PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4800, 10 August 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, August 9. The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. Several petitions were presented and notices of motion given. QUESTIONS. Mr. TAIAROA asked the Native Minister, —What course the Government intend to take with reference to the applications made to them by Korako Karetai for compensation for stone taken from bis land tor the purpose of the erection of a lighthouse and* buildings at Otago Heads ? The Hon. Sir DONALD McLEAN said that a letter had been received on this subject and sent down to the Native Agent to report upon. No report had been received, but the Native Agent had been telegraphed to to send up the letter. Mr. GIBBS asked the Defence Minister, —If he will inform the House what has been done towards a modification of the restrictions on the sale of arms and ammunition, which it was promised last session the Government would consider, with a view to something being done during the recess ? The Hon. Sir DONALD McLEAN said that Orders in Council were now being prepared, to relax the restrictions in certain portions of the colony. THE SEPARATION RESOLUTIONS. The debate on these resolutions was resumed by Mr. READER WOOD, who said that he congratulated Ministers that they had at length deigned to enter the lists, and he congratulated the Parliament that Ministers had not been able to strangle the debate in its commencement, for it would have been a disgrace to the country if the debate had been burked, and a vote taken upon the resolutions without discussion. These debates were most important, and might be regarded as the death knell of a constitution under which people had lived happily, and the country had prospered, for thirty years. It was impossible to forecast what the new constitution would be, from the peculiar state of parties in the House. There was the Government party, such as it was, and their two wretched Bills, temporary and timeserving, and merely designed to postpone the evil day whilst they carried on by means of Treasury bills. At first Government had threatened to push on their Bills, but suddenly they seemed anxious to avail themselves of any delay, because probably they found that the majority on which they calculated did not exist. There was, then, a party of a statesmanlike character, which wanted one purse for the colony. Next were those supporting the resolutions, and their proposals were most satisfactory, and would meet every difficulty under which the colony labored. It appeared to him that there were only two courses which were open to the House to adopt. One was that pointed out by Mr. Whitaker, which was negatived, and the other was that embodied in the resolutions. If an intermediate course should be discovered, it would be merely temporary, and would only avert for a brief time the certain ruin which was impending. The speech of Mr. Whitaker on this subject the previous night was unanswerable, and established an impregnable outwork. The Minister for Justice had risen to answer, with a swelling front, and with the light of victory in his eye, and he (Mr. Wood) trembled at first lest Mr. Wliitaker’s outwork should be demolished, and it would fall to him (Mr. Wood) to reinstate that outwork and restate his arguments. But he was reassured when the Hon. Minister for Justice, instead of answering Mr. Whitaker, contented himself with attacking Mr. Rees and calling him in Greek a wretch. That was a style of argument only suited to a Billingsgate fishwoman, and yet the gentleman who used it deprecated personalities. Mr. Rees had been accused of reckless accusations. Mr. Rees had accused the Native Minister of having fouled the sources of justice at their fount by removing Major Roberts, the R.M. at Tauranga, because he had committed for bribery (a friend of the Government. (Sir Donald McLean : Quite untrue.) Now what were the facts ? Major Roberts had been promoted to Tauranga, where he secured respect, friends, and a home. He heard the evidence in a charge of bribery against a partizan of the Government, and committed him, and that partisan was found guilty and fined. Immediately an edict came ordering him back to Taupo, from where he had been promoted, and despite his own demand for reasons and the request of the people, the edict was maintained, and Major Roberts sooner than quit Tauranga left the service. It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that he was removed in consequence of his having committed the person aforesaid. Was that then a reckless accusation on the part of Mr. Rees ? Next, as to Mr. Rees’ reckless statements about finance. Mr. Rees had said that the Colonial Treasurer this year, by a stroke of his pen, had altered the national balancesheet, and the Financial Statement of the Colonial Treasurer of last year was incorrect. Well, had not Sir Julius Vogel admitted to having altered the balance-sheet, and also admitted that last year’s statement was incorrect, merely saying that it was natural that it should be so ? Mr. Montgomery last year had repeatedly pointed out that Major Atkinson’s estimate of coming revenue would not be realised, but Major Atkinson stuck to his estimate. Did this bear out the assertion that, Mr. Rees’ accusations were reckless ? The Hon. Minister for Justice, after calling Mr. Rees a wretch in Greek, quietly glided over the first resolution, and quite unexpectedly attacked the second, which affirmed the unity of the colony, saying that whoever had drawn up the resolutions seemed to have the oppressive feeling of murderonhissoul. Then they were treated to an impressive sentence or two on the progress and advancement of the colony, which disposed of the third resolution. For the fourth, the Hon. Mr. Bowen said that after all kinds of trouble Ministers could not understand the basis on which it was formed. The simple basis was that the North agreed to contribute as much as it could afford, and he could not see that any other basis could have been adopted. Of the fifth resolution the Hon. Mr. Bowen said that it provided no machinery for local government. Certainly it did not. That it was proposed to leave to the new legislatures which it was proposed to create, thus carrying out the principle of leaving each island to manage its own affairs. Next the Hon. Mr. Bowen indulged in a panegyric on the Premier, which only sent the Premier to sleep. Finally they had a peroration about their children, and there the magnificent reply to Mr. Whitaker ended. He (Mr. Wood) had been asked to reply to that, but it was impossible with even the keenest sword to demolish mere feathers floating in the air. In answer to Mr. Button, who said that the people were not interested in the question, he maintained that the people of Auckland and Otago to a man were in favor of these resolutions. (Loud cries of no, and counter, cries.) The Auckland people would have been contented to hold on to unity, but since the resolution of Mr. Whitaker’s had been rejected, and so the idea of a common purse had been disposed of, they were for separation, ; Mr. Button had said of the separation

