PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4801, 11 August 1876, Page 2

PA R LIAMENT.

HOUSE OB’ REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, August 10. Speaker took the chair at half-past two o clock. petitions and notices op motion. Several petitions were presented and notices of motion given. ,

•questions. ■- _* Mr. O ROBKE asked the Minister for Bin*, migration,—Whether the Government intend to enlarge the boundaries of the Katikati block, so as to admit of the further introduction into that district of bona fide settlers of a like class to that which has already been established there by Government ? If not, whether it is their intention to establish such special settlements as Katikati in other portions of the province of Auckland ?

The Hon. Major ATKINSON replied that it was not the intention of the Government to enlarge the boundaries of the Katikati block,, as on the completion of negotiations for the special settlement of that block no promise to that effect had - been given. The Government did not intend to establish any further special settlements ; they did not intend to give away any more land. The Government would, however, in the measure they proposed to introduce make every provision for the settlement of land under the deferred payments system. Mr. TONKS asked the Premier, —If it is the intention of the Government, this session, to introduce a Bill for the closing or partial closing of the burying-grounds adjoining the city of Auckland ?

In the absence of the Premier the Hon. Mr. Richardson said the Superintendent of Auckland had power to close such burialgrounds, but had taken no action. Hr. THOMSON asked the Colonial Treasurer, —When certain returns, agreed to by the House on the 12th of July, will be laid before this House ? The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said the returns would be tabled early. the separation resolutions. The adjourned debate on these resolutions was resumed by Mr. BALLANCE, who said that no gentleman could approach the question without feelings of embarrassment. Despite all that had been said on the matter, the resolutions purported to destroy the constitution, giving as a. reason the imputed sins of a government. That was not a proper course. The Opposition should have brought down a vote of want of confidence, and if successful should then have brought down their constitutional proposals. He protested against the threats which had been used in the House of direct armed resistance, in order to get these resolutions carried. Mr. Stout, Mr. Bees, and Sir George Grey, despite the qualifying remarks which they had subsequently used, had really threatened resistance, and there would be foolish people found to follow such threats and endanger civil rights, and even human life. /The resolutions proposed to consider the financial as well as the constitutional arrangements of the colony, and these could not be separated. The first duty then of the Opposition speakers should have been to have proved that so bad was the financial condition of the colony that the constitution must be altered. Mr. Rees should have done this, but did not. He accused the Treasury of falsification of accounts, and the auditors of having winked at this falsification, but had not connected this with the constitutional question. Mr. Rees, however, in his charges had not stopped to enquire if the discrepancies he had complained of could be reconciled. Had he done so he would have found how wrong he was. It would be noticed too that Mr. Rees had put down the deficit at £400,000, and Mr. Stout at £200,000, so that absolutely these gentlemen’s finance was irreconcileable. He deducted the surplus of one year from the surplus of the previous year, and called the difference a deficit. That House was a deliberative assembly which reasoned on broad grounds, net a court of law where legal hairsplitting could be indulged in. Was not Mr. Stout aware that Mr. Gladstone had in one year shown a surplus of £5,000,000, and the next year no surplus at all, and yet did any one say on that account the country had lost £5,000,000! But it was from just such circumstances as these that Mr. Stout produced his deficit of £200,000. Both Mr. Stout and Mr. Rees had made a great point of a matter which the Government had been compelled to do under an Act of the Assembly, namely, the issuing of Treasury bills during the current year. Mr. Rees, too, had discovered a waste of expenditure in the vote for armed constabulary, by talcing as expended the advances absolutely remaining in the hands of the paymasters at the end of each quarter. It the constitution were to be destroyed on such financial arguments as these it would be destroyed annually. Mr. Reader Wood, another great financial authority, who ought to have corrected these blunders of Mr. Rees, in addressing his constituents made a great point by saying that the Premier had struck off £1,000,000 from the national balance-sheet by a stroke of his pen. Mr. Reas had said this in the face of a popular audience unable to discriminate in statements thus hurled at their faces. And yet the whole matter was an easily explainable question of accounts. (Cheers). Again, it had been said that the Government proposed to take 2 per cent, of the land fund. He (Mr. Ballance) could find no indication of such an intention. True, if the working expenses of any railway were less than the receipts, then the laud fund of the district would have tc make up the deficiency, but was this a genera taking of 2 per cent, of the laud fund? That House had always had the direction of th disposal of the land, and the Government pro posals went no further than this: keepiuj strictly t» the compact of 1856, which pro vided for the expenditure of the land fum within the districts where it was raised. H> thought that before efforts were made t< damage the credit of the colony the statement on which they were founded should be care fully considered and substantiated. This al the more on account of the efforts made in tin London money market to depreciate oui credit,- as witness the following letter re ceived by the Wanganui Corporation fron the local manager of the Bank ol New South Wales :—“ Our London offic< writes me as follows, under date June 1 I have nothing further to report upon youi Corporation debentures. The brokers, for the reason already stated, are unable to move them, and unless your Premier can devise some means of placing the loan privately, you must place no reliance upon his ability to float it, as he has no influence whatever here. Money matters have gone from bad to worse, and there is now such a complete collapse amongst all foreign securities that the public will not even look at them, and until a little more confidence is restored, we need not offer your debentures." This letter, it would be seen, contradicted itself, and was quite contradictory to the news received by telegram of the floating of the last loan. Mr. Rees had quoted from a pamphlet, of which he was very proud, but he should be ashamed of the manner in which he quoted it. Mr. Ballance read extracts from Mr Rees’ pamphlet to show that that gentleman had proved that the colony was in a prosperous condition. For himself he believed-is the prosperity of the colony, and showed so by th| following increases in the qulnquemral period ending 1874, viz. :—Population, 44 per Cent. sown grasses, 110 per cent. ; tonnage inwards 69 per cent.; tonnage outwards, 55 per cent, tonnage of colonial vessels, 50 per cent.; wool 106 per cent. ; wheat, provisions, tallow, aw timber, 248 per cent. In telegraphs, the in crease was from £32,649 to £62,322. Ther were of constructed railways 209 miles, aw under construction 621 miles. The number o Post-office Savings Bank depositors ha( increased from 10,103 to 27,215, and the ha lances to credit from £380,383 to £943,785 This was » good indication of the progres that had been made by the industrial ele ments at our command. He next gave a com parative statement of the increase in our ex ports as compared with the other colonies, ii 1874 compared : with 1869. ; The increas. in New Zealand was 26 per cent., ii Victoria 14 per cent., and in New Soutl Wales 23 per cent.. With regard to our goh

