MR WARD REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS.

Evening Star, Issue 9772, 31 July 1895, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR WARD REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS.

Tint ATTACKS ON TMK OOT.OXV’S r'liEDlT.

v SPIRITED SPEECH

The following is the official report of the Treasurer’s reply on the no-confidence debate ou July 19 :

Mr Ward : Sir, before I arrived in the colony hon. members will recollect that I was treated to what I formerly stated should be regarded by any fair-minded man as beiuc unfair —that was, the criticisms of my actions in my absence that were being made concerning what I have said, or am supposed to have said, and what I am supposed to have done, in London. Referring to the previous debate, when this matter was before the House I complained of not being allowed what I deemed would have been graceful of hon. members that, instead of being limited to half an hour, by the unanimous consent of the House I might be permitted a longer time. The House did not apparently deem it to be such a concession of sufficient consequence to allow me to have that latitude which I desired. Sir, we find since then that the Leader of the Opposition gave notice of a motion which was, in the opinion of every member of this House, reflecting on myself. That notice of motion give an opportunity to every hon. member who bod anything to say against the Agent-General or myself in my absence, who expect me in the ordinary course to ha\ e icplied to their statements, to have risen in their places and to have accused me, or who have brought against me, any charges they deemed to be proper. \\ hat have we seen ! We have seen half a dozen members on our own side of tho House having to rise one after another, whilst those hon. gentlemen who profess to he anxious that 1 should place the facts of the case before the House and the country, and to give me an opportunity of defending myself from their attacks - what have they done ? They have remained in their seats, and allowed member after member on this side of the House to get up, without any attempt on their part to give me that opportunity of defending myself against their statements, which they profess they were anxious to do. What is the meaning of that? It is very well known to every member of this House that I, who am the accused party, should have au opportunity of repelling those attacks which they themselves had brought against me. Then, I ask hon. members, do they know what is going to happen this evening? After 1 have finished they will find hon. members getting up one after another aud referring to my actions in what they will tell you is a brave and courageous manner, without giving me an opportunity of repelling their attacks. Is it fair or honorable fighting to attack a man when he cannot speak to defend himself? If they have charges, and are not afraid of preceding me, why do they lay back This, sir, is in keeping with what has been done to me before my arrival, and ever since my arrival here, by hon. members w ho loudly profess themselves the champions of all that is good aud proper, and are desirous of showing fair play to one who is attacked. I ask, sir,' is that fair light ? In my opinion it is not. It was the duty of those non. members who wanted to bring these chaiges against me —it was their duty to IhemseLcs and to the country —to have come forward openly in my presence with their charges, and allowed me to repel them in the ordinary course, and not to have waited and thus lorced me to got up, in order to practically tie my hands, as far as their charges aic concerned. Now, what do we find : In the first place, the circular of the Agent-General was attacked ; in the next place, the statement made by myself orwhichwas said to be made by myself—with regard to certain securities being in London, was attacked ; doubt was thrown upon the fact of these securities being there at all. What do we find now from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition ? That they receded from the farmer position they took up. They now admit the existence in London of some securities, aud say that of the three millions of securities a great portion were trust funds, thereby admitting their charges—openly in my presence against the AgentGeneral and myself that the securities were not there at all, circulated and published broadcast—were groundless ; and they have receded from that position and admitted that the first two charges they made against us were inaccurate and not justifiable. Have they had the manliness to withdraw them? These high-toned, high-principled men, who are ready to destroy other men s characters,should surely be above this. I propose this evening to ask hon. members to allow me to place before them tv hat is the true position of the matter. Let me recall to hon. members the debate which took place in this House in connection with the Land Tax Bill of last year. Let me remind tho House that the Opposition have attempted to discredit the statement made by me that at the time we had not sufficient cash in London to meet the payment of the £600,099 falling clue. Will any hon. member say that I have in any way attempted to go back ou tho statement I then made, or will he not bear me out in saying that I am only now reiterating what I then stated in the House, that we had not at that time £600,000 in cash in London to meet our payments ? 1 did not say that we had not £600,000 of securities available. Will hon. members turn to the •speeches that the leading members ou that side of the House delivered on that occasion ? W ill they turn to the speeches in ‘Hansard and see what they then stated? I may say that i expected better things from the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion. \\ hat docs my hon. friend do ? Ha selects a portion of the speech delivered in connection with the Land Tax to suit the purpose those hon. members opposite are desirous of serving—namely, of trying to discredit my statement at that time. I ask, is that fair? It they want to refer to what I stated at the time 1 allude to, let them turn to page 94 of ‘Hansard’ of last year, on the 25th July, and they will see there I stated that I deemed it necessary to state that I was not prepared to disclose important confidential matters which affected, not me personally, bub this country. Let them turn to the page 1 allude to, and they will find that I there stated that we had not exhausted our Treasury bills. I stated tho Imperial guarantee debentures were free, and that there was cash in the public account. Those hon. members at that lime discredited it, and the hon. member for Patea—what did he do ? If hon. members will just look up the same ‘ Hansard ’—l am not going to weary the House with reading long extracts, but if hon. members will look on pages 70 and 79 they will see from the speech of that hon. gentleman that ho predicted a financial crisis, as the result of what? Because hon. members on that side of the House were trying to extract from me information which 1 thought not desirable, in tho interests of the colony, should be placed before the House—information which was restricted hy rny sense of responsibility to the country. Those hon. members on that occasion did—what? They stuck to one another, each following the same line. If the hon. member for the Wellington Suburbs (Dr Newman) will look up ‘ Hansard ’ on the date to which I have already referred (page 71) he will find that the hon. member, who has had large experience in this House, said—what ? Why, he said, in arguing in connection with Treasury bills, as a reason for my collecting the Land Tax, and had the colony in a serious financial position. “Because he has discounted all the Treasury bills, an extended number of which we gave him last year,’ - He said there were no Treasury bills available, although I had stated there were. That was the statement made by the hon. member ; and you will find the hon. member for Wairarapa, in the same speech, upon the same occasion, accused me of levity because I did not give him the reasons which, iu tho opinion of the Government, as a matter of prudent finance, warranted our not issuing these Treasury bills or using Imperial-guaranteed debentures, but warranted our taking the course of collecting the Land Tax twice—what did those hon. members on that occasion do? They desired that the whole of the reasons for that course should be given to them, and they would not accept the atatement of the Government that it was necessary, in the

