jp the past in having divided the colony into six provinces. It would have ! been much better had • provinces been created according to necessity as population increased. He pointed to the evil which the colony i had come to through-the york of the General; Assembly, and in. speaking of the present Min- 1 : istry took the opportunity of regretting that Mr.,, Stafford had'not held the reins of Government for the past few years. f Hedid notagree with Mr. Stafford on constitutional questions, and he was sorry that that hon. gentleman had ; sullied his reputation by supporting the Minjs- . Jry; but stiff he recognised his great ability ; and honesty, and" felt sure that if , he had 1 , brought forward the Public Works’scheme —". and he had been the originator of it—it would have been a rational scheme, and the country; would not now have to complain of a corrupt, extravagant, and in every, way disgraceful Government. He condemned the Public Works scheme as the .work of a .'charlatan; and in speaking of abolition and its effects said it; was a measure which ’ had been brought forward, not by a patriot, but by a conspirator against tbe interests of the colony.. He considered the Counties Bill a very crude affair, and . said the Government, by bringing I forward such a Bill after, two years’ consider*-. ; tion of the constitutional question, showed their | jitter incompetence. Each of these counties i would require a chairman, secretary, treasurer, room to meet in, &c.-, so- that, expense would ‘ not be saved by abolition, and in effect such a ! system would but necessitate more taxation, iThe Government had got the colony in a mess, . r t&ation7^xl f deviseef “a sc/i?tne S which would heavily tax every community,’ while it gave no guarantee that the outlying districts would be better cared for than- previously. ' Ho admitted that counties might be necessary in the future, but the time was not yet come. He spoke of the good effect of federalism, as it would bring about the division of the labor ofgoverning and real representative government, because there were many clever men who could not wholly neglect their business by spending a" large portion of the year at one particular part of the colony. Thus, under the federal system, legislation would be better considered, and the finances of the colony more carefully scrutinised. The Imperial Parliament had been cited as an instance of the benefits of centralisation, hut he thought that the instance should be taken as a warning rather than as an example. The best Scotch writers said it would be much better had there been a Scotch Parliament; and he referred to the discontent in Ireland to show that a central legislature did not please that section of the Empire, and said if he were an Irishman he should be a very pronounced Home-ruler. It was rather remarkable that a system of provincialism had been advocated in England, and that even Mr. Eox, a late member of the New Zealand Parliament, had concurred in the idea, and had made the rather peculiar admission that in time to come it might be necessary to re-erect provinces in New °Zealand. He mentioned Switzerland, Holland, the "CTuited States, and Canada, as exhibiting the good effects of provincialism, and concluded that centralism would be extravagant, and lead to a servile Parliament and a system of government by bureaucracy. He supported the proposal for two governments, not because ho considered it the best form of federalism in the abstract, but because it appeared the most likely to bo obtained under tbe present circumstances. He considered tbo complaint of tbe other side, that the scheme of the hon. member for the Thames had not been elaborated, a very foolish one, and he cited the instance of what had been done in the Canadas to show that in that case the course now pro-

posed had been followed. In further remarks he spoke of the position the Canterbury members were taking, and expressed great re " gret that men coming from good families and of high education, after 25 years settlement in the colony, had come to the miserable conclusion that they were unable to govern themselves, and asked the central Government to take care of them. After deprecating the idea of insular separation, he went on to comment upon the tergiversation of Sir Julius yo„el since he accepted office on the, provincial ticket. Ho concluded by a last appeal, especially to the Canterbury members, for the sake of their patriotism/ to consider the result of a system of centralisation, and vote for the resolutions of the hon. member for the Thames, which, if carried, would lead to purity and honesty in high places, real government, financial safety, and the establishment of the credit of the colony. (Cheers.) ..... ; Mr. BRYCE commenced by criticising the speech of Dr. Hodgkinson. He confessed he felt surprised that the hon. gentleman should have felt it right and proper to appeal to the patriotism of hon. members who, aooordingto his statement, were entirely devoid of political morality. - It would be easy to obtain correspondence in connection with the Constitution Act bearing a different construction to that put upon it by the hon. member. He