export, the position was less satisfactory. There had been a decrease in New Zealand of 42 per cent., in Victoria of 33 per cent; but it was a well-known fact that with the increase of wages such as had prevailed here, there was less inducement to gold mining. (Mr. Macandiiew: How about the increase in mortgages ?) : Why, he took the increase in'mortgages as a most satisfactory evidence of our prosperity, showing a contrast with former times, when it was impossible to get money ■bn the security of property. It should be remembered, too, that Victoria in comparison with us had had the advantage of a long established railway system, whereas we had only commenced such a system in 1871, when the prospects of the i colony were at an unprecedently low ebb, and had’ since been raised incalculably by the Public Works and Immigration policy. Mr. Ballance quoted the exact financial position of the colony last year in regard to debt, interest, and sinking fund, to show that, comparing this with the great increase which had taken place in the national income, excluding even the value of the public works completed, the country had incurred no burden that it could not bear. Mr. Maoandrew had objected to the statement that he (Mr. Macahdrew) had hastened on the Public Works policy. Mr. Ballance did not believe in refusing to hold the Government responsible for any mistakes which the House might sanction ; but in regard to Mr. Macandrew’s objection, ho pointed out that Mr. Reid, when Minister for Public Works in 1872,' had directly, thrown this responsibility on the House, and had admitted a pressure by Mr. Macandrew to carry on the Public Works policy. It would have been better if Mr, ilees and Mr. Stout had not shown their irritation against the Canterbury members simply because they refused to support these resolu- / ‘ tors. There was no doubt that Mr. Macj&ew was the father of these resolutions, for m 1872 he found almost similar propositions from that gentleman. Mr. Eolleston took a constitutional view of the question, and he

