THE CONIINUODS MINISTRY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1637, 22 September 1887, Page 3

THE CONIINUODS MINISTRY.

CRUSHING INDICTMENT.

The following trenchant speech was made by Mr J. Holmes in Parliiiment in reply to Mr Rolleston on the 31st of last May :- Sir, it appears to me that we arc to have another no-confidence debate. I was rather pleased to see the honorable member for Geraldine (Mr Rolleston) got np to address the House, for at first I thought we were going to have from him a speech with some vigor in it, some bitterness, some of that black bile for the pouting of which on the unfortuatw Treasurer he is so celebrated. But, in place of haviog a speech delivered from his heart, what has he given usl He has given us a written sermon containing several chapters of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. And if the*e lamnntationa had bs<n delivered on rtttxnio, speaking impromptu, as I do now, we Bhould luve been able to appreciate them. But they were orefuHy written out, and read in che dolefullest tone of voice, 88 if the hon. gentleman had been delivering a sermon. 1 cannot allow the honorable gentleman te make the charges ke has made with respect to the Government, and to belaud himself and his compeers in the manner he has done, without pointing out some little flaws in the armtur of ihat past Government which did such woodeiful things for New Zealand. The honorable gentleman his attacked the Government on the score of extravagance; and when he began to do so 1 said to myself,." Good God !

HAVE MEN NO SHAME !" The honorable gantleman was a member of a Ministry in power in 1882 which came down to this House with a surplus of £230,000. But what whs the first aot of those lion, gentlemen who are now denouncing extravagance f They increased tho expenditure of the country by over £400,000 in one year. Had they done their duty, had they done what they ought to have done, and kept

THI CIVIL SERTICE in the position io which Sir John Hall left it, the Government of to-day would not have been obliged to ask for the increased taxation of £300,000. But vhy did they not do it? Became those hon. gentlemen are nothing but Civil Servants themselves, because their hearts and their sympathies are in tho Civil Sarvics, and not with the whole body ot the people of N*w Zealand. When it whb proponed in 1883 to reduce the expenditure of the country by £50,000, what did they say I They said it could not be done, nnd that they would not do it. They would not touch the iinforMimtte Civil Servants. And now, whut did the hon. member for say 1 In the debate last week he said that the Government had done wrong in proposing to reduce the salaries or in any wuy Vix the (J'vil Servant*, While every other part of the community is suffering from depression, while the trader gets not one-half, and the farmer not onetenth, of the profits they used to ge», whilst the professional man suffered a reduction of 50 per cent, off his income, whilst the laboring mm has suffarad a losm of from 15 to 30 per cent, in his wHjjus, whilst Ml the«e people are suffer, ing, and whilst the prices of produce and a[> the nece«sari3s of lifn fa'len considerably, I say th« only pe-iplo in tho country who hava kept their t igh salaries, •ind who even havn hurt their nalaHes inornaned by the hon. member for Egmont am) the hon. m'rab'r for Gera dine, are (Jivtl Servants. BUYING STJWOR?. And then those i»o hon. g-nr'men who tnlK Bb'> , » , e*jxara<r»»iic»', how flirt they rIHMI with Mia pnbhp moneys in 1g8,3 and 188 g ? I ask tnw aon - "WHber for Abro. how he had to point out to thotn from the ot-- r iV of the Huunt* how uue u.etubi-r jm- £IO,OOO g'vfii t" hiw d'srict for a b i--iBo, • iioiher £1 ,00 > fo' » raid, and a thiri £16,000 for the lehiuVrtl of ! ols from a hit g , Then the hon. member for J Wout to Uta*u, and at a j banquet given hiui m the district of VVakitipu, tho hon member for that dis*

trict who supported him, boasted how much money was given to that district to gain his own support. And did not the public prints on the W®sl Coast declare thut another member had s»i<i tha', thouph he had been returned to support I ihe Opposition, he had sUDP n rt<rd the Gov>jrom"iit, and had got £75,000 for liis I district, and would not have supported them but for that concession. And these are the members who talk about corruption on the Government Benches ! IORROWED MONBY. Who ten mil ions of borrowed money 1 The member for Egmont, who is t\\"> hon. gentleman of whom it has been said that his only policy was exprcßs«d in the words : " Give me a loan, and leave me alone on the Benches ;" who was the hon. gentleman who who taunted year after year with having uo policy, and who has no policy now, The member for Geraldine (Mr Kolleston) has said, " We have common objects, common views and common principles." Yes, they have' the common principle of sticking to the Government Benches, and the common principles of that consist of the interest of their pockets. These were the common principles and the common objscts which they kept always in view, and they pursue that object with a high-minded purpose—and hive pursued it now for three years. THE GRAIN TAX. Why were they turned off those Benchen? Is*y to the member for Geraldine (Mr Rolleston) because they did one of the most unjust and iniquitous actions which was e\er done by,a Government in this country. Coming into power in 1892, and haviDg then a surplus of £230,000 to go on with, and'having increased the expenditure by £400,600, and the next year by £47,000, tbey cam* down in 1884 with a deficiency of £150,000. The bon. gentlemen allowed their friends the woolgrowers, the squattiog element—those gentlemen so dear to their hearts, those men who go about the lobbies of this House influencing votes when the fate of a Government is to be decided—to send th'-ir wool free, but put on to the farmers of Canterbury a tax which would yield £IOO,OOO. Is it any wonder after this that Canterbury nent np men of character and independence to this House to represent them, and that men turned out the Government J

