PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. Wednesday, October 5, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 984, 5 October 1881, Page 2

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. Wednesday, October 5, 1881.

Since our last Mr. Allan McDonald has addressed meetings of his constituents, both at Ormond and Makaraka, and in both has he falsified his position. The only*rational conclusion to be arrived at from the three addresses Mr. McDonald has made, is, first, that he has a very unretentive memory; or, second, that he is exceedingly unmindful of his duty; or, third, that he thinks every one must see things from his own standpoint; or, fourth, that he trusts to the amount of sand he so freely in the eyes of the electors to blind them to his perverseness. It is our duty now to see on which of the foregoing Mr. McDonald rests his claim to the support of the electors. Mr. McDonald has made several points as to his not voting against the second reading of the Land Rating Bill. But why all this display of virtuous indignation ? It was Mr. McDonald’s duty to vote against the Bill, and if he said “ aye ” on the substantive motion for the second reading of the Bill, being put, he stultified himself. The accusation is that he did, virtually, if not actually, vote against it by voting for Mr. Ormond’s amendment,, because, according to Parliamentary practice, an amendment is not put absolutely in the place of an original motion,, but the voices are required, by the Speaker, to say whether such and such words shall “ stand as,” or be omitted from, “part of the question.” The words, in the instance before us, are that “ the Bill be now read a second time,” as against Mr. Ormond’s amendment, reflecting on the policy of the Government, and not Mr. Ormond’s amendment as opposed to the second reading of the Bill. Therefore, no sane person can say that Mr. McDonald, in voting with the noes, did not, in effect, vote against the second reading. It is only fencing the question, and utterly unworthy a member explaining his Parliamentary conduct, to prevaricate in the way Mr. McDonald does. As

a matter of fact, there was no division taken when the Speaker put the words, “ That the Bill be now read a second time,” because the division on the amendment, virtually settled the matter, and members could not raise their voice against a motion in whose favor they had divided. Iff Mr. McDonald said “ aye ” with bis voice, after he had gone into the lobby with the “ noes,” we cannot say; but, as we have pointed out, it was his duty to vote against the Bill, for he spoke against, it, and did all hecould to prevent' its passing; but, forgetful (as we shall presently show) of his past dishonesty, he sheltered himself from the accusation of defection, because he thought his constituents wished Him to support the measure.

Now let us see how far Mr. McDonald’s explanations square with his actions. In speaking against the second reading of the Land Rating Bill Mr. McDonald said : — Its only object seems to ' be to rate the settlers in the North Island, and to let off those who have leased pastoral lands from the Crown in the Middle Island. It distinctly says that any man renting land from the Natives shall be rated as the owner ; it also distinctly says that any man leasing pastoral lands from the Crown shall not pay rates upon them. That is thd meaning of the Bill, and I for one, coming as I do from a Native district, shall not be a party to support it. It would be ruin to the North Island. * * # ’ #

It is simply a Bill to let the leaseholders of Canterbury and Otago get out of having to pay rates. They will only have to pay £ per cent., and the Government will have to pay the rest. Under this Bill, if you lease Native lands, you will have to pay the rates on them just as if you owned them. Is that the policy of the Government ? # * * #

My only object when I came here was to see that a fair Bill should be brought down for the purpose of rating Native lands where the Natives get the benefit of roads and bridges constructed by Europeans ; but this Bill does nothing of the kind. Far from it. It would be only ruination to settlers on the East coast, and in the North Island generally. It is not fair or just that people who lease lands from Natives should pay rates as if they owned the land. It will stop settlement ; and, instead of preventing settlement, it is the duty of any Government to assist settlement both on Crown and Native lands, and particularly in the North Island.

Mr. McDonald’s speech was delivered on July the 27th, and the division on Mr. OrmonJ’s amendment took place the next day. Shortly after this it became noised abroad that the Government were likely to abandon the Bill, which ultimately, was the case. But notwithstanding that Mr. McDonald had made the, longest speech he has yet delivered in the House, against the Bill; notwithstanding he had declared “ it would be the ruin of the North Island notwithstanding his own positively-asserted opinion that it was “ simply a Bill to let the leaseholders of Canterbury and Otago get out of having to pay rates notwithstanding that it would stop settlement and be the “ ruination of settlers on the East Coast ” —the constituents he has recently addressed amongst the number—notwithstanding all these convictions Mr. McDonald telegraphed to Mr. Carlaw Smith, from Wellington, under date, the 13th of August—nearly three weeks after he had spoken and voted against the Bill, as follows “ Get up-a public meet- “ ing to urge Government to go on “ with the Crown and Native Land “ Rating Bill. I know they don’t in- “ tend going on with it.” At the time of the receipt of this telegram we alluded to Mr. McDonald’s audacity in playing such a fast and lose game as this. Nevertheless we gave him credit for being able to explain away some of the rugged features connected with it ; but now that he has the effrontery to stand up before a body of intelligent men and declare that he did not vote against the Bill after all, we can only regard it as one of those instances of political barefacedness, with which some men do hoodwink the unthinking crowd. What confidence, we ask, can be placed in such men ? Mr. McDonald condemns the Bill in the House ; he says it would bring ruin to the people who elected him ; he does not vote against it, as he should have done to be consistent ; he artfully pulls the wires of deceit, and now makes political capital out of his dishonesty. Such treachery* to trust has never come under our notice ; and any electors throwing away their votes to secure his return to the House, will prostitute the high privilege they possess. Nor have we done with Mr. McDonald yet. There are many more charges of omission and commission to lay bare, which we shall consider it our duty to do at the proper time ; for the

present we have no space at our disposal ; but we seriously ask the reflection of those who are not led away by claptrap, and specious falsification of facts, that they may weigh well in their minds if Mr. McDonald is a man fit to be trusted with the high responsibility and dignity of a member of Parliament.