interests of the country, that, instead of issuing these Treasury bills or using Imperialguaranteed debentures, the course which had been followed by former Treasurers—naiivdv. Mm of c dboting the tax before it we-', due - ■ houlil bo followed in this e-xso, and was a mote prudent and botler course, in t'ne best interests of the comury. He elected, with no sense of responsibility, to makc-tbe most damaging statements as to the financial position of the country. I am going to point out to lion, members what the result of the speeches of those hon. gentlemen was upon that occasion. They tell you now that the credit of the country was not hurt. They ask for the names of the writers in the British Press who have tried to damage our credit. They even say no damaging articles have been published. But those hon. gentlemen cannot have read what is published. In important financial journals circulating all over England the most injurious statements of that kind were published, as the result, I say, of the speeches that were made by some hon. members on that occasion. Vou will find them published in important financial journals in England —statements to the effect that this colony was on the verge of insolvency —of bankruptcy. Ihose hon. members ask who wrote those letters. Let them read their speeches in 1 Hansard,’ and in tne daily papers let them read the ruinous criticisms in the leading columns of some of their own organs, and let those hon. gentlemen deny the damage that is done to all classes in this country if they so choose, I do not like indulging iu personalities, neither am I going to do so during this debate, but I will, at any rate, tell them, if they like to turn to the statements and to those speeches in ‘Hansard’ to which 1 have alluded, they will find that the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Wairarapa, the hon. member for Wellington Suburbs, the hon. member for Paten, and the senior member for Wellington Oil v, every one of those hon. members on this occasion to which 1 refer attempted to discredit the statement made by myself that it was quite desirable and necessary, in the interest of the colony, that the tax should he collected, instead of issuing these hills, nr usoig Imperial-guaranteed debentures. They insisted the financial position of this country was in the most sciious condition, and some of them predicted disaster. 1 propose now to read to the House a confidential letter written about the time by the Secretary to the Treasury to the Government, and I would remind the House what took place in former years in connection with the safe finance of this colony. Let me ask hon. members on that side to recall when Sir Harry Atkinson was Colonial Treasurer in 1878,' ami to remember the fact that, pressed and goaded by lus own party, who were endeavoring to extract from him some confidential information he knew should not be disclosed in the interests of the colony, and how they agreed to abide by the report of the hon. member for Taieri (Mr 1’ niton), who was deputed their nominee, and who during the debate professed to having the confidence of Sir Harry Atkinson in the matter. They agreed to act upon the assurance of Mr Fulton if he was satisfied the course suggested by Sir Harry Atkinson was necessary. They obtained an assurance, not from the Treasurer, but from Mr Fulton, that it was not desirable that the information should be made public from these benches. The result «>f S ; r Harry Atkinson’s interview never was made public, and the course first suggested by Sir Harry Atkinson was adopted ; yet the same men opposite wanted confidential informal i <n from me calculated to injure the country made public, and though they had his assurance they re)used to accept it. The hon. member for Jvleu wanted the Government to do it. Do those hon. members recollect why Sir Harry Atkinson on that occasion did not disclose the information to this House ? \\ hy, certainly they do. J hey know that it was because he was invested with grave responsibility upon that occasion that he dared not disclose what those hon. gentlemen wanted. They know that the most seldom responsibility was on my shoulders, and that to protect the general welfare of the country I have had to put up with incessant personal odium and abuse, because invested with grave responsibilities I have elected, in preference to studying my personal comfort, to do my duty. M e have done what other Ministers have done. We have been asked again and again by hon. members to disclose confidential information which they knew we could not disclose, and because we did not disclose it they attempt to discredit and scout the members on these benches. That was the position in connection with the collection of the Land Tax, and I will read to the House the letter I refer to. I will also give the House from an official record the financial position on that occasion as against the statements of those hon. members who gave currency to the reports abroad iu England ami in this colony while they knew we were in a good financial position. When I place this statement before them I trust hon. members will judge as to the accuracy of the reports in circulation wlieu I placed the position before the House. <>u the occasion to which I refer the following letter was addressed by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Government on the sth .Inly, IS9L I will read an extract from the letter. I will not read the whole of them. This is the extract; It is my duty to draw your attention to the exceptionally low state of our cash revenues, and ,/f our remittances to London for the purpose of replenishing the Public Account there. Our balance in the bank yesterday stood at £‘22 K0 Pis ltd. Our remittance bills current only amount to £2lO, (Jim. We have unavailable balance of authority to issue Treasury hills iu anticipation ol revenue to the amount ot £■550,1 M K

