PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 279, 30 August 1872, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

i CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MR. STAFFORD’S WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION. Greville telegraphs as follows to the Auckland Evening .Star — Thursday. In the Hotlie last night Mir J. White (Hokitika) said the former Ministry had never resorted to the same means as this to command a majority of the House. He quoted Fox’s speech on the want of confidence motion iu 1869 regarding animals of high order being easily killed, and those of low order, being difficult to kill. He also quoted from a speech made by Mr Fox some time ago, stating that it was not incumbent upon the Opposition to define policy. It would be unconstitutional to set up two policies against each other. He condemned the Government for abusing patronage and operating on members of the House. He attacked Harrison, editor of the Independent. Compared former opposition to Ministry with his change of opinion on being appointed to the Independent. He accused Harrison of endeavouriug to frighten West Coast members by articles in the Independent into voting for Government. Influence had been brought to bear upon him from the West Coast by means of telegraph. Comparing return of Government printing and advertisements Mr White said the amount set down as paid Evening Post waß £54 above the actual sum. He compared the return of the Otago Times and Star. He said the Star received more advertisements, though its circulation was ■confined to town. In the institution recently started, called the Press Association, its directors were Messrs Vogel and ißeeves, managing directors. The editor •of the Independent , and manager, was the man who had been denounced by the ■Premier. The managing director was the most unscrupulous supporter of the present Ministry. The Speaker said the word “ unscrupulous ” was unparliamentary. Mr White withdrew the word unscrupuluos, but did not mean to imply any stigma ; much stronger language had been used without the Speaker being requested to call members to order. The Press Association was not to be depended upon at a time when political excitement like the present was continually puffing Government before and since the session. He read several telegrams, also buttered, from Mr Harrison, the managing director. . . Mr Vogel said that when he visited Melbourne the manager of the Argus newspaper desired to assist with the Government of New Zealand to supply press telegrams which he expected to obtain from RGUter when the cable was open to England. He asked £SOO a year. Mr Vogel told him he was not empowered nor authorised to treat with him for the Government, but he recognised the value of the connection, and if the Government did not treat lie would purchase the right himself. It appeared from inquiries which he (Mr Vogel) instituted in an arrangement made for special New Zealand news, and it was arranged if Mr Vogel and the Argus came to terms that special New Zealand telegrams should be procured from London. The Cabinet refused to take up the matter, which then devolved upon Mr Vogel, wlio formed a Press Association. With reference to its being of a one-sided character, it was sufficient to say that papers of all shades of opinion subscribed to it. Already a large number of papers obtained news from the Press Association. The evening journals were certainly excluded, but negotiations were going on to take them in. The decision regarding the Brogden contracts ; the decision of the Government regarding the Wanganui bridge was perfectly right, and in the interests of the colony. / Mr Stafford had never factiously opposed. His speech was in fact suspiciously moderate. No Government could have a long existence in this colony. From time to time it happened that those whose wants were not satisfied became enemies to the Government. Their position was much complicated by the proximity of Provincial Governments. Wellington had now gone into opposition because the Government refused to grant preposterous claims for native rents. The Brogden contracts involved a very large amount of labour both in London and here, and were almost perfect. He twitted Stafford with bringing down such a measure as the Road Boards Bill, and afterwards withdrawing it. He denied that Stafford was the author of the railvray scheme# He then traced the history of the policy of the Government, and would explain the allowances for his trip to England and Australia, and if the House proßOunced the amount excessive he would refund it. He deprecated the aspersions a*d suspicions against the character of the Ministers of the Crown. While in London he had devoted himself entirely to the public business, and had only received £1,200 allowances ; MrFitzherbert received £3,000 for his expenses. He defended the ’Frisco mail service, as the average time was superior to anyjpail service since 1863. He read tables as to cost of various services, showing that this was cheaper than the mail services under any previous ministry during their term of office. He denied that the ’Frisco service spoiled negotiations with the Atlantic and Pacific Company. They were Btopped by the war in Europe. Ho denied that the Government abused its patronage, but charged Mr Stafford with •doing so. He did not see whv members of the House should be precluded from appointments in the public service. Some of the highest officials in England had ■been in the House of Commons. He •warned the House not to believe in 4he sincerity of the last resolution re-

ferred to, and referred to Mr Stafford’s former Central views. Mr Bunny had said that the disqualification Act did not prevent the Provincial authorities from employing members of Parliament if il secured provincial administration of public works. The provincial or central views depended upon which side a man served—provincialists became centralists when in the Ministry. He criticised the actions of the leaders of the Opposition and supposed new Ministry, and said that the Opposition merely desired to secure seats in the Ministerial benches. His speech occupied nearly five hours. It was very able and well delivered, and cheered at the close.

Per New Zealand Press Association. o Mr FitzHEßßErt spoke three and a-half hours this afternoon, being mainly a running comment of Vogel’s speech on the question, when, owing to the Governor’s ball to-night, the House adjourned. He expressed sincere sympathy with Mr Vogel in regard to the principles of his policy, referring as proof to his own past career, and the bill lie brought back from England to initiate the colonising policy. He utterly denied that auy local considerations or questions had affected his vote ; but he agreed with Mr Munro, that the fault committed by Mr Vogel was putting the cart before the horse. He and others had urged Mr Vogel not to hurry matters, and to get the surveys made before determining the lines to be constructed. The advice was neglected, and a muddle ensued. Mr Vogel had great constructive abilities in theory, but no command of practical details. As to the financial condition, even a balance of £116,000 was no real test. He would subsequently refer to the financial statement nS such a test. He objected as unfair to compare the cost of our railways with those made years ago elsewhere. Iu Victoria now lines only costed £4,000 to £5,000 a mile. Admitted the Government had done the best regarding Fielding’s negotiations, but it acted on a wrong principle. Referred to his own negotiations in England regarding the establishment of a mail line to take the place of the then expiring Panama Company as showing his interest in the matter. The Colony had’ now met its proper fate for not at the proper time having invited the co-operation of the Australian Colonies. Mr Vogel, whilst accusing Mr Stafford of insincerity in regard to the third resolution had himself shown a jealousy of Provincial Governments, and a fear lest if the Government gave a little they would want more. To prevent fatal mistakes the Government should, when travelling a new road, have sought the assistance of those who knew it; but when he asked to be consulted and trusted in re the Masterton Railway, he met an emphatic refusal. The Government refused his offered assistance. If Mr Stafford hereafter acted in the same manner, he would be met with the same fate. Those who held what is termed Provincial views were the real upholders of Colonial and National unity, and he was fighting the battle of the colony—not a particular district. Mr Vogel had contrasted the number of natives killed under the late and the present Governments, as if Stafford was responsible for their lives. He had always said he trembled at what would be the result if a change of Ministry took place, and an instructive answer was supplied by the fact that on the present motion Taiaroa and Katene had paired off in favour of the Government, with Parata and Kaiaitiana against the Government, representing peaceful native districts. The other two representing districts which would be affected by a change of Native policy.