EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9161, 19 July 1895, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. WAST OF CONFIDENCE DEBATI.

Mr G. HUTCHISON said the Minister for Lands had not touched on the real question, namoly, the veracity of the Colonial Treasurer in London. He had referred to all sorts of subjects that the Premier had very unfairly tried to fasten on Captain Russell, such as the resignation by Sir George Grey of hie seat. But it was well known that a week before Captain Russell had referred to the matter in the Houpe Sir Geor-e Grey'e resignation was practically dtcided on. Mr M'Keezie had ocenpied a great portion of his speech in referring to the unhippiness of the Opposition, but that was really the highe3t compliment that he could pay them. They were unhappy, as all true patriots and true colonists must be when they found one of the leading Ministers of the day deceiving the financiers of London, on the eve of the floating of a great loan, as to the financial position of the colony. He admitted that the loan was successfully raised, but, the cheapness of money was phenomenal at the time of the Treasurer's visit, and for that the colony had reason to be thankful. Referrine to Mr Ward's statement in London, Mr M'Kenzie ■aid the money was placed in London in view of a crisis, and these securities mighi. be need in connection with the Bank of New Zealand, that the Ministers knew all about that Bank, and he had stated in the recess that the Government knew ten months before the position of that Bank. He quoted against Mr Ward's statement in London a? to having three millions of unpledged securities at the disposal of the Government. That statemont had been cheered by those who heard it, as it gave the impression that the Government, if they so desired, could use these securities for current purposes. He quoted also from the London Times that New Zealaud had, before raising the loan, three millions of securities lyiug idle in London, and if that statement wae not correct it wae the duty of Mr Ward, who was in London at the time, to contradict it. The fact was these securities were not unpledged, and they belonged to the policyholders of the Government Insurance Department, to the depositors of the Post Office and the investors in the Public Trust Department. They were told these securities were intended to be used in case of a crisis, but there was no indication of a crisis in the Treasurer's speech in London. On the contrary, the whole tenor of that speech showed that these securities could be used for current purposes. It was a sorry farce to say that three trustees held the keys of these securities when the Colonial Treasurer possessed skeleton keys, so that he could use them if necessary. He (Mr Hutchison) trusted that tho reprobation of public opinion in this matter would be euon a warning to the Colonial Treasurer that in the colony would ever act in the name way again. Mr REEVES said the melodrama they had just listened to had been more laboured than usual, but he heard the same old adjectives levelled at Sir Harry Atkinson yeara ago. They were told the same old staff that the Opposition did not want to turn the Government out, but that they had heard before also. He denied that the Minister for Lands had ever said he knew all about the Bank of New Zealand. (Mr GREEN—"I heard him say so"). Well, that moat be another example of the unveracity of the Opposition newspapers. Mr Hutchison had stated that Mr Ward had given no indication of a crisis ; whereas Mr Ward had distinctly stated that these securities would be available in case of a crisis. (An hon. member—" Read it!") It had been read so often, it was not worth while doing so again. Referring to Mr Hutchison's statement that there had been a fraudulent misuse of trust funds, he deprecated the comparison between Jabez Balfour and Mr Ward, and said if any member in the House should not make such a comparison as that it was the member tor Fatea. That hon. gentleman had stated that money was bo cheap in London that no particular credit was due to the Treasurer; but the Opposition had predicted that { the loan would be a failure, and because the Treasurer had falsified their prophecies they pursued him to the bitter end with hatred over hia mission to London. Why had not the Opposition attacked the men in London who libelled New Zealand and did their best po injure its credit. There was a grand opening for them, but they did nob take advantage of it and reserved all their attack for a man who deserved co well of bis country as the Colonial Treasurer did. If the doings of those who libelled the colony were exposed, the Opposition feared they might expose their own friende. That was the reason why they made no efforts to attack them. It was shameful and disgraceful to see the attacks on the colony that were sent Home constantly, and they could not be too severely condemned. Respecting the securities, he held that the people who lent money to these departments had no right or title to those securities. All they could demand was to get their money baok again. The debentures were entirely between the Treasury and the departments. The depositors' security for getting their money back was the credit of the colony, and they knew that as long ac that credit was safe their money was safe also. The only thing that could make them lose theic money was a great crisis. Those securities ware in the hands of their legal guardians and could not be unlocked by the Treasurer by any skeleton key. It was an insult to those guardians to assert the contrary. If these securities were to back up the general credit of the colony then the credit of the colony must be used to back up these securities. If the general credit of the country were shattered those unfortunate investors for whom the Opposition felt such Bolicitude would be rained. The only way that could happen would be by the bankruptcy of the colony. r J?hey were told they had no more right to use these securities than a banker had to use the trust deeds in hie possession, but there was no comparison whatever between the cases. The Colonial Treasurer had done nothing legally inequitable or morally wroni*, and yet on returning to the colony he was attacked below the belb, which was a sorry recompense for a public man who tried to do his duty. If this sort of thing was to go on, political life would cease to have any attraction for men of the higheat character.

