CORRESPONDENCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1548, 30 November 1883, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor. Sir,—lt will be remembered that Mr Hawkins in his speech of the 12th inst. endeavored to prove, by quoting a letter of mine, that I defended the land policy of the Government, because it contained the principles of land nationalisation. On Saturday last it would appear that lie abandoned this letter as a basis for his assertion, and in another column and a-half speech endeavored to prove by Hansard quotations that I wilfully voted with the Government on the loasing clauso while professing to be opposed to it. The tot quotation he gives is, "In Committee, on division 011 amendment to clause 2, the Governor may proclaim rural lands for leasing under this Act, Mr Buchanan paired for this clause." Now, if Mr Hawkins had been anxious to avoid misrepresentation, hei would have noted that on that day (25th August, 1882) I had not voted personally on any division whatever, .and, was therefore probably absent from "Wellington altogether. This was actually the case, and I, in the usual way, left a pair on all Go vemment questions that might turn up I ill my absence. Mr Hawkins may ask why I didn't leave a pair against them in the leasing clause. My reply is that it is almost impossible to get a pair on a particular clause, as no ono can tell what shape it may take in Committee. It was, moreover, well known that the Government had such a largo majority from both sides of the House on this point that opposition was practically useless. The division majority of 26 (without my vote) is ample proof of this. The foregoing facts also strictly apply to Stevens' subsequent amendment on the same day, which Mr Hawkins also quotes, and from which he says I was absent, Let us now turn to the session of 1883, and tny vote for the repeal of the purchasingclause when the Bill was passing through Committee. Mr Hawkins virtually admits that ho doest not understand the division list on this particular occasion, because he expressly leaves to my consideration what ho calls a curious question arising out of the pairs, but despite this he does not for a moment hesitate to maligu mo by stating publicly that I voted in direct opposition to my professions. He socs my name recorded on both sides of the same division list —admits his inability to understand it—but lias no scruple whatever in proclaiming that I have voted in a manner which proves my inconsistency and dishonesty as a inembor. I will now endeavor to explain Mr Hawkins 1 curious question, and then leavo your readers to judge between us. Somo timo before the division camo on I had paired against the repeal of the purchasing clause, but, unfortunately,, happening to forget this, did not go out of the sitting chamber when the division bell rang. I was consequently locked in, and by the' inexorable rules of the House compelled to vote with my opponents, The Hansard division list of courso shows this, but it also shows my real vote in the pair list against the repeal of the purchasing clause, as I have already stated. I commend this portion of my letter to the special attention of your readers, and ask them to come to their own conclusions as to Mr Hawkins' statement that ho spared no pains in being accurate in his quotations. A word as to his accusations again.it myself in this respect, I admit at onco that wishing to save your space, and my own time, I did not quote Mr Hawkins' exact words, but confidently ask your readers to judge (or themselves whether I in the slightest degree misrepresented him.

I atn, &(■., W, C. Buchanan,