thought the Canterbury members took aproper view in declining to destroy the constitution they hid, in order to seek for one of which they knew nothing. He considered the compact of 1858 binding on the colony, and had told his constituents that even if its rupture should increase the landed revenue of the colony he would not vote for that rupture ; but he thought the vote of the Hon. Mr. Stafford the other night on Mr. Whitaker’s resolutions most insincere. He sympathised with Auckland andOtago,but he believed in the unity of the colony, and in the discussion of the interests of those provinces on the floor of that House. He thought that Auckland should not be permitted to remain impoverished; but Auckland speculators opposed the State becoming the possessor of native lands, in order that they might traffic in them themselves. What Auckland members should do then would be to here devise means for the good of Auckland, instead of merely addressing flowery speeches to excited meetings there. The two governments proposed by the resolutions could not be called local governments, for they would be parliaments despite Mr, "Whitaker s assertion to the contrary ; and Mr. Reader Wood had distinctly said that these two parliaments would after their constitution undertake to legislate for local government. With regard to the local government proposals before the House from the Ministry, he thought local interests, feelings, and distinctions, should be regarded ; and in committee the Government measures should be framed so as to consult such interests, feelings, and prejudices, and no effort made to pass them in a too rigid fonni With regard to federal government, he had carefully compared the government of England under : one parliament with the federal system of America, and had concluded in favor of the former. The most frightful corruption, they must remember, was shown to prevail trader the American system. And now New Zealand, in order to adopt federal government, was asked to accept the wildest propositions ever brought before the House. What did Sir George Grey mean by saying that’ they wanted a change in. the appointment of the Governor?- Why, was not the power of the Governor only the power of the Ministry, and they were directly responsible to the country? Again, Sir George Grey desired an elective Upper House. Let this House depend upon it, the minute they had an elected Upper House they abridged their own power. The Upper House of New Zealand compared favorably with the Upper House of any of the Australian colonies. Sir George Grey was always depreciating this House the House of Representatives and had said that representation should be given on the basis of population. He defied them to point to any country in which such a basis of representation obtained.- Sir George Grey’s party could not complain of their treatment in this House, who could, if they chose, almost' i stop legislation and exercise their representative privileges to the full. He admired Sir George Grey, but feared that he had long been so accustomed to act in an uncontrolled manner, that he was incapable of understanding the true practice- of representative institutions, or the system of responsible

government which prevailed in New Zealand. Why, ra his correspondence lately with the Colonial Secretary Sir George Grey really wished the Governor to disregard the advice of the House through his Ministry, and to act as if there were no such thing as responsible government. He trusted, then, that the House would not immolate itself at the bid-

ding of that gentleman. There was a great future before the colony, and the House should lay «o broad a constitutional foundation as to provide for being in a position to take advantage of that future. Mr. De LAUTOUR, while admiring the speech of Mr. Ballance, differed from him in the standpoint he took, and of course differed ■from all his arguments, which were baaed on that standpoint. Mr. Ballance thought the House a representative one; He did not. Ho did not agree that the separation resolutions were an attempt to pull pown' the constitution, because the constitution was at present a wreck. Was not provincialism a part of the original constitution, and where was it now ? As to Mr. Ballance’s references to finance, he would not deal with them. He was content to take the statement of the Minister of Justice, that there was only one person in the House who understood the finances , of' the colony, namely, the Premier. Mr. De Lautour then analysed the results of the last elections, to show that only eleven members out of the

whole House had been returned as pure abolitionists, and even these were men who have been returned in any case upon • other grounds, chiefly those of past services. That was a clear proof that the people had not demanded abolition. Mr. De Lautour went at some length into the constitutional history of the colony to show that its constitution was not intended from the first to have a municipal, but rather a provincial tendency. During the few years he had been in public life he had been a strong opponent of provincialism. It might be wondered, then, how he came to be upon the side of the House on which he was at present situated. Well, after having carefully looked into the whole question, he saw that the elements of maladministration and injustice to the provinces were owing to their centralising tendency; therefore, he would be a madman to fly to such a system of centralisation as that seen at Wellington. In connection with this point, he would inform the House that amongst the outdistricts dissatisfied ,with provincial administration the majority were goldfields districts. In reply to the charge that Mr. Macandrew was largely responsible for the extra railway expenditure, he defended that gentleman. Mr. Do Lautour did not think that the House was the proper tribunal to which to refer such a large constitutional question as the present, or as abolition, and a recommendation in favor of Sir George Grey’s resolutions was that before building up the new constitution the matter should be referred to the people. The county system would not be lost by adopting separation. The last elections had been unfairly influenced by the promises in the shape of bribes to particular districts held out by Ministers. These pledges had been subsequently broken, more especially in the case of goldfields districts, and the members who obtained their