That was the official statement which came to the Government at the lime to which I refer. What was the general position of our finances upon that occasion ? Those lion, members were endeavoring to tell the Government who were responsible for the carrying on of the finances of this colony, and'were endeavoring to tell the Government that the course wo were pursuing was one which was dangerous to the interests of Ibis colony. They implied and imputed that wc were short of cash, that we had no Treasury bills, no Imperial-guaranteed debentures, and no cash in the hank. They implied all this, aud predicted ruin to the colony ; and, as the result of their implications, it has been published, not as the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) says, to some halfdozen of the people in London, but published broadcast, and the hon. member, if he does not know it, ought at any rate to know it, for it has been widely circulated in financial circles iu England, and I shall read some extracts directly showing that they did know it. And yet tho hon. member comes here and invites you to listen to his gloomy review of what he says he and I were doing iu London. Let me tell the hon. member that, if he has his sense of his responsibility as a private member of the House, so have I, not merely as a private member of this House but also as a member of the Ministry, and I recognise my responsibility equally with the lion, member or with any other member of the House. What was the position of our finances on the occasion I refer to. Is was that we had obligations to meet to the extent of £835,850 14s 7d, and we had available £7*21,263j 13s Sd to meet those obligations. That is, wc would have had absolutely, including our cash in the public account in London, which at that date was £272,715, aud including the whole of the cash we had available at the time, a deficit in Loudon at the time to which I‘ referred of £114,587 0s lid. Sir, as against that deficit we had only to remit £210,000 out of the Land Tax in order to turn that deficit into a credit of £95,41219s 1 d to which I have referred. I am quoting now, let me tell the House what appears to be necessary that hon. members should be apprised of, not from a return prepared to suit myself —I am not quoting from a return prepared for the purpose of placing before hon. members, but I'am reading an extract from the ordinary return, dated the 16th July, 1894, of the New Zealand Public Account in London. I deem it essential to make that statement in connection with the return. We had, as the result of tho collection of this tax, and the payment of the £210,000 —£210,000 instead of a deficit of £114,000, a credit of £95,412 upon the day the £600,000 interest was payable in London. In addition to that, the whole of the £476,000 of Imperialguaranteed debentures were free and unpledged, and available for the purpose of carrying on the finances of the colony. Let me tell the House I have here for I deemed it requisite in order to bear out my statement, and even with it I