had not made use of real argument. The proposal to establish 39 counties it might have occurred to him was not a proof of a desire tor centralisation. The experience of tha last election was in favor of the Government policy." The hon. gentleman had stated that provision would doubtless be made for amendments on the resolutions before the House,' but how could they contemplate amendments when the House was net made acquainted with what the provisions were to be under those resolutions. He thought it would have been much better to have brought down a vote of want of confidence than these resolutions. He agreed with a good deal said about the.financial position of the colony, which he thought was not duo so much to “ detraction” as to the fact that the moneylenders thought our borrowing very large in proportion to our means of repayment. _ Whilst the Government wore partly responsible for the present financial position, it should be remembered that when the Public Works policy was first inaugurated it was only proposed to spend about one million, but since then a much larger sum had been spent per annum, and that had been spent in consequence of pressure brought to boar upon the Government by the people who now condemned that expenditure. One thing was evident from the resolutions, that the federal government was to have no revenue except such as would be doled out by provincial governments; and this was a curiosity, that a penniless government such as that was to be responsible for the colonial debt. He thought the hon. gentleman should have told them whether the House was to continue as it was, and the same as to the Legislative Council. Did he mean under the new constitution to do away with that House ? He believed the hon. member for the Thames had a great sympathy with struggling humanity, and did not believe he was actuated by a derive to obtain spurious popularity ; but nevertheless he was very much astonished at some of his statements this year, which, taken in comparison with those made last year in connection with the constitution of the colony, were eminently contradictory. It was now proposed to separate, in order to federate, which it seemed to him was an abuse of tbe English language —a complete contradiction of terms. As to the consolidation of the surplus land revenue, he thought it quite possible that the amendment spoken of by the member for Riverton might considerably modify that proposal, “than which,” said the hon. member for the Thames, “ what could be more noble?” As to the statement that the Southern members bad been the cause of the native war, he was always _ convinced that war was inevitable. He believed now that the danger of a native outbreak was ■ considerably magnified, ■ but if a possibility existed now, it would still exist on separation taking place, and the South would not then escape responsibility, although they might not have -any control over the management of the Maoris; and" how, in such a case, he would ask, was tbe North to-pay its share of the public debt? The speaker then referred to the speech of Mr. Rees, and his allusion to the .private hospitality of-the Bremier, which was lin the worst possible - taste, out of place, and ’ uncalled for. : He was not at all sure that any weakness the Premier might be possessed of iu that direction did not spring from kindly feeling, liberality, and generosity of heart. As to what had been said about the -advantages of representation! to be obtained by tbe proposals of the Opposition] he denied that members coming from outlying districts would be better represented, say by. coming to Canterbury than by coming to Wellington. He believed the policy of the present Government had been as a whole successful, and considered that the present Ministry were far more fitted to hold the reins of government than any other that could be formed from tbe members of the House. " '

-Mr. WHITAKER said he should be sorry to allow the debate , to close without expressing. his views upon the subject before the House, the more especially because it was a subject" to’ which, for many years he had devoted a considerable amount of attention. He was one of the, first to bring forward this .question, many,years ago, in the Provincial Council of Auckland, and whether or not it was. a party question (as it had been called by the hon. member for Hokitika), he could say 1 thdt he had -never had an opportunity of; bringing forward the subject in any legislature of this country, in ; which he had not done so. JfheT e f° re » he ’should have brought it forward ; on this ( occasion if the - hon. member • for thes Thames had not done so before him. He thought the action of Sir George Grey was quite consistent with the course he Had- formerly pursued and the ■opinions he had: expressed. In 1865 a resolution was brought forward in that House. He was-not a party to that resolution, as be was not then a member of the House, but in 1806 he was, and the first thing he did was to give notice of a, motion for what he thought was improperly called; separation, and the name of .separation was, not applicable to what it was proposed to effect by these resolutions