Mr BELL supposed that was the kind of epeeoh which the Government) party liked, and he was afraid, therefore, he could not reach their intelligence. He would not Attempt to follow the trail of the red herring which Mr Reeves had drawn across the ■cent. He deprecated the language Mr Reeves had used towards Mr Hutchison, which was personal and malicious to a degree, such as no man in his position should indulge in. He was sorry to see the Minister for Labour make such an exhibition of himself in this respect. Mr Reeves had told them that the Treasurer held the master key by which he could get at these securities. (Mr WARD—' , When did I say that!") He was not referring to Mr Ward, but to Mr Reeves ; but he was glad to see the Treasurer repudiate that. He admitted that these securities could be used for the Peat Office, but not for the Public Trustee nor for the Government Insurance, and not for public purpo-es. He (Mr Bell) did not accuse the Treasurer of having committed a theft, but Mr Reeves had deliberately defended Mr Ward from a position which would be called in any other walk of life one of simple larceny. He (Mr Bell) accused Mr Reeves of reading a portion of a section of the Act and refusing to read the full clause, thereby deliberately misleading the House. Mr Reeves said Mr Ward's action was legal aud equitable, but he asked him to test it. Mr Ward had no power to take the securities out of the chest in London, because the aud it officer in London, who was not under the control of the Government, held one of the keys of the chest. The fact was, as he had before stated, that this was a reckless statement on Mr Reeves' part for which there was no justification whatever. People looked to the ooluny, he admitted, but that did not give the Government the right to play the part of fraudulent trustees. The colony was traduced and slandered in London, but the Colonial {Treasurer was the traducer and slanderer. (The SPEAKER—" I must ask for the withdrawal of that statement."} Ho withdrew it •t once, but the Miuister for Education had used similar language. (The SPEAKER— •'That is reflecting on mc.") He did not intend it as a reflection on the Speaker, but he could cot continue hia remarks after being subjected to that insinuation. Mr PI HANI thought when Mr Bell rose they were going to get a lesson in politics, but the hon. gentleman himself had used MTitftl BtroDg epithets to the Minister* and i

membera of the House generally. Hβ had also misled the House as to the statement made by Mr Reeves, who had said exactly the opposite of what Mr Bell bad stated, viz., that although these securities were the property of the Department, they could be used by the colony in the event of a crisis. Mr Reeves also said that the securities could not be used without the couseat of their legal guardians, which was a different version to that given by Mr Bell. He ;Mr Pirani) held that it was as fair to use the securities to protect the colony as to protect any run ;on any of the departments. What the Government party complained of was that the Opposition lost no opportunity of crying down the credit of the colony and reflecting on the personal credit of its Ministers.

Mr EAKNSHAW said there wa3 a time when he thought Mr Reeves could keep closely to the debate, but his whole epeech that uigut was a string of platitudes. Mr Keeve3 had referred to the number of men returned to eupport the Government at the last election, buo that sounded strangely, comiug from a gentleman -who had requested his constituents not to pass a certain resolution, as it would reflect on him. He was given to speaking plainly, but not personally, respecting the Colonial Treasurer, a:id lie asserted that Mr Ward had gone Home more on his own business than that of the colony. He had, in fact, gone more for the purpose of floating the Nelson Company than for the purpose of floating the loan for the colony. He (Mr Earnshaw) was of opiniou that Mr Ward had not got the loan a shilling cheaper than the Ageut-General could have done. He condemned the Government for making the Colonial Treasurer's utterances in Londou a parly question, and asserted that a majority of the House condemned Mr Ward's utterance, yet under the party whip they would vote against Captain Russell's amendment. The Minister for Lamia had stated that the amendmeut was brought for ward to influence the Auckland election, but if there waa one subject more than another as to which the Ministers should be silent it was that question, and if the working men of Auckland were wise they would reject the man put forward by the Government, who were no friends of the Labour party.

Mr COLLINS would not have risen, bnt for resurrection of an old charge as to their subservience to the Government as a party. He intended vol.iug agaiust the amendment, as he considered that there had never been brought forward a want of confidence motion on a noli a trifling pretext as the present one. He accused Mr Earnshaw of being thoroughly inconsistent iv his political action, and said so long as he remained &• member of the labour party he had no right to accuse other members of inconsistency. They were told Mr Ward had gone Home on private business, but he (Mr Collins) contended that the Treasurer had done the work of the colony well and faithfully. They were told last session that the colony was being ruined, and the Treasurer was told that if he went to the London market he would find how the colony had suffered ; but the result had proved these statements to be utterly untrue, as the credit of the colony never stood higher than at present. He strongly deprecated the attacks made on the colony, and said Mr Ward's mission to London had beei a great success in every way. All the efforts made to damage the colony were vain, which was shown by their credit beiug higher than ever before.