doubt whether some hon. raembe.’S opposite, in their prejudice, will accept it—the official and unprejudiced communications sent out at the time—the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury without any solicitation from the Government-. In addition to {hat £476,000 of Imperial-guaranteed debentures, we had available 0350,000 of unissued Treasury bills in this country, making a total, after providing for the whole of the payments, of FT,026,000 of unused Treasury securities independently of cash, and quite apart from any of the Trust securities—which was the financial credit position of the colony at that date. Now, those hon. members who, when the Land Tax debate was before the House, were aspersing myself and the Government by denying the existence of tho Treasury bills and of the freedom of the Imperialguaranteed debentures, and who were throwing doubt on our financial position, may want to know why was it necessary to have this credit of £1,026,000? Do those hon. members, who are continually levelling charges against the Government, know what was going on during the time to which I have referred ? Were their eyes blinded by prejudice, or were they so averse to the Government that they shut their eyes to the grave conditions of the financial position of this colony and tho adjacent colonies? Let me apprise hon. members who have approached this question with so much legal acumen that it does not do those hon. gentlemen much credit to have only dealt with the legal aspect of what was a very difficult and delicate and important movement in connection with the financial affairs of this colony. We are not asking those prejudiced hon. members to judge of our action iu the House. We are asking the country to impartially recognise the position ; we are asking the country to take a review of the grave situation that then confronted us, and to realise what would have happened had we not been prepared ourselves-and in saying that I mean the colony—for an impending calamity, to meet which, had it come, it would have been essential that all our available securities should be at the other end of the water, and that all the Treasury bills and Imperialguaranteed debentures we could possibly keep free should have been so kept. We did keep our position strong by collecting the Lind Tax and keeping our financial resources as large as possible. Those hon. members, with no sense of responsibility at the time, what did they want me to do? To fan the flames of impending disaster, to talk openly to them of the seriousness of the surroundings, lightly recognise the gravity of my responsibilities, to save myself from the contemptible criticism to which I was subjected, and by so doing to assist them in bringing untold ruin upon thousands of hard working, industrious, and innocent people in this country. Hon. members who now make accusations against me to be published broadcast may think that is of no importance to attempt to discredit my word, but I tell them that I care not for their opinion. I treat it with scorn and indignation. I am conscious of having had to asssst in steering this country through the most difficult and trying period it has ever passed through, brought about not by any fault of our own, lint by the general financial cyclone that has swept over other countries. Very few people who know me will believe that I would wilfully do wh.at I have been accused of doing in this House—making misleading statements about our finances to absent people and to whom ? To novices and inexperienced people ? No! But to men who know more about our finances than I do myself, who know more about them than the whole of the Opposition members, and who know more about the position of New Zealand retrospectively and at the present moment than any member of the Housemen whose business it is from day to day not only to know the financial position of New Zealand, but every movement in connection with our securities. And those hon. gentlemen attack me, upon the authority of whom ? Upon the authority of the lion, member for Wellington City (Mr Dnthie) and a newspaper report. And I am to be judged by a condensed report of that sort and the prejudiced views of the hon. member for Wellington City. That is what those hon. gentlemen ask me to do. That is what they wish to impeach me for. That is what they wish to discredit me upon, and that is what they wish to traduce a fellow-colonist in the eyes of his fellow'-men in this counti y upon. I challenge everyone of thtfee hon. members over there who have charged me iu this House with misrepresentation—is there one of them who will not carefully go through his ‘Hansard’ proof and make careful alterations after they speak in this House ? I spoke extempore. I did not read my speech in London. I never write out speeches and read them, or learn them, as hon. members know. And yet they would attempt to destroy a man’s character, they would brand him before the world, they would do things which, I regret to say, would even destroy a man’s private credit outside the House and outside the country. They call this honorable ? They call this fair dealing. They call themselves the men of high character and the possessors of all that is right and good. These are the men who attempt to traduce me. What, then, have politics in New Zealand come to ? Sir, wo have heard the speech of the hon. member for Patea. Where is that hon. gentleman ? Why has he gently gone out of the Chamber after the speech the lion, member delivered in this House against myself, and to which I am not going to respond in the same way as he spoke when he traduced me? 1 hope and believe, sir, that hon. members here, at any rate so long as I have a seat in this House, will be free from that. I hope they will never find me descending to the level that I regret to find the hon. gentleman descending to. It is not a credit to New Zealand or to hon. members in this House that we should have to listen to such language and expressions. Then, sir, I have been attacked and vilified by a paper in this city that I say would be a disgrace to one of the poorest suburbs of one of the worst cities in the Old Country, so far as its leading articles are concerned. Its scurrility, untruthfulness, and contemptible tactics are an absolute disgrace to this important city. The lowest-toned journal would not condescend to sink to the level it docs. One does not care so much for aspersions made of that sort from such a quarter; they are generally made for the best reasons. 'They may have the right to make charges which are absolutely and wholly untrue. But when I find a member of this House following their lead, and getting up in his place and attempting to hurl at me similar accusations in his speeches here, I say to hon. members, if there is any sense in this House of public decency for the best interests of the country, let us rise above this, and not go in for this mere effective speech - making, delivered in cold blood, which, probably, when they come to sit down and see that language recorded in ‘Hansard,’ they cannot but look back upon with any other feeling than that of shame. Sir, I do nob wish to follow such asystem, but if that is the system that is to be recognised by hon, members, then let us understand it. But I think it is better that wo should aim at a happier and better state of things so far as the debates in this House are concerned. I may remind the House that what was done with regard to the collecting of the Land Tax has been done on former occasions by former Ministries. It was the speeches and public utterances of hon. members opposite that was largely responsible for the rumor that we were approaching bankruptcy. What were the conditions that led to the sending of our securities to London ? The very grave occasion to which I refer was at the time of the great Australian financial crisis, in October, 1893. On the 10th October, 1893, we sent our securities—about which I shall have something to say later on—to London, On the 11th July the same year a great institution with extensive operations in this country—one in which the interests of many people were wholly and solely locked up —had to suspend operations, I refer to the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. Therewaa a great financial crisis in a big institution with ramifications all over the country, which affected many people here. Here was an institution which, on the 11th July, became so involved that it had to suspend operations. What happened on the 29fch June, 1894? This House had to come to the rescue of another financial institution, as the House believed, in its wisdom, that it was necessary to maintain its credit. But those hon. gentlemen re-

