SIR ROBERT STOUT AT WELLINGTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2666, 5 August 1887, Page 2

SIR ROBERT STOUT AT WELLINGTON.

Wellington July 8. Though the night was rather stormy, the Opera House was comfortably filled in all parts last night to hear what Sir Robert Stout had to say in defence of the policy of his government. A few ladies were present, and the meeting was exceedingly orderly, if not very enthusiastic. The Mayor presided,'and there wore two or three gentlemen upon the platform. The Premier was well received, and led off with an attack upon the Press of the Colony generally, and the local Press in particular, Sir Robert loveth not tho fourth estate, though this had probably nothing to do with the fact that the Press accomodation on the

•occasidh was execrable. With refer-. .■ once to His recent speech at Napier, in which he acoused the New Zealand Times of desiring to reduce wage3to 5s or'6s per diem, he read extracts from the paper in question.';'.wjtb/# . view to substantiating hisj.acciteatiop' This, the extracts Mok ; certainly faileoVtodo,andliia ; explanation was "coldly received, ; aiid:'"felf. ratjieV flat, He ridiculed~the v augge'sii6n : wliich had' . .been madefy .the: ivonins Post that ;he (the" Premier) should be as'keawhen' the repairs to the.Wellingtpn'pstdffi.ce; .wouldbecoinm.enced,an4wfts^eneraily: sarcastic when dealing with airy ques>tion in whioh the Pre93.were ia'tplfedj" Apropos to the wages question a letter from Mr G, Fisher appears this day in the New.Zeala'nd Times showing that the Stout-Vogol Government- attempt ted in July of last yearja reduce.'the rate of wages in the: railwaydepartment to Os-per r diem ( : for. unskilled labor, with acories|ohdmg reduction for sliillod labor. '

The Premier also attempted to explain away his flattering remarks about Auckland Harbor,and strongly deprecated any attempt to stir up pro-, vinoial jealously, though fe, has not: been quite guiltless on ibis score him--self. Howevor, he talked a great deal' about fostering a National feeling,, and his remarks on this subject wereapplaudod. Ho made also relerence to the fact 'that his meeting (Tuesday)' clashed with the previously advortisod. meeting of Dr Newman, the candidate for '.Thorndon, and declared rather con.t.emptously that Dr Newman was" not in his mind at all.'

Sir Robert Stout then addressed himself to the subject of retrenchment but dealt very sketchily with it, declaring that whatever the cry was heard it referred to somo district other than in which it was uttered.'\The population he said, was incrsa sing, and our wants with it. He claimed that his Government had made a saving .of £85,000 and then there had been savings in tho working railways) in eduqation, mines, and the postal and telegraph departments. He quoted the opinions of Messrs Cowan and Goßoheiito. show that as iong as the people looked to Government .to build railways,; to educate the young andjto do other things- for ,them, the expenaoof Government must necessarily increase.' He defended the reduction o e the salaries of Civil Servants, and referred to his proposal' of 1886 for the-appointment of a Oouu. mis'sioner to-fepbii upon .tho''adjustment of'salaries with the. ourronfc rate of living, uud referred to a similar soheme lately propounded by Professor "in the Con■temporary Repw,';, lint did. notstate whetherWPrbfe'sM' had copied Sir Robert; Stout.or. Sir Robert Stout had- copied'the' Jrofessorr-probably the former. 'Tho Premier assorted that- whatever the fate of the Civil servants might bo unddr the Govern-' mout, it would bo far worso should the Opposition attain power. Ho did this, howover, witli reference to every objection to hiß : polioy, and his repeated' siioors at the' Opposition, and at all these who differed politically from himself were, as usual, the weak parts in his adding.