proposals “ suppose one portion is unable to pay its share ?” Why such a remark was applicable to the colony at the present moment. Mr. Wood denied that the resolutions had been brought forward with a party object. He could not understand this, was not all that was done here done by means of party action? These resolutions were not brought however, as a mere party move to turn the Government out, for if the Government would admit that their own measures were wrong, and would adopt those ■ of the Opposition, why the Opposition would tell them to retain their seats, and they would assist them in passing separation. If these resolutions were not carried, the Opposition were quite ready to agree with Mr. Button, and to let Auckland and Otago, the head and tail of the colony, go, and permit the body to remain. Mr. Bryce had made a speech that was listened to with great satisfaction from both sides of the House; his was the speech of a statesman, that of the Hon. Mr. Bowen was the speech of a man who had got to speak and did not know what to say. Bryce had asked why the Opposition had not brought in a vote of want of coni!deuce instead of these resolutions. Well, the reason for this was that they expected to carry these resolutions. (Laughter). If Sir George Grey at the beginning of the session had brought in a vote of want of confidence, he would have carried it and got into office. He would have been asked for a policy and proposed separation. Mr. Whitaker would have moved a vote of want of confidence and got into power, and then on his policy of making the laud fund colonial revenue he would have gone out. But they had brought down these resolutions instead, and when they were defeated they were prepared to suggest something else. And should they defeated again, it was possible that they might say, “ There is a large party in the House that proposes nothing and negatives everything, therefore go on for ever." He asserted that the profuse expenditure of the Government had not been caused by provincial pressure. The fact was that the Government themselves had not known the pace at which they were going. The Premier’s speech consisted of four points : one, self-glori-fication; the second, abuse; the third, criticism of the resolutions; and the fourth, a defence of the Civil Service, which had never been attacked. He had criticised the resolutions as flimsy, as not giving details; but were not all great constitutional changes brought about in the first instance .by debate upon mere resolutions 3 This was the case in the English Parliament, and to oome nearer home was the case in our own Parliament, as witness the abolition resolutions of the Premier in 1871. And yet the Premier talked of the telegraphic brevity of the resolutions. Should the resolutions be carried, it was quite open to theparty that supported them to settle their details, and instead of having lieutenant-governors in each colony, they might have elected presidents, whom he would like to see chosen by manhood suffrage. Mr. Wood next referred to finance, and contrasted the promises of the Premier in 1870 with the performances of 1876. In 1870 the Premier was like Aladdin and his lamp. £500,000 had been spent as proposed in purchasing a landed estate for the Northern Island, and yet the North Island in regard to a land fund was no better than it was before. In order to get this money passed the astute Premier played upon the prejudices of both islands. This was an example of the bad working of the conflicting interests of the two islands in one chamber, which had there been separation would have been avoided. The Premier had proposed to spend £10,000,000 in ten years, and had prophesied that in time much of this expenditure would pay its own interest directly. He had framed tables to prove this. Six, years had come and gone, the £10,000,000 had been expended, and there was a loss last year on the working of the railways of £6OOO. Befere long, however, Government found that their dream would not be realised, and so they took a new departure. At this time the only interest taken in finance was in the Upper House, but Dr. Pollen reassured the dread felt there. The present position, however, had dispelled all his reassurances. They had spent £5,000,000 more than was estimated by Dr. Pollen in 1873, and they had 200 miles of railway less than were promised to be constructed. When the Premier had brought down his scheme in 1870, he (Mr. Wood) characterised it as a delusion, and asked the House to pause; but the House refused, and he now asked whether it would not have been better had they done so? The only point which might have been asked for from Sir George Grey had not been asked in the speeches criticising what he said. He should have been asked in what position the two islands would be after paying their contributions towards the interest on the national debt. He took it their position would be this ; the resources of the North Island would be — Customs’ revenue, £600,000; Land Fund, £130,000 ; making a total of £730,000. From this would have to be deducted—lnterest on colonial debt, £190,000 ; interest on provincial debt, £67,000 ; a total of £257,000, leaving £473,000 for carrying on Government and public works. The resources of the South Island would be —Customs’revenue, £961,000; Land Fund, £799,000 ; making a total of £1,760,000. From this would have to be deducted —Interest on colonial debt, £625,000; interest on provincial debt, £151,000 ; a total of £776,000 ; leaving £984,000 for carrying on government and public works. Mr. Wood pointed out that the topographical features of New Zealand favored separation, and, in conclusion, asked the House not to impose a constitution on Otago and Auckland which the people of those provinces would not have. It could only be done, as Spain had governed the Netherlands, by an overwhelming force, in the same way that Austria had ruled Italy, and that England had imposed a Government on Ireland. In the name of the people of Otago and Auckland he implored the House not to act in this manner, but to leave them free, even if the rest of the colony accepted as a king him whom they almost deified—the Premier of the colony.