cognise that this was-' in the midst of; the crisis to which 1 have referred that our securities were sent Home, and prior to some of those disasters which I have named ; and we deemed it necessary and csscnl.ial, in Mio interests of , this • 'omntry, not In noe Treasury’'bills and guaranteed debentures to maintain this colony in a sound financial position. There was not a man living here at. the time of that crisis who could say to what extent that crisis was likely to go. And 1 ask any prudent man whether he will not admit that it was not essential that we should do —not as hon. members, in the most extraordinary manner, have imputed to me as doing—sending our securities to London to provide money for the payment of Our interest—nothing of the sort; but that we should send our securities there on behalf of the institutions there to which they belong, so that, if a crash came, those institutions might be in a position to protect themselves and thereby protect the country. And if those institutions could protect, or assist to protect, the credit of the country, will any hon. member submit that it was not (ilso in the interests of the institutions themselves that this should be done? I have never said these securities were under my control. When I last spoke in the House t pointed out they were under the three keys of the custodians in London. But will any man tell me, if there was a grave crisis or a great crash—as, unfortunately, at that time there appeared to be a great prospect of even coming to this country of ours—will any hon. member tell me, in the ordinary course of things, if we could have averted that crisis, that it would not have been a grave and serious responsibility for the trustees of those securities—for the men who have charge of the three keys—in respect to which the hon. member for I’atea accused me quite improperly, because it is contrary lo fact, of having a skeleton key of my own to release the securities? Task hon. members who know the ordinary course of financial business in the country if there would not be a grave and serious responsibility on the heads of these institutions to have said, after conferring with the Government—should a serious panic have taken place—that they would not allow what I said was necessary. 1 knew the surroundings, and the people in London knew to what I referred. I was dealing entirely with the rumor that but for the collecting of the Land Tax we would have defaulted—that should a great calamity overtake this country, those securities were there and could be used in the interests of the country on an occasion such as that.

