Mr Sheehan before the Electors.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 4024, 21 November 1881, Page 2

Mr Sheehan before the Electors.

Mr John Sheehau addressed the electors at the Theatre Koyal on Saturday night. There was a large attendance, and His Worship the Mayor occupied the chair. After some introductory remarks, Mr Sheehan proceeded to give an account of his stewardship, and the steps he had taken while in Parliament last session. He said:—When I arrived in Wellington, there was one important question on foot—the .Representation Bill. Shortly after my arrival I called a meeting of the Northern and Auckland members to see what action we would take. We appointed a deputation to wait on Miuisters, first to point out the unfairness in the allocation of members, and secondly the extraordinary preponderance of members in the South Island, showing them that the native population ought to be taken into account, and additional members given to the North. On. waiting on the Government we were informed lhafc the bill was so advanced that it could not be altered, and we were also told that the northern province and the .North Island had more members than they were entitled to, and they assured the deputation thatthenative population had sufficient representation already. Then we asked, suppose the Maoris agreed' to give up their special representation, would they then be taken into account, and give the North additional members, the reply was in the negative. I bad a special grievance of my own arising from the Government proposal to cut off all tho country south of the Kauaeranga creek, and throwing it into Tauranga instead of having taken something off Tauranga, so that the gold fields districts might have an additional member. (Applause ) I consider the division of this district was unfair, but failed to convince Ministers of the fact. These proposals having been refused the question arose as to what action should next be taken, and we found that we were not the only persons who had similar grievances, many members from Nelson and the West Coast complained of unfairness. Ido not, of course, conceal the fact that we assisted these people to some extent from a party point of view, for it would be quite possible by our action that if a want of confidence motion were brought forward the JMeibou peoplo would vote with us. We then resorted to a course that is generally known as stonewalling, and I was placed in charge of the stonewall party. At the end of nine days our organisation wap utterly kuoeked ou

the bead by the emphatic course of action pursued by the Speaker. I did nut hesitate to state in my place in the House that the alterations would be found important, and my prediction was verified. I contend that the Governor was not the authority for altering a bill for representation in the Lower House. The Lower House had a sole right to do it, and it should not be left to the Upper House, who were simply nominees of Ministers and the Governor, who was a nominee of the Crown. The result of that operation was to detach the new members. That same day it was told to me that some members of the Government party were prepared to leave the ranks! and it transpired that Mr Ormond, the member , for Clive, was prepared to move a vote of no-confidence. That vote was moved, and on a division, the middle party, of which he was the reputed leader, proved to have no existence, and they were beaten by not a very large majority. That want of confidence arose from an imporiant matter. Every man held they required reform in the system of local self-government, and that the governing I bodies required more money to carry on with. Two bills were introduced—one for lending money to local bodies, such ¥ money to be taken out of loans, and the other to provide for the rating of Crown and native lands, for the purpose of supplementing local finance. I contend that it is not so much a question of finance for local bodies as for a reform in the whole system. I bear in mind the promise made to the country in 1875, when the Abolition Bill was carried. That promise clearly and ditsinctly stated that there should be no more logrolling, for roads and bridges, but all the local bodies were to receive substantial endowuaents. What was to be done in respect to endowments, except in a few solitary cases, did not at'first appear, and when they did

come they were found to be worthless. The endowments in 1877 were given upon rule that "kissing goes by favour," and 1 contend that financial settlement, to be permanent, should not be based upon loan. They should have some substantial means of assistance, if they were to carry on local government. The. proposals of the Governmeut led to a great deal of disfavour, and caused a number of members of the Government party to interview Ministers/and the ultimate secession of Ormond, and the ultimate withdrawal of both bills, whereby Ministers were saved from defeat. One objection I had to the Representation Bill was its proposed increase of the number of members, I hold that there are too many members, and many others think with me, but whenever a bill is introduced for the representation of the people several more members are added. If they did not get laws and good government it was not for want of the number of members they aent to do it for them."

Mr Sheehan then touched on the Licensing Bill, Gaming and Lotteries Bill, Public Works, the Satire policy of the present Government, aod the qualification of electors. Referring to the Upper House, Mr Sheehan said:—" The State machinery was at present very cumbrous. (Some people favour making the Upper House elective by the owners of property, but as to that I have very much doubt, because persons elected in that way id other countries attempted to assume the same power as those of the Lower House. I believe that at no distant period people will question very much'whether they required an Upper House at all, which would be a difficult question to answer. The Lower Chamber could very well do the business of the country, and then the Lower House would be directly responsible to the people. If they were in the future to make any serious alteration in the constitution of the colony I would not be surprised if that alteration went in the-direction of the. Upper Chamber. Speaking on the question of ."• Separation " Mr Sheehan said, "I shall look upon this as the last resource. I think the time will come when the North Island will not have much to fear from the South. Commercially speakiug, the town of Auckland is the beat in the colony, and I am convinced that as settlement goes on we shall have as large a voting power in the North as there is in the other Island." After a number of questions had been asked, none of which were of great importance, Mr Ehrenfried moved a vote of thanks and confidence, which was seconded , by Mr L. J. Bagnall, and declared to; be carried, although only about thirty hands were held up, the large majority of persons present abstaining from voting.