Mr. STAFFORD, who on rising was received with loud cheers, remarked that it was not until the previous day that any interest had been imported into the debate, which he must admit had been done by the speech of the hon. member for Waikato. Not that he (Mr. Stafford) altogether agreed with the complaint about the meagreness of the resolutions themselves, for he recognised that resolutions of the character of those brought down by the hon. member for the Thames should be framed so as to merely affirm a general principle to be elaborated afterwards ; but at the same time he did complain of the want of information on the subject, for members certainly required some indication, some direction as to what was to follow in the case of the principle being affirmed. No such indication had been given until the hon. member for Waikato had spoken. The House had been left to imagine what was to follow, and to guess what might be the particular course to be adopted to effectuate the proposals in the resolutions. But why had the explanation come from the hon. member for Waikato instead of from the hon. member for the Thames ? He was quite at a loss to understand what political relationship there could be between the two, that one should speak for the other, or why it should have devolved upon the latter gentleman to explain resolutions which had been introduced by the hon. member for the Thames in a speech which related to everything under the sun except the question at issue. And why had succeeding speakers, till Mr. Whitaker rose, spoke in the same pointless manner,. There had been a great deal of financial reference, which would have been proper in another debate—as the constituencies wished their members to consider the financial position of the colony, and hon. members would have to do so before they separated—and a great deal of which might have been done without altogether; but the subjects more especially pertinent in the present debate had been entirely left alone. There had been no reference, to the form of government to be adopted, what was to be the legislative and executive action of the future, what was to become of future liabilities and debts of the colony ? The hon. member for the Thames had altogether failed to address himself to such questions as these. Proceeding to criticise those portions of the speeches of the hon. members for Bivef--

■ Waikato, which, had reference to him (Mr; Stafford)) He- dfefended himself from charge* of inconsistency, and said if the occurr®nG®®; 1872; were to again take place he should again found uttering exactly the' same sentiments. The compliments those gentlemen had passed upon him seemed to be of the nature of a “ draw,” but they would be lost upon him, as he was not likely to be drawn except when he had a desire to be drawn, and just now_ he was not so inclined. As to the question before the House, he thought it analogous in one respect to the resolutions rejected the other evening. Speaking of these, Sir George Grey had said it was of little use them, because members had long since decided how they would vote, and he (Mr. Stafford) thought the same remark would a P.ply to these resolutions, at any rate it certainly would so far as he was concerned, and' he must agree to differ with the hon. member for Riverton on the assertion that he (Mr, Stafford) had cast a blot upon his political character in having set his face against provincialism and years ago decided, to work for a united colony. He recognised that that hon. gentleman had spoken from, conscientious conviction of the value of provincialism, and he respected his opinions,, though he could not go with him in any of his arguments. As to his having been ashamed' of Canterbury members, he (Mr. Stafford) begged leave to say that he was not a Canterbury member, and he hoped none of the members coming from Canterbury sat in that Parliament simply as representatives of a particular district. He vindicated his whole career in this respect, and asserted that for tjie twenty years he had represented constituencies in that House—and he had only represented Nelson and Timaru—he had always refused to be tied:, down to sit as the delegate of a particular dis- W trict. He had sat to work for the colony, o*' course paying every attention to matters which purely and simply affected his district; and he , would say further that till the ether day he had never attended a territorial caucus. He had always objected to such meetings, and he much regretted that in an evil moment he had' fallen from his virtue. One thing was certain, he would never do it again. Meetings of parties he should always be ready to attend, because he recognised that party warfare was essential to good government, and here he would revert to a remark which had fallen from the hon. memberfor Waitaka (Mr.Hislop), whose speech' he had listened to with pleasure. It had been said he (Mr. Stafford) had always shown unwillingness to co-operate with members south of the Waitaki. Such was not the case; but he' had always regretted that the members who came from that part of the country, and whose experience and intelligence entitled them to take a leading part in the government of the colony, should have confined their abilities to governing one particular spot, instead of going in to help on the interests of the colony as a whole. When he saw them cast aside petty provincial jealousies and assume the position of statesmen of the colony, he should be glad to hold out to them the right hand of fellowship and assistance. He had sympathised with the speech of the hon. member,, and had been exceedingly glad to hear him speak in kindly terms of the people of the province of Auckland. There could be no doubt that the compact of 1856 had in its results been an unfortunate thing for Auckland and for the colony, and he was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Waikato say the House had not heard the last of colonising the land fund, and pledge himself to bring the resolutions forward again next year. He (Mr. Stafford) thought he might venture a prophesy and say that the proposition, if brought forward next year, would secure a larger number of votes than it had done this year. As to the other portions of the speech of the honorable member for Waikato, he must admit he had been surprised by them. For instance, when the hon. member Had said he had always been a separationist he had thought credit must be given the hon. member for having kept his opinions so completely in reserve. He had been a member of a Ministry five years, and he had been Premier of the colony for two years, and if the records of the House were searched, they would not furnish any proof of the hon. member’s assertions. It was true he had in 1866 proposed