NOTES ON PARLIAMENT.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 268, 17 August 1872, Page 3

NOTES ON PARLIAMENT.

The following is Mr Gillies’ speech in support ot Mr Curtis’ motion in the House on Wednesday night last : —He said that he regretted that the Government had treated the motion in which almost the existence, certainly the prosperous existence of the colony, in such a manner in which they .ha<l_condeßcended to misrepresent its meaning. The motion said that the duties and not thepporersw r ers of the Resident Ministers should devolve upon the provincial authorities. It was unfair and unjust to try and make people believe that the object of the motion was to give the power to dispense the plunder raised by the General Government. He felt proud of his position as Superintendent. Superintendents represented more people and a larger extent of country than any other officers in the country, and were not pitchforked into office by chance votes in that House. They were elected by the people chiefly for their capacity to deal with public works and to exercise colonising functions. They should not hr taunted with seeking to recover the powers conferred by the Constitution Act, hut indirectly taken away by the legislation of 1870. The Ministry came into office pledged to work harmoniously and cordially with the provinces, hut they had broken that pledge. Th • present motion was intended partly to protest against the Mini-administration of the Government. When that policy was initiated he said its authors should have the cr-dit or disgrace of carrying it out. They had the disgrace, for it was the gn-ntsst instance of mal-administration he ever knew. If the present system were continued the colony must be ruined beyond salvation. The motion only asked for such a change as would give the colony a chance of life. He would give instances of the maladministration in his own province. Last session the Government promised to spend £15,000 a year in making roads to the north of Auckland. The return on the table showed an expenditure of £7OO. with contemplated works up to £6,000. The Provincial Government offered to use its survey..staff for those works, but Ministers refused the offer, and sent their own surveyors, who went about trying to stir up disaffection against the Provincial Government. Two years also had been wasted and nothing done regarding the Thames water supply, while in the interim the Provincial Government had actually given a supply and found it pay well. T 1 ie Auckland and Drury Railway failure was due chiefly to the administration of the Board of Commissioners, and not to the province. It had since been surveyed, re-surveyed, and nothing was done until the House was met. Hie contract for Fort Britomart levelling had been given privately, and which cost far more than if it had been let by provincial tender. The Hon. Mr Vogel : There were eight tenders. Mr Gillies continued : None were publicly called for. The Kaipara Railway had gone on satisfactorily under Provincial administration, at a cost of £2,780 per mile ; but as soon as it was trausfered to the General Government the work had been delayed by red tape about some bridge. The very fact that the Government had delayed ordering railway plant until iron rose was a proof that they were not lit to carry out the works. They had refused him the powers granted to other Superintendents with reference to the.purchase of native lands, though the Province had advanced money to their agent to enable him to complete bargains. Immigration, also, had proved a failure, and the iinmk'nnts’ p r Celeslial Que n had arrived six days before the Provincial Government was informed they were coming. The proceedings at the Auckland meering showed that ho was carrying out the views of liis constituents in supporting the motion With reference to the difference of opinion with the Provincial Secretary, he denied that Mr Fox had quoted fairly. The Auckland Government always endeavoured to work harmoniously with the General Government, hut would not accept the position of tools. The arrogant attempt of tin- General Government to set aside Provincial Governments was the cause of the want of harmony. The motion was not an attempt on the part of the Provinces to obtain more power, but an instruction to the General Government to avail itself of the services of tlioH'- who had proved in the past capable <>f performing public works ably and well. The existing institutions should not he set aside unless abolished. They should m>t leave th u in an ignoble "xistence, cutting off their resources, and so paralysing their use; iilm-ss.

The correspondent of the Cross, in an article headed “A Scene in the House, ’* says : A lively » -ene was enacted in the House of Representatives on Thursday evening in the debate for tile adjo iruineiit of Mr Reynold’s motion for estai lisliing only two provinces in the colony, with one central Colonial Legislature, which last was to take cognisance of only matters of purely colonial importance, leaving subjects of a provincial nature to be dealt with by tho two proposed provinces. The details will be found in tlfe speech of the hon. member, and the rough draft of particulars which he produced. Mr Reynolds has made this his favourite study for several years, and, being one of the fathers of the House, he was cheered when he rose to move his pet measure. The question was brought on on Tuesday afternoon and adjourned till next day. Then Mr K<lly (Taranaki) moved the further adjournment for a week, in order to allow of the House considering the motion of Mr Curtis. When Mr Kelly' moved the adjournment of the debate on Mr Reynolds motion, one or two members spoke, and the question was about being put, whereupon Mr Stafford asked the Government to express an opinion on the subject. Mr Fox said the Government declined to be drawn by the honorable member, because, firstly, the proposals and arguments were bald ; and secondly, the motion of Mr Curtis and this one were antagonistic, as Mr Curtis wished to maintain the provinces and give increased powers into their hands; consequently the whole question raised by both motions would fall to be discusspd on the debate on Mr Curtis’s motion. Then up rose the leader of the Opposition, and his ire was great. Fire flashed from the eyes of Stafford—anger animated his voice into a shriek. He looked, acted, and spoke in a tone perfectly unusual in the House. He said he felt perfectly humiliated at the course the Government had taken ; maintained that the Government should have itself proposed the adjournment, instead of setting up Mr Kelly to do so ; praised Mr Reynold’s spirit and his synopsis of a new Constitution as being exceedingly well drawn and conclusive (I don’t tliiiiK the staunch and steadfast Reynolds took the bait), and then amid repeated “ Oh, ohs” from the [ House, said that when he was in the Government he took the position of 1 ader in the House, and did not adopt