He defended the new tariff, but not with any dogree of enthusiasm, admitting as Mr-Ballance admitted ou a ' prior occasion in the same place, that he was not prepared to defend ovory .item in tho tariff. He oonipared the • proposed .taxation with the tariff of 1882, when there was less population,- but was reminded by one of the audience that "We were-better off then." His Government he declared did not propose to increase taxation but to revert to previous taxation. It was their duty to'take up each item, and see how far they could assist looal industries. He asserted that manufacturing countries were the richest in the world and instanced England. Someone among the audienco, howover, exclaiming " yes; they have Freetrade there," Sir Eobert Stout, amid considerable laughter, passed on to the consideration of Germany. Referring to. the reckless assertion made by him at Napier to the effect that Freetraders desired to introduce Kaffir labor tq New Zealand, he in a most disingenuous nianiiGr proceeded to qualify that statement, by insisting that no Freetrader could possibly logically, object to the introduction of either Kaffir or' Chinese labor, or vote for the' imposition, of a Chinese poll-tax. 'lt did hot seem to striko Sir Eobert Stout that a Freetrader might be quite faithful to his' political principles, and yet be a determined opponent to tho introduction of. Kaffir and Chinese labor on moral and sanitary grounds. It is a great .pity that Sir Robert Stout should, throughout his speech, havo lost no opportunity of attributing the worst rjiotives to his opponents. Such a course may not be unnatural on the part of some parliamentary candidates , but it is a grave error on the part of the Premier of tho Colony. He denied that Protective duties inoreased tho prioe of goods to consumers,, but did not attempt to disprove that- such duties must inevitably reduce the wages of workmen. On the subject of candles, which he took as illustrative, he poiuted but that stearine manufacturers of New Zealand had beenfso assisted by Protection that now thoy could oompete against the world, whereon somo one said: " Then you don't want Protection!" and Sir R. Stout admitted that Protection for that industry was not needed nm He (the speaker) was not in favor of prohibitive duties, and therefore it is difficult to perceive in what the policy of the Government differs in this point from that of the opposition.

His policy he enunciated as at Napier the other evening, as retrenchment distribution of wealth, dispersion of land, and diffusion of Education. He was not, he asserted, a Socialist, but thought if there was not a more equal distribution of property here, we should have Socialism, He was in favor of a graduated property tax, and considered that the poor were already sufficiently taxed hy the customs. He defended 'Mr- Balance's unauthorised expenditure; as no expenditure, but a ''contingent liability"

only, which certainly sounds more euphonious, whatever it may in reality be. The scheme, he asserted, and -incorrectly, had been condemned by the: Opposition. The candour of a statesman—did ; Sir Robert Stout possess.it—would have constrained him to'-admit that the Opposition"objected, not to the scheme, itself,'-but toMr. 'Ballance.pledging the conntry.',to r? ten times the expeiiditare-'jhe legislature-hai-sanoiioned. •Of wuise;we had the usual Government declaration that : ihat'the Oppositioii had no policy. ; Sii :Boh|rt:Mfided.ldj'omewhat. in\ • : flatecX language-.to-the evictions in the' -.Highlands bfSootltod, With an apparent idea of suggesting' that Heft Zea? landers would suffer-similar, evictions.

Sir'- Robert. 'Stout dwelt at great length :onthe subject of education, and though his remarks were merely .a repetition of what ho has frequently said before, they were generally of a most interesting, nature, and would havo Leon far more valuable, and have fallen with greater power had he not repeatedly attempted to. show, % rather to assert-that the Opposition were opposed to the education of the children of the -poor. These -stupid and untruo assertions can' only injure the cause of education-by shewing that .all.Sir Robert's own boasted educatioii baa not taught Bim that regard for truth: ;aiid accuracy which trueoduoation should teach its votaries,.- Though the Premibr- spoke for two hours his defence of his Government was both brief and sketchy, his efforts being directed aioroto the deliveiy of his opinions 'upon education., than-to any elucidation of the pressing political questions of the day. As regards tone and manner the speech was considerably higher than the generality of speeches delivered by Sir Robert Stontdn the House, but it can in no sense be described as the effort of a.Statesman speaking' in the capital of his country; too much personal animus was displayed: to political opponents, and his perpetual attacks • upon- tho newspapers causedhia hearers to laugh at and not with him.''-