separation, but since then he had not given a sign which would have led one to suppose he still held the same opinions, till the other evening, when he gave notice of his resolutions. And in 1866 his action doubtless had been mainly due to the irritation under which Aucldand was suffering in consequence of the removal of the seat of Government, which removal he (Mr. Stafford) would say, although he had opposed it, had he believed resulted in better government for the whole of the colony than could have been administered from Auckland. He thought the hon. gentleman had better leave separation alone. Let himsticktothe land fund resolutions. In them he had a reality, not a shadow, such as these separation resolutions were. These resolutions broke down in every particular. Take'the fourth, for instance —“ The Colonial Government being responsible for the colonial debt, for which the annual charge for interest and sinking fund' is £815,000, the North Island shall be charged with £190,000 per annum, and the South Island with £625,000 per annum.” Now, that resolution assumed the whole financial anxiety of the country would at once be ended by provision being made for the interest and sinking fund on the indebtedness of the General Government. But such was not the case, and no one knew better than the hon. member for Waikato that the provincial debts, which had been consolidated, and which could not again be apportioned, had also to be provided for. How would the GovernorGeneral of the colony—who, by the. way, should be made to exchange that grandiloquent title for that of paymaster to the provinces—arrange these provincial debts ? Southern revenue would be called upon to pay for interest on purely local works in the North. Instead of paying merely £815,000, they would also have to provide £220,000 to pay interest on provincial debts. But not a word had been said about this. Hon. gentlemen who meet in private rooms had better go back to their private rooms and arrange this little matter. Sir GEORGE GREY : That has all been determined.

Mr, STAFFORD : If so, why not mention it in the resolutions. Everyone had not the privilege of being present in the private rooms, and when they saw but £815,000 provided for, the only conclusion which could be arrived at was that hon. gentlemen did not know what they were about. If they were going into details, why not do so correctly? There was another point connected with this fourth resolution. It altogether ignored the fact that in; addition to the existing debt there were accruing liabilities. There were liabilities accruing on account of immigration—emigrants who were on the way,, or who were about to be sent out; liabilities on account of railways in course of construction, and railways authorised ; railway plant ordered and expected, and railway plant necessary to be ordered. These things were not paid for yet, and upon whom' was the-liability for these to fall ? An Hox. Member : On property ?

Mr. STAFFORD : 0* property ! On what property ? The North Island property, or the Southern land fund. And what was the proportion ? The hon. member for Waikato had also said he would make the liabilities on account of the public creditor perfectly secure by impounding not only the Customs’ revenue, but also would take the land fund in anticipation,, and upon this remark he would say he should be very pleased to see the land fund in future made the security for any further loans. More than that, when the financial proposals of the Government in reference to the bank stock, of which they had been told, were brought forward he, if no one else did, should move that the land revenue should be made security for the stock and for future loans. This would not be a new principle. The first war loan and other , loans since then < had been raised on this security,.and though he thought it most probable the land revenue would not be required to be touched, still it would give a character to the loans which would lead to the money being secured on much better terms for the colony,, ; It- was somewhat peculiar that money . was being borrowed for the development' of 1 the resources of the •ountry—for the improvement of aproperty, yet

the lender was not allowed to know the property existed. The colony had always been: in the position of a man fighting with one hand tied behind him. , Although we had a lauded estate, tho revenue from which could meet any emergency, we only showed the public creditor our revenue from indirect taxation, knowing at tho same time that indirect taxation was unsafe to rest upon in times of financial emergency. He hoped this anomaly would be done away with, and the credit of the colony would be [studied before an idea. Probably he should be prepared to go further than that soon, although he had not been prepared to do so when the resolutions of the bon. member for Waikato came to the vote. Returning to tho speech of the hon. member for Waikato, that hon. gentleman had set out with the assumption that the matter was settled, and these resolutions would be carried because the apportionment of the debt had been arranged ; but who had agreed the matter was settled ? The House had not done so, and ho sincerely hoped the House would not do so. In support of the promise of happiness and prosperity to accrue to the colony in consequence of the change, the contentment existing under the form of government in vogue in the colony before 1852 had been cited. Had ever an astute and learned gentleman made such an unfortunate reference ? Putting on one side for a moment the fact that the condition of affairs in 1852 did not form a good precedent, seeing that the southern part of the North Island had been separated from Auckland and governed from the South, what were the circumstances of the colony at that time ? First of all there was a population of but nineteen or twenty thousand persons; no communication could be had by post or telegraph; each part qf+hc colony was as completely isolated from tho’Vher as if they were thousands of miles apart];' and could not be reached but by slowly drifting down the coast in sailing boats. The ppn-rtle were struggling hard to get enough to emr Scarcely a man in the whole colony had I a spare £5 note. In this condition it might bo supposed that the people would care little what was the form of government, and their only object would be to get a livelihood. But what was the fact ? Were they satisfied? If so, what wasthemeaning of the constitutional associations in Wellington, in Nelson, and in Canterbury ; what was the meaning of the resolutions passed concerning the form of Government, and demanding a constitution under which representative government could be secured ? These were matters of history, and a