CHE OFKGE-SEEIERS. I say no one not actuated by the greediest office-seeking could for one moment suggest that the Government ought io resign now, and not ask for ihe opinion of the constituencies on the policy for this country, which they hare proposed. The member for Geraldine talks about the great alarm in tho mind of some hon. members if this dissolution is granted, but I wk him in whose mind the alaim exists? The only alarm that can exißtin any mind is that of thone hon. members who think that if the Government resigned the hon. member for Egmont would have a chance of being included in the Ministry. The country should see exactly the working of these hon. gentlemen's minds, and what they are aiming a'. What is their manoeuvre f What is the object of the hon. member for Egmont, who opened this debato, and of the hon. member for Geialdine (Mr Rollcston), who followed him, and who is known in this House as the political "Tire Barnacle.'" Ihey said to themselves, "Now, if these gentlemen go to the country, when they come back there will be a lot of new men returned who will not have known us before. Very well, we shall have the same trouble as we had in 1884. We shall be put in, and then put out again, and the end will be that we shall be out in the cold again for a number of ysars." If the hon. member for Egmont comes in, the chances are that he will not be able to form a permanent Government, and he will either have to amalgamate with the other side or take in one or two members of it into his Cabinet. If the hon. gentleman amalgamates with the other Bide he will not have any following.

NtoracrcoN. In dealing with Protection Mr Holmes said ) The hon. member's (Mr Rees) grout objection to the present Ministry in that they are Protectionists. Why, the hon. member tor Egmont is the father of Protection in the Houee. It was that hon. gentleman who iu 1877 increased the Customs, and in 1879 added another 10 or 15 per cent. And what did he say on that occasion? He said he did not increase the duties so much for the purpose of getting revenue as for the purpose of encouraging certain industries, so that in the hon. member for Egmont we have the. most pronounced Protectionist in the House. RETRENOHMEN*. After dealing with many other matters of interest only in debate before the House Mr Holmes continued :—Gentlemen it is proposed tbat we should reduce our expenditure by nenrly a quarter of a million. In to do that we meat mak* a sweeping reduction in all salaries. We shall have to cease subsides to steamer*, we shall have to put an end to oertain posts and office*, we shall'have to get rid of telegraph officer, we shall have to reduce the salaries of the Civil Servants, not by three or four or five per cent, but up io ten per cent.; we shall have to tafco £IOO,OOO off education. It is impossible to make the reduction otherwise. But there is not a single one of theße gfutleuieo who hive spoken on the side of the Opposition who, although all are in fnfor of a reduction of expenditure, has had the , manliness to point out how he is going *:o retrench, and I sny the only means by which retrenchment can be •ffected is by one of the»<>. You will have to tike £IOO,OOO oft the Education vote. A™ these gentletnto prepared to do that ] Tnere are numbers in this House who are prepared to vote for proposals for reducing the expenditure by a qtnrter of a million. I am prepare! to voto for a proposal for reducing the expenditure by a quarter of a million. lam prepared to vot»» for that, and show where it can be done, and if nece'sary to go to the country upon it. But what do these geutltmen Wrtut? I' is not the interest of the country that (hey »re seeding, What is all this nprqar about ] It U simply th«U these gpntlern fi n w«m to regdn office Tiier« is not a particle of aiucerity iu the speech of the member for Geraldine, (Mr Kolleaton,) and a good many other gentlemen whose namts \ might speak with respect, regarding the redne ion of expenditure, or with respect to many of ih* reciimm ndations which they hare made. Look at the speeches which have been made 1 They have all been made, or moat of them, with the view of setting theso gentlemen bick into office.

SCANDALOUS CORKOTMON. I recollect myself one of the most scandalous scandalous scenes which occurred in this House in 1882. A member began a speech against the Atkinson Government, and began speaking against them most bitterly. Then at half-past five the adjournment took place. He went out of the Chamber, and there he was seat for to that little room. I saw him sent for. The hon. member for Egmont (Major Atkinson) was thfcre, and (he member for Waitotara (Mr Bry'ce) was there. The member had been trafficking in Native lands, bnt he could not get his title. The member for fl'aitotara had lodged his caveat against his dealiug with the land, and he could not get his land until the cavtai was removed. But the Government was engaged in a life and death struggle. Something happened in that room, and then the hon. member came out at halfpast seven. He resumed his speech. This is as true as gospel. It can be vouched for and endorsed by many members in this House. He coo tinned his speech, and after he had got a little further, he said lh*t though he had no confidence in the Government he did not see how a Government could be formed from the other side, and he said he should feel it his duty to support the Government. 1 do not want to see tilings in that position in this Parliament. So far as I urn personally concerned, I believe that the be«t thing for Ministers to do would be to resign. Let ihe hon. member for Egraont get oh the Benches, and keep him there, and mike him bring down his proposals. I should keep him there till he produced hie proposals for taxation. I venture to say that, when we hA forced him to bring down bis proposals, we should have such a Budget of taxation brought down by the hon. wemher for Egmont that, while the hon. gentlemen now on those Benches would lash us with whips, he would whip us with scorpions.