on the present occasion. That resolution was lost by a' considerable majority. The one great difficulty in all these propositions was .financial separation, to make provision as to the proportion which each island should bear of the public debt. He felt that difficulty in 1866, and had therefore merely moved a general resolution that a reasonable adjustment _ of t]ie debt should be made. But on this occasion they had actually came to an arrangement. They had got rid of the great difficulty as to the position of theGoveru"ments and the amount of public debt to be allotted to each division of the colony. Thus they had taken a great step in advance. These two important matters being arranged, everything else was as easy as possible. (Hear, hear.) The important point for his Consideration to-night was the mode in which he conceived these resolutions should be given effect to and carried out with a view to the advantage of both ends of the colony. The first resolution deolaredi“ That in the opinion of this House the state of the colony requires that its financial and constitutional arrangements should be reconsidered.” He would ask who objected to that ? It appeared to him that it was admitted with regard to the question of finance. That had boon discussed already, and he was not going to introduce the subject again to-night. He asked simply whether the affairs of the colony did not require re-arrangement and adjustment ? It was a constitutional question, and that such a necessity existed appeared to be equally admitted by all ; otherwise, why abolition ? The abolition question was disposed of. The provinces as they used to exist were gone. (Hear, hear.) Something was to be put in their place, and therefore he maintained the House had admitted, without question or doubt (in the words of the first resolution), that in the opinion of this House the financial and constitutional arrangements of this colony should bo re-con-sidered. He could not see how any member could possibly vote against that resolution, seeing what had taken place already in the House, They had got rid of the provinces, and as something to put in their place, the

Government had brought forward resolutions on the one hand, and the hon. member for the Thames had brought forward resolutions also. Now this question must not be mixed up with the others. The question was, “ Which shall we adopt of these two propositions?” The Government were improving the machinery for municipal corporations, for levying rates, for local elections, &c., and to all that he agreed. That was quite necessary, and it would be equally necessary if the plan prepared by the hon. member for the Thames were adopted. There was no question about that. Whatever might be done, it was quite certain that different arrangements would have to be made. Next he came to the extension of counties. Should we have them in the form proposed by the Government, : or should we adopt the proposition of Sir George Grey as to the two provinces. That was the question at issue ; that was the point members had to discuss. Did they prefer counties, as proposed by the Government, or two local governments one in the North Island, and one in the South Island, With regard to the counties, he might state" that, in his opinion, they appeared to be a cumbersome piece of machinery, and of that description which would be found very difficult to work, and. expensive also. Therefore, whether they adopted the resolutions of the Government or not, this matter of the counties would require readjustment. With regard to the expenditure under the county system, first of all he supposed they must have a’ paid chairman ; next, he supposed they would require a treasurer, then a secretary ; and then there would be the travelling expenses of members, and buildings would have to be erected for them to carry on their business in. Then, when they added all that together, they must multiply it by 39. Even then they had not provided for everything. They had not provided for those cases in which main roads and public works impinged bn two counties. Well, that Was the proposition. Then, what had they got from the hon. member for the Thames? He proposed to consider what were the advantages of and objections to those resolutions. First of all he would consider how it was intended to proceed. _ He could excuse some hon. members for asking bow he intended to carry out the proposals ; but there were others in the House whom he could not excuse. Now, the hon. gentleman, the Premier, began to speak of the resolutions by saying that their English was bad. As to that, he thought the criticism on those resolutions was quite as bad as they were, and he would refer the Premier to a little elementary work, on grammar, written for the instruction of small boys at school. He maintained that the resolutions were perfectly clear. The Premier also stated that the proposals were bald and meagre, and did not convey to tbe House sufficient information. He (the speaker) saw his friend the hon. member for Timaru on the opposite side of the House, and he remembered that when he (Mr. Whitaker) brought forward a similar resoluticnin 1866, and proposed