visit to the library would furnish the inquirer with plenty of startling information on the subject. If the form of government had been good, and the people had been contented, why had the hon. member for the Thames sat down and thought out a new constitution, and why had that constitution, after having been fought for, been hailed with such delight if the form of government was of a character which was to be desired. Why would not hon. gentlemen remember these facts before they made assertions about there having been a happy and contented and well-governed New Zealand before 1852 ? _ The memory of the hon. member for the Waikato seemed to fail him. Then it had been said that this proposal of the hon. member for the Thames [was an exact copy of the Canadian confederation; that the Govemor-in-Chief would require no responsible advisers—by the way, he pitied the unfortunate GovernorGeneral, who should himself have to make up the provincial accounts that the Colonial Parliament would not be required to meet oftener than once in four or five years —a good deal of legislation, to be done by an ingenious device for securing unanimity between the two provincial assemblies ; and that the Colonial Parliament should have no authority to legislate except on two or three subjects. Now, what were the facts respecting the Canadian constitution ? The Governor-General had responsible advisers. .The Parliament of Canada met, not once in four or five years, but was compelled to meet not less than once a year ; and it dealt not with merely half a dozen subjects, but with twenty-eight various subjects, and moreover had the power to override even authorisations for local public works, railways, and other undertakings in the provinces if it believed they were not necessary or not calculated to be of public advantage. Add to this the fact that Canada was one of the largest territories in the Empire, and that the provinces would be nearly as large as the whole of New Zealand ; that it had been settled at various times by people of various nationalities ; and that having been acquired by conquest peculiar laws were required in different parts of the Dominion out of respect to the feelings of her Majesty’s subjects of different classes, and then it would be seeen that the case of Canada bore not the sb’ghtest analogy to the case of New Zealand. Then it had been said the German Empire was a great federation. Well, we could scarcely compete with the German Empire in size or in importance ; but putting this on one side for a moment, he asserted that the policy of the German Empire had been a policy of consolidation. Why had Hesse, Frankfort, and other States been absorbed into the Empire ? Was it not because of the policy of consolidation? True, Bavaria and Saxony had not been absorbed, hut the reason of this was pretty well known—Russia had objected to the extension of the German Empire in this direction, and for a time Bismarck had stayed his hand, and the same thing had taken place in reference to Saxony, who had a friend in Austria. If hon. gentleman wanted an example of abolition of provincialism in old countries they should look at Italy, and see what course had . there been adopted in order to restore that classic country to its ancient glory. The petty, quarrelling, puny, inefficient governments had been abolished, and not under the pressure of the invasion of a foreigner, but hy the general will and desire of the people themselves, who saw how their country was being weakened by the provincial system. In New Zealand there had always been a central Legislature in the colony, and the intention from the first had been that its influence should extend. As to the complaint that native affairs would be better administered under the proposed new system, he could not agree with such an idea. He pointed out that the natives had ho more to expect from the proposed system than they would from that now f n force ; in fact less. The provincial councils had never shown any interest in the natives, else they would have availed themselves of the Act which had been passed years ago, to enable Maoris to sit in the councils, and called some to assist in the administration of the provinces. The Act had been a, dead letter and not the slightest consideration hL»d ever been shown to the natives. It was clear therefore that the hon. member for - Waikato was not justified in asserting that if thAe were a separation of the two islands, native affairs would not be properly considered by gentlemen representing Southern constituencies, and having residences perhaps in the South. He thought, nay he might go further, and say he was sure that some of the most, successful arrangements with the natives have been made by Southern members, -tie might instance the present Governor of Tasmania, Mr. Weld. There was no man who more sympathised with the natives with whom he came in contact. The Hon. the Native Minister was aware that ho large personal influence with them, and his views regarding them were of a most philanthropic character. They had also had other members of the House from the South who possessed a knowledge of and the goodwill of the natives. There was the late Speaker of the House of Representatives, once Commissioner of Crown Bands. It was he who bought the greater port of tho Taranaki province. He might also refer to Mr. Fitzgerald, who took a great interest in native affairs, and although his proposals were not always accepted by tho Legislature, no one could say that he was not always actuated by the largest philanthropy. He might go on to show there were other gentlemen from the South who displayed a large knowledge of native character. The present Superintendent of Canterbury was one, and Mr. Mantell; tho latter being a person who had shown large powers of . dealing with the. natives, and one who had great influence with* them also. He thought it would ho admitted that he had fully shown how that a knowledge of native affairs and a power of dealing with them were not confined

