The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1888. SIR JOHN HALL'S SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1797, 2 October 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1888. SIR JOHN HALL'S SPEECH.

Sib Johx Hall, the great power behind the throne, the foster-mother of the present Ministry, has spoken, and it fi needless to say that he eicelled himself in misrepresenting Liberal objects, and in magnifying what Conservatism has done. He started by eulogising the present Ministry because of having effected retrenchment to the' amount of £230,000, without touching salaries under £l5O a year. It has been positively asserted that half the boasted retrenchment is merely i nominal. Mr W. C. Walker has challenged the Colonial Treasurer to give the items of the saving effected, bat he has not done so. Douet is therefore thrown on the genuineness of the so-called retrenchment. There was another thing which Sir John took care to say nothing at all about. . He did not say that there must have been fearful extravagance in bygone days, when there was room for such enormous saving. Who is reponsible for the extravagance? Was it not the rery same party that Sir John Hall has been allied with all his life, and of which he was once the Premier? Sir John's boastfulness respecting present financial carefulness is nothing more nor less than a confession of previous financial extravagance, for which he and his party are entirely answerable. As regards the boast about salaries under £l5O not being reduced, men getting six shillings a day were re^

duced to five shillings, boys were put to work where men had been dismissed, and the amount allowed to the unemployed has been lowered to only two and sixpence per day. Sir John's next assertion was that the Property Tax, at one penny in the pound, was so high that to raise it any more would be unjust and imprudent, but he praised up the increase made in the customs. This is the most coldblooded, inhuman utterance of all. It was imprudent to increase the tax on men of property, but it was right and proper to increase it on the miserable pittance the poor derive from their labours. We quite approve of hia suggestion to reduce the expenditure on public works to £300,000 a year, but then, if such has been done, we want to know what was the object of borrowing £2,000,000 ? He told us that our loans brought only £97 and £9B per £IOO, and that we lost £260,000 on the £2,000,000 we borrowed. Then why was it borrowed ? If money is to be spent only at the rate o£ £300,000 a year, what was the necessity of borrowing such a large sum? We are afraid there is no explanation for it, only that it was done to ease the financial corns of the Bank of New Zealand. Sir John also spoke highly of the Native Land Act, but when we know that that measure opens the door to land-sharking we might expect it. It was in his reference to perpetual leasing, however, that all his effrontery came out. He said the great question of the late election was perpetual leasing, and that the condemnatory voice of the electors found an echo in Parliament. Perpetual leasing was therefore virtually disposed of. Nothing could exceed the shameless effrontery displayed in this assertion except the thick-headedness of those who applauded it. Perpetual leasing was not a question at the late elections, and the fact that, despite all Sir John Hall and his fellow-landsharks can do, the number who have taken up land under the perpetual lease-hold system in preference to freehold, stands in the ratio of seven to one shows how senseless it is for Sir John Hall to try to throw cold water on it. He next tried to throw dust in the eyes of his of his audience in reference to Mr Ballance's special settlements, which he said were getting Government assistance up to the present time. Now wlnt a shamelessly unfair way to put the matter. The people took the land on condition that thev would be paid for clearing the bush off , it. The amount paid to them for bush clearing is added to the original value of the land, and on the total sum they must pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent in the shape of rent. This money paid to them for improving the land—money on which they must pay interest—Sir John Hall represents as if it were charity money, and he sayß when it ceases they will not be able to live on the land. There is one thing certain ; they will do better i on it than if at the tender mercies of Sir John Hall. When the land is clear, they will be able to live on it ! much better than under any other arrangement that could be made for them but it would suit Sir John to have them starving so that he might get them at sixpence per day, He spoke approvingly of the new Electoral Bill, and the the modified Hare-system of voting, and this is enough to decide any one who has had any doubt on the subjeot. The Bill would render it impossible for a poor 1 man to get into parliament, and that is the reason Sir John approves of it: just because the whole Government of the country would be thrown into the hands of the class of which he is a representative Apropos of this came the question of reducing the number of members, and Sir John warned the •lectors that unless they let their voice be heard it was possible the reduction already effected would be set aside. This is just a part of the system to steal away the liberties of the people. If the Electoral Bill becomes law a parliament of rich men will undoubtedly be elected, and they* will make laws which will take all power out of the hands of the people. We have all along held this view of the subject, and the day will come when it will be seen that we are right. On the whole Sir John's speech was a very feeble effort, containing nothing but very stale and commonplace utterances, which have done duty for arguments from time immemorial. The speech was as barren as the session which it professed to review, but of course we could expect nothing better from a politician by whom language has always been employed to J conceal his thoughts.