MR REEVE'S SPEECH.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 59, 26 August 1875, Page 3

MR REEVE'S SPEECH.

The magnitude of the question was so great as to involve the dearest interests of the colony, and yet the Government asked them to dispose of such a question in the most rash and inconsiderate manner, and without that thorough consideration of the subject the country and Houso had a right to expect. Looking* back to the initiation ofthe question, they could not but be struck with the want of grasp and continuity it displayed, and be astonished at the haphazard and piecemeal way in which this subject had been introduced and followed up. Referring- to his Excellency's opening- speech the previous session, and to the Financial Statement which followed it, it was impossible to find any trace of the revolutionary proposals which came on the heels of the State Forests Bill. Clearly there was n connexion between the two. He challenged Ministers to say whether, a single day before the State Forests Bill, a single word had been said in the Cabinet about the present revolutionary measure. If they answered in the negative, then the measure was hasty and ill-advised ; if not, the House was deceived. The State Forests Bill was a flimsy pretext to hand over an immense proportion of the public estate, which had been placed in the custody ot the provinces. After a year's calm deliberation, he must say that the bill concealed a deliberate attempt on the part of the General Government to seize the landed estate of the colony- The debate evoked on the State Forests Bill, and the protests called forth by it, were- the sole cause of these abolition proposals. But even when the abolition resolutions were laid before the House, the Premier repudiated and reiterated his statement that they were no designs on Canterbury and Ota^o ; and he could refer the House for proof to the honoi'able gentleman's own words. When the House broke up at the end of the session, it was distinctly understood by the Honse and the country that so long ns these provinces carried on satisfactorily, it would be no part of the policy of Ministers to interfere with their institutions. Well, the work of the Government had been carried on to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of these provinces, and the Government had broken a solemn pledge. The last they had heard of the late Premier was when he told the people of Auckland he would employ a barrister of colonial reputation to prepare a measure which would be acceptable to the colony. But tbat was the last they heard of it since, and when they assembled this session, what did tbev find, but that tlie Government were taking- up an attitude as if they meant to carry out nothing more than what was embodied in the resolution last session. What else could be gathered from the paragraph referring to the matter in the Governor's speech. In spite of all this evidence, they brought down a bill to abolish all the provinces. Was -not this an instance of the divided opinion of the Ministry ? He believed that the original intention of the Government was not to apply abolition to the whole of the provinces, but they departed from their promises because they were influenced by the advice of their protector — he would not call him their friend — the member for Timaru. He repeated it, and would say the Government had been guilty of gross breach of pledge given by the late Premier. He promised to hold inviolate the compact regarding the- land fund, and it was insulting to their common sense to casuistically say that they were not breaking the compact. Their true and only control over the land lay in the Provincial Government, and without that it was a delusion — the measure was hasty and imperfect. It was a breach of faith, and it also exhibited plainly that Ministers had not taken sufficient .precaution to determine whether they had the necessary power to deal with the question. The diversity of legal opinion on the point made it abundantly plain that there were doubts on the point, and that the advice of the Imperial law advisers should have been taken. Did not his Excellency or the Ministry, to satisfy doubts on the matter, consult Crown lawyers on the point ? At least he understood the Minister of Justice to say so. — (Mr Bowen : I said I never said so.) — Then I do not know the meaning of words. You either meant that or nothing, and now you tell us you meant nothing. This bill was entirely unworthy ofthe occasion, The main object of the bill was to deprive the people of the power of electing" their own Superintendents and Provincial Councillors. Were the. road boards arid I municipal powers conferred by the bill

sufficient to fill . the "gap ? Certainly not. The Government merely displayed these to make way for their nominated agent. Did they not appeal to the patriotism of the Superintendents and beg them to milk themselves and take office under the General Government? It was therefore as clear as daylight that Government wished to secure the services of the Superintendents and intended them to retain their seats in that House, so that they might acquire the nine votes of their nominated agents. These, with the three or four votes of the Native representatives, influenced by the Native Minister, would make a. very pretty hand of trumps, and would place the House and the country at the mercy of Ministers, The. chance of obtaining justice in the House if that bill passed would be more or less remote. He said the measure was imperfect. The confession of Ministers admitted it was only a selection of a measure. They might have added it was a provincial interregum, in which the Governor would rule the country by orders in Council. He could not give up what he had for such an unsubstantial l-eturn. The bill did not appeal to the intelligence of the people, but to their pockets, their lowest instincts ; but the promises held out were shadowy, and not certain to be realised. What the Assembly did one clay it could undo the next. The fulfilment of these promises depended entirely upon the revenue, and if that did not enable subsides to be paid they would not be paid. Going by tbe Financial Statement and that of Public Works, he could see they would soon have to rely upon Customs revenue. The Hon. Minister for Works calculated largely upon the proceeds of the public works and railways, but there he differed from them. He would remind the Minister for Works that in a short time the interest on loans would be over one million of money, and that by the time our railways were thoroughly completed and appointed, we would have to pay ten or fifteen per cent, beyond the estimated present cost, and a further addition to the debt of the colony would be soon after required. Look at the matter how they liked, in connection with this bill, and they must admit that it was an ill- concealed attempt to get possession of the land funds. It arose out ofthe dire necessity of the colony, though Ministers denied that, Had they boldly admitted that fact once, he might have been found supporting them, but could not now. They were toid there had been too much parish business, but this bill would really give them a great deal more parish business. It would lead to one month sessions, and to the springing up of a class of professional politicians, instead of a more desirable class of men who could afford to devote their time to their country. Ministers told them public opinion throughout the colony impelled them to push on with the measure. He entirely denied that. Opinion was divided, but the balance was in favor of postponing the measure. The Minister of Justice quoted to the House the words of Godley to show that when the functions of the provinces passed away, the Government of the country would assume a form like the United Kingdom, but the substitute proposed was more after the system of Perfects in France. The hon. member pointed to the Superintendents as the embodiment of Csesarism. When did that change of opinion take place ? Not long ago. The honorable gentleman was about to contest the Snpetintendency of Canterbury, but now he was the Brutus who was ready to plunge the dagger of shame and patriotism into the bosom of the first Caesar of a Superintendent. The honorable gentleman here contradicted what he characterised as a most wanton and cruel attack upon a certain Superintendent made last night by the honorable member for Heathcote, and was loudly applauded from all parts of the House for his defence of a man who could not defend himself The honorable member also said that some Superintendents were emasculated, but he could tell the House that the gentleman had made it widely known that he would act as Superintendent without salary if elected. But these people would not have him at his own price. In conclusion, he would support the second reading, and give all possible assistance in amending the bill in Committee, but he would endeavor to prevent the bill being passed finally through the House*