to Northern members, and he thought he had shown generally that the precedents adduced: by the hpn. member for the Waikato were not favorable to the resolutions before tho House —that they were not really precedents. That gentleman had no exclusive right to come forward as the champion of the natives. The conclusion of the hon. gentleman s speech was he thought one of the moat amusing illustrations of the position of coming as it did from one of undoubted ability and power of language. It amounted to this ruin for all the provinces of the Northern Island. He said that Auckland was in a state of bankruptcy, Taranaki was bankrupt, and that when the present Superintendent ceased to exist the place would bo gone. Hawke s Bay had exhausted its revenue, and had nothing to live upon ; and that Wellington, although temporarily possessed of a small portion of its land fund, had nothing to look to in the future. And therefore, reasoned the hon. gentleman, all four bankrupt provinces should be united together to make one prosperous* community. Instead of speaking thus, the hon. member might have pointed to the possibility of the complete unity of the whole colony, and that the people should make such a position for themselves in that way as to insure future prosperity. That he hoped would be the future they might look forward to. He now came to the hon. member for Parnell (Mr. Reader Wood). That gentleman had made a pleasant speech on this subject, and had put the House in good humor. He had put him (Mr. Stafford) in a good humor. He always did so when he spoke. Indeed, there were many reasons why the House should feel good humored towards the hon. gentleman, and he should not say the particular reason which in his mind put that person in such a position. He spoke pleasantly, with well-pointed sentences, and in his usual emphatic way. But to refer to the matter contained in his speech. He spoke of the Ministry as not having shown a disposition to speak during the debate. He (Mr. Stafford) thought that the Government took the earliest opportunity to address the House on this question. The head of the Government had followed the member for the Thames, who proposed the resolutions, and he spoke very largely on the principle of the question. He certainly spoke quite as largely upon the meaning of the resolutions as did the hon. the mover. The Minister for Justice next followed with a speech (one which reflected credit upon him) in reply to the hon. member, and he very largely followed that gentleman, and showed considerable fallacies in his line of argument. Xt did not come with a very good grace from gentlemen on that side of the House to object to the reticence of the Government; for, as he had shown, the hon. member for the Waikato had been absolutely deserted by his colleagues when he spoke on this subject, the hon. member for the Thames having risen and said there was no use talking on the subject, as hon. members had already made up their minds. Under these circumstances it was surely evident that the Opposition had no reason to complain of what Mr. Wood would call a disinclination to speak on the part of the Government. Mr. Wood said all were agreed that something must be done—that might be so, but it was just a question whether all were agreed upon that point. These resolutions had been brought down to provide fop that something which was wanted; but he knew there were many arguments which could beadducedto show that the proposals were not altogether satisfactory as being in the direction of doing something. Supposing, therefore, that the House did not do that something which Mr. Wood and the supporters of Sir George Grey would fain have it do, why, where were they ? They must then fall back upon the abolition resolutions of last session ; and to his mind that was a very good thing to fall back upon. The hon. member for Riverton had made a speech which would have been a very good speech last year ; but it was unfortunate in being a year too late; and, in fact, that speech might fairly claim the vote of the hon. gentleman against these resolutions, because it was entirely in favor of the old provinces. The hon. member for Coleridge had said he would prefer absolute insular separation. So would he (Mr. Stafford) much prefer it to the form of government proposed by these resolutions. He did not think it would be so good a" form as the colony remaining one united colony, but as compared with the proposal of the hon. member for the Thames, he much preferred it. Under the form of government shadowed forth in these proposals the one island would not be independent of the other, because they would not- be in a position separately to command the confidence necessary to secure loans. They were in just the same position in regard to loans as two persons going to a bank and asking for money. Everybody knew that a bank would lend more money to two persons rendering themselves conjointly liable than they would to two persons, each asking for separate loans. In respect to this important matter, the colony as it was how constituted held a better position than it could ever hope to hold as the islands of Ulster and Munster. There would immediately be differences of opinion between the two islands on the subject of the Customs tariff. There was nothing to show where these powers, as between the two islands and the General Government, were to begin or end. They were not told whether each island was to make its own Customs laws or wait until the meeting of the General Parliament, which was to take place every four or five years, and perhaps would not meet at all until the governments of the two islands could agree upon terms. There would be difficulties arisinguponallmannerof subjects. There would be a difference with regard to ocean postal services, which placed the colony in communication with the outside world. A difficulty would arise as to the postal terminus, first as to the port of arrival and last as to the port of departure. Did the hon. gentleman suppose that the service which would be acceptable to Auckland would be equally acceptable to the people of Wellington ? Then how about the Cook Strait cable ? They had a rupture the other day, and after considerable difficulty, and contrary to the expectations of many, the cable was picked up and connection restored •between the islands. Well, on a case of this kind arising, which of the two islands would pick up the cable? Or was it deemed that the separation should be so complete that the cable was to be looked upon as a reproach, and a thing to be got rid of; each island to have its own system of communication. (Applause and laughter.) We had now connection hy telegraph with the whole world, the line passing through the Middle Island, but how would the Middle Island be affected'by that; what would theysayto Wellingtonaccepting a cable which runs through land over which they had no control whatever ? The House was left completely in the dark as to what might be expected in these several directions, The hon. member for the Thames, as the mover of the resolutions, had the right of reply, and perhaps he would communicate to the House what was to be the course of action to flow from those resolutions. To do so would, he believed, be slightly contrary to parliamentary procedure, as an hon. gentleman in replying was supposed to confine himself to what had taken place during the course of the debate. But he was really desirous of giving the hon. gentleman an opportunity