return for those districts who still supported the Government, despite the breach of those pledges, could not be held to rejpresent their constituencies. They had been told that the Premier had lifted the colony into a high- state of civilisation by his Public Works policy. Was ever a country or a nation civilised by a large expenditure of money ?. All he would admit was that the Public Works policy had staved off the evil day for the colony. He thought that the new constitution required as a consequent of abolition! should have been framed by a convention from the Provincial Councils.

Mr. MURRAY-AYNSLEY said years ago he had been in favor of separation, but in 1862 there was no debt on the colony, and he recognised that if it was 'desirable then it was not desirable now. Provincial governments had done good in their time; but the time had now come when there should be a> better localisation of government, ■ For years the provinces had been gradually losing their power in reference to large subjects, and smaller matters of administration could best be dealt with by smaller bodies in the several districts. As to the financial condition of the colony, he thought it was such as to necessitate prudence and care ; and though it was advisable to complete the works ■ which . had been commenced, and to carry on others which naturally followed them, still it would be advisable to go more slowly in future. If progress were desired unity must be consummated.

Mr. MACANDREW said his opinions on the subject were so well known, and had been so well expressed by preceding Opposition speakers, that were it not; for his position as premier representative of the commercial capital of the colony, he should not have troubled the House at all. He considered the matter one of the most important which had ever been before the House, and he should vote for the resolutions because he felt confident that were they carried New Zealand would have much better government than if the proposals of the Government were given effect to. And another reason—which alone should for him be sufficient—was that were the scheme of the Government accepted somewhere about £200,000 a year, in addition to the large sums already contributed by the province to colonial finance, would be required from Otago. On the other hand, if the policy indicated by the resolutions of the hon. member for the Thames were carrried, with the exception of being responsible for a large portion of the debt of the colony, the bulk of the revenue of Otago would be expended within its territory, and expended under the control of Otago people. That would be a very sufficient justification for his voting in favor of the resolutions. No doubt he would be told he was narrowminded. Well, let it be so. He considered the revenue of Otago far more important than any sentiment, and not only that, but more important to Otago than the unity of the colony. :(Oh, oh.) He urged the expediency of reducing the powers of the central Legislature, because of the great injury done to the colony by a system of colonial finance. He challenged any member of the House to say he understood the accounts of the colony. Twenty-two years ago a select committee had reported that it was impossible to unravel the accounts, and the perplexity had gone on increasing as the colony grew older, till now the only thing the House could make out was that last year there had been a balance of £363,000 expenditure over the revenue. That was a very alarming matter—and a matter which demanded very serious consideration, and to get rid of the. difficulty there were but three courses open. First, by adding to the taxation of the country; secondly, by putting their hands into the pockets of Canterbury and Otago ; and thirdly, by retrenchment. The second mode seemed to commend itself to the Government; but he and those who thought and acted with him should prefer to see retrenchment on a sufficient scale to achieve the object in view. This was the meaning of the resolutions of the hon. member for the Thames, and he could promise, that if the resolutions were given effect to there would be sufficient retrenchment to save the colony. It must be very clear to members on both sides of the House that the colony was living far beyond its means, and that under the circumstances it was but reasonable to attempt to get rid of expensive luxuries. But the General Government had no idea of curtailing extravagance. Each day new departments were being created—there were appointments of Inspector-General of Forest, inspectors of prisons, inspectors of lunatic asylums, and one knew not what. It seemed to him that in New Zealand the parable of the Prodigal Son was reversed. Here, instead of the son wasting the substance of his father in riotous living, it was the father himself who was spending the substance of the son—(a laugh)—and he was not content with wasting the substance of one son, but he treated nine sons all alike. It was time the sons to a large extent took the management of the estate into their own hands, and cut down the establishment of the fast old gentleman. (A laugh). This General Assembly cost the colony £35,000 a year at present, but that sura would be very largely increased, perhaps doubled, if the whole business, which had been so well performed by the Provincial Councils during the past, were to come before it. The cost of the three governments to.be established if the resolutions were carried would be very much less than that. Taking the Provincial Council of Qtage as a sample of the legislature which would be created in the South, he found that that body,composed of forty-seven men fully equal in intelligence and capacity to any fortyseven members of that House, only cost £3BOO a year, including travelling expenses, honorariums, printing, and expenses of every kind. Thus they had in Otago, although they did not give them pretentious names, a Treasurer, Provincial Secretary, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Railways, Minister of Education, Minister of Goldfields, and the whole cost was £SBOO. So that if there were three executives and three legislatures .in the colony, their cost would not be more than £9OOO each, and in all they would not cost onehalf what this Legislature cost. Replying to the remarksof the Minister of Justice, he contended that a change in the form of government would give the colony a fresh start. It would impart new political life to both North and South, and infuse fresh energy and vigor into the whole body politic throughout the country. He believed that the proposal if carried would fill the hearts of the people with the noble quality of self-reliance, and free them from the grinding influence of centralism; but on the other hand, if the county system of the Government were carried, it would prevent hundreds of capable men entering public life. Who would spend time in pottering about with county councils and road boards, and how many clever men were there who could not afford to leave their business and their families to stay in Wellington from three to six months in the year ? If the Legislature were within easy, reach of them by rail, then men would make a little sacrifice; but they would not make the great sacrifice of coming to Wellington, and where was the necessity for the sacrifice? Was there anything in the Wellington atmosphere which added to the value of the laws ? and was there any reason for Otago to ask Hawke’s Bay and Taranaki people to assist in framing its Scab Act, or for asking Auckland people to assist in spending its revenue ? The proposals of the Government wore absurd. He felt convinced the system of county government would not be acceptable to the_ whole of the colony; it would not bo applicable to the whole of "the colony; and ho pointed to the mlmber of road boards and municipalities in the province of Otago to show that provincialism rather fostered than repelled demands for district government where the people were ripe for it. The whole of the colony was not ripe for it, and would not bo for years to come. Far better then to have allowed the system of provincial government to exist. And ho would point out that the local bodies in Otago were not unendowed bodies; all of them had substantial 'endowments, and were working well, because they had arisen as necessity called for them. As the hon. member for Mount Ida had said, local self-government to be really effective must emanate spontaneously from the people themselves—from; each locality. This