An Hon. Member: We have got it now,

Mi Ward: Let the hon. member for Wairarapa restrain himself. We have had one hon. member now accusing my hon. friend himself for having made a misleading and incorrect statement—upon what? He would not wait for the report lo come from England. He accused me in his district—and it has never been contradicted—of having said that £10,000,000 expended on Native land had been afterwards repaid from revenue. He was corrected by the hon. member for Pareora this evening. What I said was that the result of the expenditure was that settlement had gone on, and the Customs revenue had consequently increased ; and, as a result of that increase, there had been a considerable improvement in the position of the country, and that the revenue, as the result of the settlement, would pay the interest upon the loan expendin'e. My hon. friend cannot deny that; let him get up and deny that it is so. Mr Buchanan ; I will do so presently. Mr Ward; I am sorry to hear the hon. gentleman say so. 1 am not going to say that is a statement I have any doubt about, because I always accept an hon. gentleman’s statement in this House, and I accept his word at once. I have pointed out to the House what we were going through. Now, let me ask hon. members what led to the speech being delivered by me before the Loudon Chamber of Commerce? Why do these hon. members ouly take the report of the speech I made before the Chamber of Commerce ? Why do they completely ignore what I said before • the Colonial Institute? Why do they ignore what I said at the House of Commons? Are those hon. geutlemen, for their own purposes, of accusing me of making misstatements going to rely on the report in the ‘British Australasian’ alone, with phrases not elaborated—not fully reported by any means ? I spoke for an hour, and as rapidly as I am speaking now, and I say, without any hesitancy, that if I had been fully reported in the ‘ British Australasian,’ from my knowledge of what newspaper people can do, instead of the report you see there, it would have taken from twenty to twentyfive columns of the paper. It was a condensed report taken in shorthand at the time, and I have, time and again, lud the assurance of responsible and expert reporters of the difficulty of recording me verbatim; but I am not going back from the word “ unpledged ”; those hon. members accuse me of using that word ; they play upon the word “ unpledged” and “pledgeable.” Bub why was it necessary, in my opinion, to make any statement in the speech I delivered lo the Chamber of Commerce in London ? Why was it necessary ? These hon. members say whenever there has been any statement made in England, or sent to England from here, they ask: “Whalwere these statements, and who made them ? ” Let them look back to the utterances of a gentleman who was formerly a member of this House—who occupied a position in the Opposition in this House. I would not have referred to this matter in his absence were it not that I have been attacked, and must refer to this statement. Let those hon, members refer to the statements of a gentleman who formerly represented the seat which is now so well represented by the hon. member for Selwyn. Let them refer to the speeches delivered by Sir John Hall in connection with the finances of this colony. What will they find the hon. member said ?

Captain Russell; When was this? Mr Ward ; lu 1892. They will find that a statement in connection.,with our finances was made by Sir John Hall at that time, which statement, as a matter of fact, was unquestionably proved in the debate at the time to have been a mistake or slip on the part of the hon. member. Ho made a statement in connection with the late Mr Ballance’s finance which at the time was proved to be, at any rate, a mistake

Mr Ballance was in this respect no worse than his predecessor. The feature of the Financial Statement was. of course, the estimated surplus of £339,000. Tbc so-called Liberals have crowed so much over this £330,000 that it is worth while inquiring how it is mode, and how far it is a genuine surplus of the year. It is made up—first, by the surplus of £105,000 from the year 1891-92; secondly, by the payment of £BO,OOO of the year's interest on our loan being .postponed until next year.

That statement re interest was wrong, and was proved to be wrong. In reporting extracts from that speech the London financial paper stated that “we must borrow or burst.” It also said: “And all that the present Ministry are doing is to conceal as artfully as it can the source from whence it is drawing its surplus of money spent beyond current income.” That was the statement which was made then. Similar statements about ‘ borrowing or bursting have been regularly kept up in England ever since that time—many people believe there now that we are plunderers and robbers, and that the colony is bankrupt. What was the statement made not very long before my arrival in London, said to emenate from a colonist of high standing ? Hon. members must recognise that I must only briefly refer to this. However, I shall, do so, because it is essential. He said this: — Ouv rugged mountains must be tunnelled and scarred with the uselesslines, ourengineers rivalling each other as to which ono should produce the most fantastic line after the Mont Ceni or South Andes pattern. Truly the whole thing has been pitiable—very pitiable—and we arc all bankrupt. Nearly every wholesale house in th(T colony has gone to tho wall. That is a statement said to have been written by an old New Zealand settler of position and high character. I ask hon. members to say whether or not that does not imply that everyone in this country is bankrupt. , An Hon. Member: Who wrote it ?

Mr Ward ; It is written by an old New Zealander. Hon. members ask “Who wrote it?” Let them refer to some of their own speeches if they want to know. A further statement was published at the same time to the effect that • i

The borrowers all round are bankrupt, and most of'the lenders would soon be so likewise, but the Government, which cannot live- except by

and the farmers, who cannot pay because they make no money, and the corporate mortgagees, who know not where to turn for a spare shilling, are all to be made gloriously fat, and to be put in funds by it systematic use of the “ splendid credit of the colony on the London market.”