by any observations he (Mr. Stafford) might make of introducing new matter, and to explain how the difficulties which he had pointed out would be met. With regard to the balance which Mr. Wood said would bo quite sufficient to meet tho expenditure on public works on separation taking place, he said there were Harbor Bills before the House now which provided for borrowing. There were in all some twelve or fourteen Harbor Bills to be brought before the House this session, and all of them asked for large powers of borrowing. _ They alone, he said, would absorb that imaginary balance. He then referred to Mr. Wood’s effort in 1863 to negotiate a three million loan, in which he had been unsuccessful. When the people talked about the present depression, ho could not help looking back at that time. When he took office in 1865 he found tho colony in tho position that tho 6 per cent, loan could not be sold at 82. Tho loans of tho colony and those of the province of Canterbury, which wore also carrying 6 per cent interest, - were unsaleable in the Home market. No colonial loans at that time had in [the money

market anything like the estimation they had since had. He contrasted that time with the present, and thought there was on the whole: room for much congratulation. The intelligence: communicated by tho Government the day: previous was very satisfactory. With regard to the question of representation,; he pointed out that there was a large* amount of sympathy between suburban districts, each of which were represented in the Assembly, and that therefore the towns* must necessarily dominate over the country. The Government had been charged with extrava-: gance, but at the time they were cutting down expenses right and left the greatest difficulty they had to contend with was the pressure brought to bear upon them privately by mem- * bers of that House to increase the expenditure. He did not believe the form of Government proposed by the Opposition would not be extravagant. The hon. member for the Waikato had said that Auckland was not extravagant. That he quite admitted, because Auckland had had nothing with which to be extravagant. But, Auckland had borrowed a half-million to make a railway to Onehunga, which railway had never been made ; yet the interest and sinking fund had to be provided. The only thing completed out of that half-million loan was the wharf. He was not going to shut his eyes to the fact that there was a certain amount of discontent in the colony. No doubt two fundamental errors had been committed in the past. One was making that land fund arrangement in 1856 permanent. No doubt it would have been very excellent as a temporary arrangement ; it provided or professed to provide a certain fund from which to extinguish the native title to lands, which was contingent upon land sales in different parts of. the colony. 'But he had come to the conclusion for some time that this matter had for years past been hanging as a nightmare over the province of Canterbury, and until that position was altered, he thought there would be a fair and legitimate cause of discontent between one part of the colony and the other. He thought when the great Public Works policy was launched in the year 1870, it should have been made part of that policy that the land fund should be put into hodge-podge with all the other revenue, and that the provinces should have ceased as from that moment. We then began to take upon ourselves for the first time the management of immigration and the carrying out of the great public works, and had the whole administration been made general from that day there would not have been the grounds for discontent] which at present existed. He said this he supposed as a Southern member, and if he were never to get a constituency again for asserting that, he was quite prepared to assert and act upon it, although he respected his constituents. He would in fact consider it ingratitude not to do so, looking at the manner in which they had treated him. Those were his views, which he had held for a considerable time, and after the present session his whole efforts would be turned in the direction of making the colony of New Zealand thoroughly national. One feature in connection with these proposals of Sir George Grey was that they could not be given legal effect to by this Legislature. After referring to the speeches of several other hon. members, the speaker said there was a time when this question might have been with advantage considered by the Legislature, although be did not think he should at any time have been inclined to vote for a change in the constitution such as that proposed under these resolutions. There was a time when the people lived in isolated communities ; when we had no steamers to afford communication, and still less telegraphs and railways; when none of the settlers had any interests in the colony, except in the place where they had first settled. That was a time when such a preposition might have received legitimate attention. But what was our position now ? We had means of communication which none of the. earliest settlers perhaps had dreamed of. Steamers were from day to day visiting the different parts of the colony, for the interchange of people and commodities; we had relationship, growing up all over the colony as members of families settled in different provinces; we had national banks, national insurance companies, involving persons in different parts of the colony contributing their means and tbeir intellects to build up one estate, and one great people. And now they were asked to destroy all of that (applause)— to ignore it all. There was to be no common sympathy; no feeling or sentiment between one part of the colony and the other; and that, he supposed, was the “noble patriotism which was to elicit the respect, admiration, and esteem of alljpeople for all ages !” (Prolonged applause from both sides of the House). Mr. STOUT rose with a sense of responsibility in replying to the statesman, who had made the unity of ,the colony his aspiration for many years. On behalf of the representatives of Otago, he stated pi duly that they desired some change in the manner in which they were governed, and if this were not granted to them if the Juggernaut car of government were to be still rolled over them—the representatives of Otago would not join in putting the present Government out of office. It was a change of system not of men that they wanted. He asserted that it was a promise that the Public Works and Immigration policy would bring about sepapation that had induced the people of Otago to support them. He quoted a speech of Sir Julius Vogel at Dunedin, to show that the separation resolutions only carried out an idea expressed by him in 