THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 16, 16 December 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1871.

We recently referred to the imperfect reports, published by the Auckland newspapers, of the proceedings in the Provincial Council. On that occasion we instanced the debate on the proposal to cancel the debt of the Auckland harbour. Another instance may be mentioned with still more striking effect. IVe refer to the important debate on the resolutions proposed by Mr. Creighton with regard to the attempt made in the last session by the General Government to change the Constitution, and to the increased taxation which was imposed to uphold an extravagant system of Government. The debate on that motion, and subsequent amendments, was not reported. The “ Cross,” we believe, gave a fair summary of some of the points in the mover’s speech, but the general scope and tenor of the debate lias been lost. This may lie guessed when we state that a very few lines have been devoted to the record of a discussion occupying the greater portion of three full days. This deflate was one which the public had a right to know something of. The resolution raised questions of vital importance to the best interests of the colony ; and although the “ Cross” and “ Herald” attempted to pooh-pooh the motion, there can be no doubt at all that it was both unpalatable and inconvenient to those who endeavour to justify the actions of the General Government, however nefarious these may be.

The corruption and demoralisation of the General Assembly by the action of the present Ministry, was demonstrated by several speakers ; and the scandalous breach of faith of which the Government was guilty-in their dealings with the provinces was set forth in clear light by several speakers. Hut it was only too apparent that, the corrupt influence of the General Government had extended to the. Council itself; and the shameless way in which some members spoke of the short-comings of the Auckland representatives at Wellington by not emulating Southern members in their attempt “to rob” the country by giving a slavish support to Ministers, was far from being a creditable, feature of the debate. The u grab-all policy” appeared to be the right one with Mr. Henry Ellis, and one or two members of that type. They never supposed, or pretended to suppose, that the colony could meet its engagements after a few years; the sole consideration with them, having the certain contingency of public bankruptcy in view, was “ how much of the public plunder can we get?” We say advisedly, that however much any one may covet “ the loaves and fishes,” to use a pet phrase in the debate,' we should deeply regret if the public men of Auckland lent themselves to a system of dishonesty to obtain even the fragments of the feast which Mr. Vogel has prepared. There is such a thing as public virtue ; there is such a principle as public morality; and as surely as the moral code which should govern communities is violated, so surely will punishment follow its violation. But, say the -advocates of corruption in the Auckland Provincial Council, “ posterity must bear the burden.” True, posterity must bear the burden; but do we owe nothing to posterity ? Are we to live in and for the present ? Is the welfare and the good name of our childrens’ children nothing to us ? Surely, as a community, we are not so far lost to every principle of honour and public morality as to hold by such an outragious doctrine as this, —that wc are under obligations to posterity ? We cannot conceive it possible. For what does it mean ? It means that we are prepared for our own sordid ends—for the sake of an ephemeral prosperity, and the prospect of a little immediate gain, to sacrifice, knowingly and wilfully, the hopes, and prospects, and good name of those who are to succeed us. For every one of those who clamour for “ a fair share of the plunder” in the Provincial Council and elsewhere, openly admit that our descendants in New Zealand must repudiate their public debt. And yet, for the sake, of personal considerations, they arc prepared to incur, as Mr Burke once said of India, an eternal debt, a debt “ still paying, still to owe,” which must he bound on the present generation in New Zealand, and entailed or mortgaged on their posterity for ever. A debt of millions, in favour of a set of men, whose names, with few exceptions, arc either buried in the obscurity of their origin or talents, or dragged into light by the enormity of their speculative proposals. The words of Mr Burke are, “ or the enormity of their crimes.” We hesitate to apply the language to any of the public men of New Zealand, but should repudiation result from persistence in the present policy, then such language alone could truly designate their public career. It is to be regretted, we say again, that the debate on the motion of Mr Creighton has not been reported. For the sake of the Council itself, we hold that opinion. It would have proved, we have been told, that all are not venal ; and that the talent and public spirit in the Council arc represented by those who refuse to bow down to the golden image which the Colonial Treasurer has set up.

Mr William Buckland and Mr Mackay spoke strongly against the Government policy, which has already robbed the province of Auckland of from £13,000 to £20,000 a year of its revenues, and imposed extra taxation, although no less than £-10,000 odd, interest on the Public Works and Immigration Loan has been charged this year to the loan itself. Mr Mackay pointed out that the Native policy of the Government lias been a costly failure. War has never ceased ; while outrage and murder goes unpunished. The Native Minister, by visiting the natives who were sheltering Todd’s murderers, after preventing the force sent to arrest them from doing so, had condoned the murder in the eyes of the natives, and nothing could be done to put the law in execution without further embroilment, although Mr Todd was a Government officer killed in the execution of his duty. The cost of the defence department of New Zealand was as great now as it had been during the war, and nothing appeared to have been accomplished by it. As for the roads that had been made in the North Island by the General Government, these were not for military purposes, but to sap the Southern districts of Auckland for the sake of Napier and Hawke’s Bay, and to render valuable the Rarigitiki and Manawatu district. Mr Mackay pointed out that there never had been any native difficulty in the Manawatu country. He believed there had once been twenty Hauhaus at Masterton, and they had put the good people of Wellington into a great state or excitement. But they could find that number of Hauhaus walking about the streets of Auckland or Shorthand any clay of the week, and they had not been much troubled by it. Surely, if there-ever was a place in which there was a native difficulty it was at the Thames; and yet, Mr Mackay said, although the General Government might purchase the whole of the native title to the goldfields for about £50,000 they would not do anything towards solving this pressing native difficulty. When applied to on this subject, the Government said that the sum of £200,000 had been set apart by the Government for the purchase of native land in the North Island, but it Was only to be spent in extinguishing the native title

wliere a native difficulty existed. Surely, as Mr Mackay remarked, the Government have a pretty considerable native difficulty on their hands at the Thames, and it certainly would be worth £50,000 to the country to get rid of it. But the policy of the present Government is to thwart every project which would give Auckland province and the Thames goldfield anything like a chance of continuous prosperity. Reverting to the debate in question, we must say that the time of the Council could not have been better occupied than in reviewing the proceedings of the General Assembly affecting our domestic legislation. It will show the General Government that they are not altogether beyond public criticism. Although they have succeeded in muzzling the Auckland press, the Auckland province is not altogether without a mouthpiece ; and although the Auckland newspapers may decline to report debates in the Provincial Council, the Government cannot ignore the resolutions come to by the Council. As a sample of some of the plain speaking indulged in by members of the Council, we reprinted some days since the abstract of Mr. Sheehan’s speech, from a recent issue of the “ Morning News.” It gave the public some idea of the character of the debate ; but even this was feeble as compared with the five hours’ debate on Wednesday night last with which the subject was closed. Mr. Carleton appeared on the arena as the supporter of Mr. Ellis’s amendment, which was negatived on the voices. He rejoiced at the prospect of the distraction of the provinces, and twitted the Executive with proposing a sham, — the amendment of the Goldfields Secretary not being intended as a real demonstration against the Government, seeing that Mr. Sheehan and his friends had supported Mr. Vogel, knowing that it was his intention to destroy the provinces. This called forth an able defence from Mr. Sheehan, who repeated his former statements. He had no faith in Mr. Vogel; he did not trust him, and lie had always believed that his policy would ruin the country. Messrs. Lusk, Buckland, Swanson, Shanaghan, Mackay, and. Nicholson spoke in the same strain. Mr. Ellis took a different line, as did Mr. Mitchell. The debate was closed by Mr. Creighton, who withdrew his resolutions in favour of Mr. Sheehan’s amendment, which went further than his own. It was carried by 19 to 1, Mr. Ellis being the minority.