A further statement is made in the same paper, dated shortly before I arrived in Loudon, It is as follows:

The position of the inhabitants of Now, Zealand is too utterly sad for mockery. They hi ve allowed their freedom to be trafficked away to the usurer; debt haunts them in all their transactions—steals the bread out of their months, the clothes from their backs; and still the charlatan political adventurer befools them with gabble about prosperity—about a colony “impregnable” in its strength. The mind turns from such a spectacle with loathing and pity. But if the age of miracles returns New Zealand may yet be saved.

That is another statement which was published, and yet hon. members upon that side of the House say they have never seen anything published against the credit or position of this country. Here is a statement which was also published by another old settler—it is a statement written from this colony. Captain Russell: In what paper? Mr Ward : The ‘lnvestors’ Review.’ Hon. Members ; Ha ! ha !

Mr Ward : Hon. members may say “Ha ! ha ! ha ! ” but the old settler who sent this statement to the Old Country, did he say “Ha! ha! ha?” It is “Ha! ha 1 ha!” when one reads these statements. Does not that sound like an echo of the “Ha! ha! ha !” of those who sent it ? These damaging statements that are being made there are paralysing our efforts, and yet hon. members laugh when such statements are read out. What does that show? Does it not show that they care very little that these aspersions on the credit of the country are made? That is the logical conclusion when one hears such laughter when these damaging things are read out : Meanwhile, our Ministers live modestly in lodgings in the Wellington public-houses. The Ministerial residences of the old extravagant Vogel days do not suit them. They are careful men, who do not care to entertain and live extensively; it is wiser to keep their possessions in a carpet bag, so that when the crash comes they have only to step on board the first steamer. In all the years I have lived in the colony I never saw things so bad and working men so pinched. The unemployed laboring man is now a recognised profession; and they hang around the Government offices waiting their turn on the cooperative works—only, woe betide a man who may happen to Ire of the wrong political “ color ! In ordinary pursuits where labor is employed there is an antagonistic class feeling being fostered which is killing all enterprise. That the coming generation has a rude awakening before it there can be no doubt; and I tremble sometimes what is.to become of my own little ones. I have thought for years that the best thing that could happen to us would be bankruptcy.

And those hon. gentlemen say that there are no discrediting statements made about tliis count iy. If the Ministry of the day, whoever they may be, are to be dragged in the mire and held before the eyes of the reading public and the investing public in that way—if Ministers of the day, through animosity, are so attacked by a man, whoever he may be, who is so cowardly that, while attacking Ministers before people at a distant place, he will not put his name to expressions of that sort —-can it be said that the statements made will not lead to the injury of the country? I ask hon. members to say whether I am not right in saying this. If a man makes discreditable assertions concerning Ministers and the country, and wants people at the other side of the world to believe he is sincere, he should at least give the people an opportunity to know who he is that makes them, and in that way what reliance may be put upon them. Now, hon. members say that they do not know anything about these statements that are made concerning New Zealand. Here, in the * Colonies and India’— the only paper that has been read all along here by hon. members on the other side has been the ‘ British Australasian ’—is a statement made by a well-known member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales : Mr Trickett, a well-known member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, has lately been ou a visit to New Zealand, and he speaks of that country in anything but glowing terms. He found the colony in a depressed condition, with the inhabitants drawing longmouths everywhere, and, according to him, the lists of properties for sale throughout the colony made it appear as if the whole country were for disposal. He heard everywhere a general outcry against the meddling legislation of the last few years. Mr Trickett, who is a solicitor and an old member of both Houses of the Legislature in Sydney, is a man ot high character and observant habits, and what he has to say about New Zealand will no doubt be seriously pondered by those interested in that colony.