Dr. NEWMAN accused Mr Collins of using outrageous twaddle respecting Mr Ward's mission to London, and said that, for a quarter per ceut., they were told his mission had been such a vast success. He thought when Mr Collins was a little longer in the colony he would not be so easily influenced. They were told all about the Opposition being so unpatriotic because they criticised the action of the Government; but one thing waa certain that the Government party itself would never criticise anything the Government did, and the Opposition, small as it was, was not going to be frightened by tiger bray 3 of the Government side of the House. They had all taken the trouble to find out what Mr Ward had said in London, but the fact was that the English newspapers steadily ignored him, and even after his wonderful speech the London Times came out for two successive issues and nothing whatever appeared respecting that speech, till it was supplied on the third day after it was made by Mr Ward himself and the Agent General. He characterised Mr Ward's speech in London as being the most extraordinary he had ever heard, as it meant that all the Public Trust funds and Post Office deposits were really in the hands of the Colonial Treasurer, to be ussd by him if he thought it necessary. He took it that there had never been such a blow levelled at our Trust Funds as was dealt by tho Colonial Treasurer in London. He regretted that the Ministry was going from bad to worse. All our cash was gone, and Mr Ward now wanted to take the trust funds of the colon} , . Wheu they were gone he should like to know what would happen next. He held it was a melancholy thing to see Mr Reeves defending his colleague as he had done that night. That gentleman had adopted a very different tone before his Christchurch constituents.

Mr CROWTHER was ready to admit that Mr Ward's trip Home had added to his merit and his work, but was nob prepared to say whether all his statements were guided by his usual caution, although he had hie doubts on that matter. They were told by the Minister for Labour that these securities were available for a crisis, but if they were called on to pay the two millions for the Bank of New Zealand would they have the money to pay it ? If these funds were to be available for such purposes as they were told, then the deposits of the people had been secured by false pretences, and the Colonial Treasurer should make a clear statement on that point when he addressed the House.

Mr E. M. SMITH held that they had .ample security to offer nob only for one and a half million, but for ten millions. He considered the Government were justified in an emergency in taking the Public Trust funds and Post Office deposits. He said it was admitted on all hand? that the Government had brought the finances of the colony to a sound position.

Mr McLACHLAN thought, after hearing the arguments on both sides, that the Colonial Treasurer had not intended to deceive the London people by his statements. He condemned Captain Russell's utterances during the recess when he re* ierred to the Ministry as a&ne man Government, and when he referred to Government supporters as parasites. He deprecated all this outcry against the Colonial Treasurer, who had done in England what no other man had ever done for the colony.

Mr HONE HEKE held that it was the duty of every member to try and ascertain the true position of the finances of the colony, and the people of the colony should demand from the Government that they should supply all information asked for by members, to enable them to find out that position. He believed that the Colonial Treasurer's utterances in London were not justified by the facts.

Mr MACINTOSH deprecated the waste of time that had taken place by dragging this subject before the, House. Instead of damaging the Government, it only strengthened their position. The Colonial Treasurer was tc be congratulated in obtaining the money for farmers. It was easy to uuderatand the opposition of lawyers because their craft was in danger. Ivot only had the Treasurer passed the cheap money legislation, but he had gone to England and successfully floated a loan that gave farmers cheap money.

Mr MORRISON thought that a feeling of gratitude to public servants for services rendered was dying out in the present aeneration. His opinion was that the Colonial Treasurer's mission in England wae so successful that the opposition Press of the colony was thoroughly dumbfounded at the success, and it had found other means of attacking the truth.

Mr WI PERE thought this money should be advanced to Natives as well as Europeans £0 as to improve their lands.

Mr STEVENS was more inclined to believe the Colonial Treasurer's utterances were correct than the mere assertion in the amendment that it was not correct. He held that the credit of the colony was a sufficient guarantee for the various Trust Funds deposited by departments. He warmly praised the ability of the Colonial Treasurer, which he considered was responsible for the good financial position of the colony.

Mr MILLS moved the adjournment of the debate*

Agreed to, and the House rose at 12.25 a.m.

The following is the division on the second reading of the Referendum Bill :—Ayes (28) —Messrs Button, Collins, Earnshaw, Graham, Hall-Jones, Harris, Hogg, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, Lang, Maslin, Massey, McLachlan, McNab, Meredith, Millar, Mills, Morrison, O'Regan, Pirani, G. W. Russell, Saundere, G. J. Smith, Tanner, Ward, Willis. Noes (14) —Messrs Allen, Buchanan, Buddo, Camcross, Carueli, Carroll, Duncan, Flatmaa, Fraser, McGowan, R. McKenzie, Montgomery, Piukerton, E. M. Smith. Pairs— Ayes—Messrs Buick, Ball. Hone Heke, W. Kelly, Mitchelson, Sir R. Stout, Messrs Green, T. MuKeuzie, Major Steward, Dr. Newman, Mr Wilson. Noes—Messrs Crowther, Thompson, Houston, Mackintosh, J. M'Kenzie, Parata, Duthie, Lawrie, Stevens, Te Ao, Captain Russell.