to makeageneral statement such as that before the House, his hon. friend said it was most unfair, and that he ought to have brought forward something more than that. He was led into the trap, and did so. In his innocence he laid before the House the whole form of the proposed government. Then, when his hon. friend came to criticise it, he did not discuss the principle of the measure at all, but confined himself to attacldng all the details. The hon. member for tbe Thames had not given .the members of the Government an opportunity of adopting such a course, and in doing so he had shown great wisdom. What they wanted was to settle the principle of the question, and that was the financial arrangements. Everything else, he was confident of being able to show, was without doubt perfectly simple and easy. It was proposed first of all to preserve the unity of the colony. It was a mistake to suppose that there was any desire to sever the unity of the colony, and when hon. gentlemen spoke of separation they were speaking "adversely to the resolutions. Some hon. members seemed to think that the object was to make two colonies, but he understood that the colony was to remain as it was, with certain modifications of the power of the General Assembly. He then proceeded to describe what should be the proper form of government to meet the views of a large majority of those who were likely to vote with him, and referred the House to two or three paragraphs from Earl Grey’s constitutions of 1846. He maintained that at the time they had a Governor and Lieutenant-Governor in the colony there had been more satisfaction as to the government than their had been since. As to the expense of a Governor, there need only be a Governor-Gen-eral, who would have charge of both islands, and the duties of the General Assembly would be so light that it would not be necessary for it to meet perhaps oftener than once in five years. As for an example of this kind of government, it was to he found in New Zealand itself. Before the Constitution of 1846 was granted there were the two provinces, presided over by the one Governor-General.: He should propose that the work of the General Assembly should be confined to dealing with the Customs, Supreme Court, lighthouses, marriage laws,. weights and measures. That would be quite enough for the General’ Assembly to deal with. As to the form of government which should he inaugurated, that was a matter for further consideration perhaps, but he should be inclined to see for each island a government similar to that which now existed for the whole colony ; a responsible Ministry and two Houses of Assembly, having powers to deal with all matters except with those he had mentioned; and as to these particular subjects he should not be at all averse to an arrangement by which an Act, if adopted without alteration in spirit or language by the provincial assemblies of both islands, should be law for the whole colony. The Premier had spoken about, the public, debt, and made some enquiries as to whether it was proposed to repudiate the debt. Who had suggested such a thing? It had not been mentioned in the House, and he considered it highly reprehensible’ for the Premier to have hinted at such a thing. The way to get over that would bo to make it a condition precedent of separation that the Customs revenue, and if necessary other branches of the revenue, should be paid , into the hands of the GovernorGeneral, to meet charges on account of the debt. There would then be no “doling out contributions to the Colonial Government.” The debt would remain in the hands of the Colonial Government, and the Customs revenue would be impounded to meet the charges on account of it. It was to be hoped nothing more would be said about dealing iu an unsatisfactory manner with the public creditor—he would be paid in full to the last shilling. The salaries of tha Governor-General, the Judges of the Supreme Court, and the civil list should also bo made a colonial charge, and duly provided for, no interference in such matters by the provincial assemblies being allowed. As he had said before. New Zealand itself furnished a precedent for this condition of tilings, as before the present constitution came in and smashed up existing institutions, it was in existence in the colony. The United States, the greatest example of federation in government, also furnished a precedent, the strength and appositeness of which could not be denied. Germany, too, which had been quoted in opposition to the proposal of the hon. member for the Thames, was a case in point on the other side. The whole policy of Bismarck’s administration of Germany was to bring about a state of affairs in that country analagous to the system proposed to be established by the resolutions now before the House. What were the kingdoms of Saxony, Bavaria, and other kingdoms but provinces—each had its local legislature, and made laws subject to the higher Assembly of the Empire. Again, it was now proposed to bring into operation in Cape Colony a similar condition of things, and there was a very general desire to bring into operation the federal scheme of government the hon. member for the Thames had proposed for that colony some years ago. Canada was also referred to as an instance. In 1839 East and West Canada united, but in 1867 they carried into effect the identical proposal now before tbo House in reference to this colony. There wao really no difficulty in the proposition, and bo hinted that those gentlemen who had previously complained of want of know*