1870. But as a rule, so soon as a member from Otago got up to Wellington and got into the Ministry he became a centralist. He hoped that the members for Wakatip and the Dunstan, who had promised to support separation when elected, would fulfil their promises by now voting for it. He contended that Otago had been grossly deceived in the policy of 1870. Every promise made had been broken little by little. With regard to the finance of the colony, Mr. Stout maintained that instead of a surplus on large year's transactions there was an actual deficit of £220,000, tho very sum named by Mr. Reader Wood last.year when Major Atkinson said that his figures were so grotesque that they could not be replied to. He also noticed that whilst the Government said they would not reply to Mr. Rees's speech, yet in everything they said the only part of that speech which they noticed was that which might be termed personal. The natural conclusion was that that portion was deserved in its strictures. He maintained that the Hon. Mr. Stafford had been wrong in his statements with regard to tho Federal Government of Canada. The Government scheme was professedly to establish local government. Why local government had been long since established under provincial legislation, especially in Otago, in which province also a Counties Bill had been carried, hut none of the districts would avail themselves of it. Under the scheme proposed by the Government Otago would lose at the lowest estimate £150,000. The real advocates of local government and decentralisation were those members of the House who had also seats in a provincial council. The scheme advocated by Mr. Stafford in 1867 was one of slow growth, by which counties would be established ; and then, when they showed themselves capable of working out their destinies, provincialism should cease. He (Mr. Stout) and other young Otago members had at that time supported Mr. Stafford, but they could not do so now when he advocated such a scheme as that of the Government. He would like to know what the Canterbury and Wellington members thought of Mr. Stafford after having heard that gentleman s speech that afternoon. Mr. Stafford had distinctly stated that the land fund was gone, and that if Mr. Whitaker brought down his land resolutions again next session ho (Mr. Stafford) would support them. And here Mr. Stout would assert that if Otago and Canterbury had not pulled well together in the past, that was not the fault of Otago, which had been always consistent, whilst the representatives of Canterbury had gone all sorts of ways at once. Mr. EOLLESTON said that had he been able to remain silent he would have done so, but on tho present question it, behoved every representative who had the interests of the country at heart to speak. Ho would not have risen so soon, however, had it not been for what had been said by. the member for Timaru, This debate had no earnestness about it,

because' it was uncertain whether the members of the Ministry would remain in office to carry out the measures they had initiated two years ago. This uncertainty had been increased by the rumour that the (Premier intended to take the Agent Generalship. If that were true, the Ministry might be said to he in a moribund condition, and the House had a right to demand of the Government to remove this feeling of uncertainty. There was also a feeling of distrust in the men who for some years past had ruled the affairs of New Zealand. This was not a party,but a great constitutional question. The utterances of the Government had been clear as to the land fund, but the House had good cause to doubt the sincerity of any utterances of the Government. The Government had professed respect for the compact of 1856, but the Government'proposals were a distinct encroachment on that compact. The Hon. Mr. Stafford had refused to be counted as a Canterbury member ; for his own part he was proud to be counted as one. Mr. Rolleston criticised the speech of Mr., Stafford at some length. He hoped that the Ministry, unlike Mr. Stafford, would hot be content with the Abolition Act, but would pursue their measures for giving local selfgovernment to the colony. They had been told that the choice at present was between the Government proposals and those for separation. He did not agree with that view. The House had to provide a satisfactory substitute for abolition before the Act should take effect. That was the compromise arrived at last session. He believed that what was required was a modified form of provincialism, and that would be better than the Government proposals. In accordance with the understanding arrived at with his constituents, he would not desert his colors as a proviucialist, and he did not see in the Government proposals what would justify him with ■ his constituents in voting for them. But on the other hand he did not see in the separation proposals either that he could support the details of that scheme. If they did not mean absolute separation they meant nothing, and it,would have been fairer to have faced the difficulty by proposing such. What he wanted to see was the statesmen of the colony setting themselves to work to bring the provincial system into harmony with the General Government ; and the first step would be to make the Superintendent’s office a non-political one. The position he took up was this ; that abolition would be gradual by the absorption of the provinces ; but he could not support the sepa- * ration proposals, which were without definiteness or detail, at the same time that he could not blame the action of the Otago members. Mr. JOYCE addressed himself to the resolutions with feelings of a less decided character than he could have wished. The question required the calmest judgment. The resolutions had been introduced by one of their supporters in a speech that was so vigorous and conclusive that it could be taken as nothing less than a speech on a vote of want of confidence. He regretted that that speech, however, had not touched on the matter of the resolutions. It left them quite in the dark on the question of separation. He did not think that abolition was a necessity. It was not the outcome of a clamor on the part of the people of the colony., It was the result of a deep-laid plan, the initiator of which was the member for Timaru. As the separation proposals were purely democratic he would support them, thinking that they would yet assume a shape that would satisfy his mind and the minds of others. At the same time he would have preferred a resolution declaring the Abolition Act ill-advised, and demanding its repeal. Mr. BALLANCE moved the adjournment of the debate, which was carried on the voices, and the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m.