•ucli a course a 9 that followed by the “set I of miserable wretches" who sat ou the

Ministerial benches. The Speaker called him to order, and pointed out that his language was not Parliamentary. Mr Stafford then withdrew the words, “ Ministerial benches," and substituted “ miserable wretches, in another place.” The Speaker said that was perfectly parliamentary. At last Mr r-tatford said he was favorable to the adjournment. Mr Gisborne pointed out that Mr Stafford had spoken more like “ a scold than a stab sman,” and stated that on a former occasion,when Mr Whitaker brought down an elaborate scheme of a similar nature, Mr Stafford, then a Minister, gave an evasive reply. Mr Reader Wood also censured the Government, but he too did not propose the adjournment. Mr Gillies said that the two motions were not antagonistic, and that it was quite plain that, if Mr Reynold’s motion was carried, that of Mr Curtis would simple he limited to the consideration of two provinces instead of eight, and he thought it would be better to let the debate go on ; b it neither did he oppose the adjournment. Mr Lttckie expressed surprise at the position taken by the three leaders of the Opposition—Mr Stafford, Mr Wood, and Mr Gillies—in creating an acrimonious debate on a mere matter of form, while concurring in the proposal for adjournment. He termed Mr Gillies’s lawyer’s logic most illogical, showing that Mr Curtis’s resolution was based on the existing powers, and. that even though Mr Reynold’s resolution were passed the law would not be altered, but would require ao Act of Parliament and the consent of the Queen before the change could be effected ; and that instead of being concurrent, the two motions were clearlv conflicting. He sneered at Mr Stafford’s angry and passionate tme, which be supposed the lion gentleman mistook for eloquence, and referred to a time when lie displayed a melting mood to the House. He said that instead of discussing mythical schemes like this, which the House knew would not be carri 'd tli s session, they ought to be addressing themselves to the practical work of tlie country, and aiding in carrying out the public works policy to which nil eyes are directed. Mr Shepherd (Dunstan) made an effective and independent speech, not altogether taking the part of the Government, luit declining to ally hims< If with no Opposition whose leaders resorted to political trickery and sham merely to gain office. He rnivlit, after hearing the financial statement, vot.<* against the Guv ruin -■ * 1 1, but before lie did so be would like to know who would he its successors, for it they were going to change there would he great danger of going out of the fry-ing-pan into the fire. The debate was adjourned till Wednesday, when Mr Curtis’ motion will take precedence. An adjournment of the House for 20 minutes took place here, and on reassembling Mr Stafford made an explanation. He asked to he allowed to withdraw the words to which the Speaker had called his attention during the debate on Mr Reynold’s motion. He wished the House to understand that the words were ns d in the heat of debate, and without any premeditation. Mr Fox had tlie greatest, satisfaction in listening to the words <>t the hon member He had no doubt that the words were hastily given vent to. He felt convinced that the words with precisely the reverse of those, which in his calmer moments, the lion member would use in reference to any member of the Government. He would only add to wliat lie had stated the words of an eminent statesman, “ An affront, handsomely withdrawn, becomes an honorable obligation.” Mr Gisborne also d> si rid to withdraw any expression lie might have used in replying to the lion member. From their long official connection lie felt sure the lion member would not have used the words withdrawn had be not been led away by the warmth of the debate. Then Mr Speaker expressed bis gratification at the satisfactory settlement, and praised — some think over-praised—Mr Stafford for bis handsome apology nod withdrawal lie had made, &c. But, once more, I fail to perceive the grounds. Of course the next best tiling to making the mistake is apologising for it; but, after all, according to my lights, it is nothing deserving of eulogy : and, as was said by the Frenchman on being knocked down by the Englishman, who discovered that he had floored the wrong man, Sare, you sorry, you polojeese; but can you wwstrike me ?” So, perhaps, in that view, silence from the chair on such a gross breach of taste might, in this instance, have been “ golden.”