ledge of the proposals of the hon. member for the Thames, would feel that that that knowledge had been given to them, and would vote for the resolutions. Comments had been made-as to the expense of establishing the governments, but really it seemed as if hoh. members on the other side were fond of setting up ninepins in order to knock them down again. A vast expenditure would not be required- —for instance, such extravagance as was exhibited on the beach here would not be perpetrated ; and the officers of the Government would be ■ better paid, though a less number would be required. To the House there were uow returned thirt-y three members from the North Island, of which three came from Auckland, and the assumption was that these three members ruled the country. As a country member he denied this. It was a fallacy to suppose that the towns ruled the country. During his whole political career he had endeavored to support the country, oven some times to the disadvantage of the towns. He had no dread of the supremacy of the towns under the proposals of Sir George Grey. The country had all the advantage of the majority of representation, and if they let the towns overrule them, that was their own fault.. He denied that the separation proposals would increase the cost of government. On the contrary, were such things liable to be contracted for, he would be happy to contract for carrying on the government under the separation proposals at a reduction on the present cost. The geographical characteristics of the two islands demanded separation. -The North Island had fern and Maoris, the South Is-, laud grass and sheep. The natives were virtually governed by the South Island people, who knew nothing about them. Put the native matters into North Island hands, and they would know when to be firm and when not, and they would not he tampered with as they were now. The Northern people, too, would be prepared to give the Maoris the franchise, and make them politically equal with the white man. Separation would get rid of the land fund question, which he had proposed to get rid of the other day in a reasonable fashion, but the majority in the House did not agree with him. However, he would make a similar proposition next session. But separation would dispose of this question, and leave the land fund as a hone of contention to the South, which no doubt they would quarrel over. Mr. Whitaker went on to show how separation would put Auckland financially right, and they would not have to come begging to tbe Assembly. It was no use discussing the question of whose fault it was that the province of Auckland was in financial difficulties; the province simply was in difficulties, and that was its misfortune, not its fault. Then .Taranaki had existed on its pet Superintendent and an allowance from the State, but when that Superintendent departed what would become of Taranaki? Again, Hawke’s Bay had practically parted with all its lands. Wellington had a certain land .fund, but that could not last long. On the whole the North Island therefore was in a position that required readjustment. His own..proposition to that end had been rejected ; that of Sir George Grey’s was accepted by many who had voted against his (Mr. Whitaker’s), and it would now be well to agree upon a bargain by which all would gain. Another advantage of separation would be that public business would be transacted, and important measures would not be thrown overboard at the end of the session, as under existing circumstances must inevitably he the case. He knew no better mode, in short, of getting rid of the difficulties that surrounded them than by conforming to the resolutions before them. He had had experience of all Governments in New Zealand, and he could say that they had never had more satisfactory government than when only two provinces were in existence. In deference to the wish of the House, he had gone into the details of the government proposed by the separation resolutions, and he demanded support for the™. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN was glad that at last the question had emerged from the atmosphere of personalities which had surrounded it hitherto. Hitherto the Government had had to reply to reckless accusations and reckless figures. The Government recognised their position in the House, and would not discuss questions which had never been heard in the House before, and he trusted would never be heard again—questions of private hospitality. The Hon. Mr. Bowen spoke at some length, but the late hour at which he addressed himself to the question prevents a report of his remarks being given in this issue. At 12.35 Sir. Keadeu Wood moved the adjournment of the debate, which was carried, and the House adjourned until half-past two o’clock this day.