system of counties had never been asked, for ; but neither had abolition been asked for.- It had been said that the table of the House was to groan with the weight of petitions: for abolition, but all the petitions the House had seen were two. The hon. gentleman indicated the utterances of the ; hon. member for Timaru, whose whole aim in life, had .been . to mischievously tamper with the constitution of the colony. It was a most peculiar feature in connection with New Zealand legislation that the tendency had been, not to comply with the wants of the people, but to act with,a sort of dilettante anticipation of those requirements ; this was a very singular fact in the history of the New Zealand Legislature. He recognised the Provincial Councils as the channels through which the government of the country should flow,; and the provincial form of government as the best ing districts, With.this,idea, in,his mind, he should have preferred seeing two governments for each island, and had no doubt that it would come to that in the end. Still, as a means to an end, he should support the resolutions of the hon. member for the Thames as they now stood. One fact had been lost sight of. Otago was now paying upwards of £90,000 a year interest on money which had been borrowed for the purpose of constructing works in the country districts, fully £45,000 of which was paid for money spent on works on the goldfields. In reference to the assertions of the Premier and others as to the _ goldfields having been neglected, he characterised such statements as unmitigated flapdoodle. The proclivities of the Otago Legislature had from the very first been to decentralise. Who first set the example of giving £2 to £1 for local works, and promoting private enterprise, and subsidising steamers and manufacturing companies ? And who had given assistance to the introduction of salmon, which would be of more value than a goldfield ? Who but that Provincial Legislature of Otago ? If the Provincial [Government of Otago had shown the same incompetence to govern that the General Government had, he for one would not have shed a tear to see it sink into the sea of abolition depths, With bubbling groan, Without a grave, unknelled, uncoifined, and unknown. Mr, MONTGOMERY thought Sir George Grey had brought down these resolutions at a most inopportune time, and that the House should have gone on with the resolutions of the Government, and the feeling of the House could have been estimated by the treatment which they had received. From the explanation, such as it was, that had been given of what was proposed under the resolutions, it seemed to him that carrying it into effect would take a considerable time, the Bill to be brought down would take some time in discussion, and a further delay would take place in obtaining the sanction of the alterations by the Imperial Government. He thought the explanation given to the hon. member for the Waikato was eminently unsatisfactory. Even supposing the House was favorable to separation, it was necessary that some mutual agreement should be come as to the seat of legislature, and that would be a difficult matter; Then as to the revenue, why should Otago have the control of the land revenue of Nelson more than any other province of the colony? This difficulty of landed property was a large one, and he thought if separation should take place that each province should have its own land fund. The withdrawal of the strong power of a central legislature would tend to make the natives rise in rebellion, and then a certain amount of responsibility would rest upon the South, for was it to be supposed that the people of the South Island could see those of the North Island slaughtered? He then proceeded to say that though he did not agree with the proposals of separation, he did not wonder at the dissatisfaction evinced at the Government proposals, inasmuch as they had altered them from those for which they secured the vote of the House last year. He went on to explain how this was. He thought that the central legislature should be the real administrative body, and that all persons paid out of the public funds should be excluded except the Ministry upon those benches. A great point of dissatisfaction was that the present Ministry had left one party to go over to another, and it must necessarily take some time to regain the confidence of the colony. In referring to the speech of Mr. Stafford the previous night, he said the hon. gentleman had by advooatingthe centralisation of the land, contradicted the opinion he expressed at a meeting of his constituents in 1870. He deprecated any infringement of that which the people looked upon as their right. Was it a good thing to break a solemn compact which had' been in existence for the last twenty years? The Government might not be openly taking away the land fund of the colony, but they were doing so insidiously. A time might come when the proposals for separation might be again considered. At present, however, he desired to see the colony united, so long as each island should enjoy its own land fund. He had his convictions on these points, and spoke in accordance with them ; and he hoped the Government would recognise that the interests of the colony would not be conserved by spoliation of the property of any part of it.

Mr. LUMSDEN said it appeared to him that the present debate had gone far enough. The separation resolutions did not satisfy him, but he would work for them as the only compromise that could be effected. , He would not have been in the House but for the determination of his constituency to retain provincialism if possible, but as there was no reason to hope; for that, though no good reason against provincialism had been urged he followed out what they must demand if abolition were insisted on,; namely, separation. He did not object to any, province being abolished, but it was hard to force abolition on those who did not want it. ’• Such a course was like that of a doctor who insisted that people were unwell;in order to compel them to take his pills. The country was not yet ripe for counties. It did not want them. Boards of works would meet the requirements of the colony for years to come. He believed the Government in their action were influenced solely by financial considerations. They found themselves in difficulty as to public works, which were found to call for more expenditure than was at first proposed. They ran into the error in the first instance. He supported the proposals of Sir George Grey also because ho believed the people of each island knew best hoW to manage the affairs of their island. With regard to the outlying districts, he said the doctrine that their interests were not identical with the,towns was a most outrageous doctrine to be put forward in the nineteenth century. The provincial system was eminently calculated to rear up a fine intellectual and prosperous race of people. Speaking of the Canterbury members,he said no two of them wore of the same opinion. He then went on to speak in favor of the provincial system of government, aed thought it a pity that an innovation should be contemplated. He failed to sec thattheresolutionsbeforetheHouse could be regarded as tending in the direction of dismemberment of the colony. They simply meant that the government of the country should be left to the people themselves ; that the people should have facilities for communicating with the Government ; of advising and assisting them. He reverted to the subject of the outlying districts, to refute the charges made upon provincial administration, that those districts were neglected, and quoted figures to show they had received the utmost consideration. He felt it his duty to vote for the separation resolutions, although it wrung his heart to have to part from his beloved provincial institutions.

Mr. MANDERS asserted that in voting against the sep>ration;resolutiona ha would vote in accordance with the opinion of his constituency—a most important one. He had at election promised to support separation if such were possible, but the separation understood at the time from the cartloads of pamphlets which the provincial party had circulated, was as different as light from dark from that of Sir George Grey’s resolutions. The address of the Premier at Wanganui had shown that they would get the local self-government they required, and therefore previous to leaving his district ho had consulted the municipal councils of his constituency, and now intended to vote in' accordance with their wishes. It seemed to him: that the Otago members really wanted the Premier to remain in office to carry

out their peculiar views. He thought , the, country was entirely with the Ministry, except such centres of provincialism as Dunedin and the like; He opposed the resolutions, conscientiously believing that they were calculated to be harmful to the colony, and he hoped they would be rejected by a very large majority. ~ ■ • j Mr., FISHER, would support; financial separation; on the ground that an attempt was. being , made to take the land fund from Canterbury. In no province had the compact of--1856 answered so , well as in .Canterbury. They , could, not see a corner of the Canterbury plains'uncultivated. He; wished -it to be . understood,-, however, that he supported onlythe principle of the resolutions. He did not believe Ju the' details shadowed forth by different hpn. gentlemen, and was opposed. to a suggestion by ' the hon. member for.Waikato .of a governor and deputy-governor) He . considered that . the colony had been already over-governed. They were told thatthey were to have power to tak , themselves, but the people of Canterbury, if permitted to" retain their land fund, did not want to tax themselves. He certainly thought it was time they stopped tinkering at government, they would soon have a quarter of the’ population of the, colony to, govern, the rest. Mr. TAWITI said, although not fully un-, •derstanding the question before the House, still he wished to speak as a Maori member. If the colony were to be divided into several parts the Maoris did not know from what part, they were to derive benefit. He would say to the people of Otago, who wished that the South Island should be separated, from the North, that they should have one polony and one government, and then if there: were any grievances they would know who was responsible. He thought there were faults with the General as well as the Provincial ’ Governments ; but the whole object of the Opposition was to supplant the members Who’sat on the Government benches. Some of the rnbney appropriated by the" Government for the benefit, of the Maoris had,been thrown into the sea, or somewhere else, and he ascribed this to the Provincial Governments. The, General Government of the, day had done much, for the education of the people, and if it were displaced ha should be stabbed, for. it had done so much for the benefit of the Maoris and the colony. Mr. KARAITIANA rose to support the motion before the House, because it was stated that if separation took place the natives and Europeans would be under one law. The General Government wished to lay their hands upon the native lands, and in order.to do this they wished to sweep away Provincial Governments and Superintendents. The colony had been many years under one law, but it was not desired by the majority of the people that the same law should continue in force. How many years had the Government been carrying on the administration of the North Island, and what good had they done for the North Island? He thought by .agreeing to this motion, they (the Maoris) might gain something to their advantage. Mr. TOLE, in opening his address, compared the speeches of the last two speakers. One he said spoke as one who had carefully learnt a lesson; the other, as one who spoke honestly and feelingly, as one who had suffered a wrong at the hands of the Government. Turning to the question before the House, he spoke of the several speeches made during the debate, and asserted that not one of the Ministers had fairly grappled with the speech of the hon. member for City East. He denied that there was anything meagre in the resolutions. They must first affirm the principle, and then submit the details to the people. The unity of the colony seemed to be a very puzzling question to some hon. members. Why, it was the federation which formed the unity. He referred to the States of America and independent islands, showing that they were smaller, or not larger than the North Island of New Zealand, and therefore contended that there was no reason why separation should not take place. What good, he asked, had they obtained by this debtof £20,000,000, forwhioh the colony was responsible? What was their position now ? They had an extravagant Civil Service, immigration of an unprofitable character, temporary peace with the natives, some public buildings, and a few miles of railway. If these resolutions were not carried, he really did not know what was to. become of the colony. Mr. GIBBS criticised some of the speeches delivered, and spoke warmly against the re- 1 solutions before the House, saying that it wouldbejustaa well to retain the nine provinces as to have two powerful governments, one for each island, and a central government: be-; sides. He did not think that the land fund of those two; rich provinces Otago and Canterbury should be devoted solely to those provinces. The land revenue must be colonial revenue, the public debt demanded it. Ho failed to see how, the carrying of these resolutions, that was, the dividing, of the colony, of New Zealand into -two separate States, would favorably: affect our financial arrangements. He feared it would . have, a very opposite effect. At 12.30, , ■ ; -| Mr. STEVENS moved the adjournment; of the debate till half-past two this .day,'which. was carried; • ■ : „„„ :