Who could blame the member of the Legislative Council who made a statement of that sort?—hub who are the people of this country ’ Who told that member of the Legislative Council that a sovereign could not be safely invested here? Was it the members on this side of the House who would tell him that ? I do not say it was the members on the other side of the House, but I say this : that these are the people who have been the slanderers and traducers of the country, who, by their light expressions, alarm investors, and who help to create distrust aud to bring about financial disaster, and I say that they have attempted to destroy the credit of the country. And yet wc have hon. members here who, because I attempted to refute some of these calumnies when in England, not only attempt to discredit me, but to destroy and lower the credit of the country, and to injure everyone in it, aud we have had speeches delivered which ought never to have seen the pages of ‘ Hansard,’ I say that, and I say it with a full sense of the responsibility. But hon. members may want a little more of this. Here is the Manchester Courier.’ The hon.' member for Wellington City says it is only half a dozen people who hear anything of this sort, but here is the ‘ Manchester Courier,’ and it says : Still, as a singular comment on the Minister's glowing periods and financial forecast, there now comes a telegram announcing that the revenue for the first nine months of the year amounted to about £3,000,000, being a decrease of £IBO,OOO, At this rate, the financial year will wind up with a deficiency of about a quarter of a million sterling. Private advices from New Zealand speak in the most gloomy terms, both as to the financial and trade positions, and it is highly probable that these advices convey a truer impression of the real state of affairs than do any merely official utterances.

Sir, the hon. member, perhaps, may also refer to a paper called ‘ Morning,' dated 4th May, 1895: The price at which the loan was taken is absurdly high, considering the really precarious state of Now Zealand finances. The colony is literally honeycombed with insolvency, notwithstanding all the official protests made to the contrary; and it is only by means of steady borrowing that the cranky bark will be kept afloat.

Now, regarding my hon.. friend, the member for Wellington, who was in Loudon at the same time as myself, I should be sorry to accuse him of that which ho asked me of with regard to his object in London. When the hon. gentleman was there he treated me as one gentleman should treat another, and 1 should he very sorry to suppose that the hon, gentleman would do anything to the contrary; but when he invites me to say that he has made any statement with regard to the credit of the colony of an injurious nature I accept that challenge, and shall deal with it later on. What did I find with regard to myself personally ? The ‘ Statist,’ doubtless prompted by the enemies of the Government, refers to my occupation in my earlier life. Evidently with the idea of belittling me, it says : The personnel of the Government is distrusted. The Hon. J. G. Ward some ton years back was a telegraph clerk. Would hon. members believe that in that statement they are ten years out? It is twenty years in November since I resigned from the Telegraph Department. I was very happy during the time I was in the Telegraph Department, and very proud I am of having been there, I never regret it, and I am not ashamed of it. When I saw that published in the ‘ Statist bwhat did I do ? Did I rush into print in order to show that I was somebody who had not been in a lower position than the one I have now the honor to occupy ? Did I rush into print and correct that statement in the ‘ Statist ’? Certainly not. When I met the members of the House of Commons, and was addressing them, I took the earliest opportunity of telling them that I joined the Telegraph Department in this country as a telegraph boy, and I was not ashamed of it. Hon. Members; “Hear, hear.” Mr Ward : There is ample evidence of the attempt to belittle me in the eyes of the financial people in London. They refer to my private business, evidently inspired and with the object of injuring me. What came out in the same paper ? , Ten days after the Budget was presented the

Treasurer introduced an Urgency Bill to enable him to collect the Land and Income Tax six months before it was due-Kthere they are only two months wrong again; it was four months before it was due)—and he is represented to have stated that unless he could carry this he could not meet the colony’s interest falling due in London at the end of September. The surplus was only manufactured by including as ordinary income upwards of £500,000 of released sinking funds—in other words, the colony was actually living last year on this one item alone,. over £200,000 above its income, and was spending in excess of the income being made.

That is a statement, sir, which is grossly and absolutely untrue, and hon. members cau verify*what I say by referring to ‘ HanNow, in other words, the colony was represented as actually being carried on at the rate of £200,000 above its income, and that it was spending in excess of its income.. That was a statement published on the 15th December, when it was known I was going to London, and yet these hon. members opposite will say that an attempt was not made to discredit me there. Do they want another newspaper to show what the opinion was in connection with the country. I will give them the ‘ Sun.’ In that paper the following statement is made : The position of New Zealand at the present moment is very critical. The country is overwhelmed with debt, and it cannot pay its way without borrowing, which has now become a very difficult operation. Hitherto New Zealand, by obtaining money from this and that quarter, has been able to stave, off the evil day. Last year private savings banks were prohibited, the Government thus obtaining control of a considerable sum of money.

Now, sir, I ask hon. members whether that is a correct statement or not. I deny that it is a correct statement, and instead of being pounced upon and traduced by hon. members for having attempted to remove the injurious statements made so persistently and of so damaging a nature against our country, not before half a dozen people as the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) has declared, with a degree of inaccuracy very remarkable, hut before a large and representative gathering of the Loudon Chamber of Commerce, before the House of Commons members, before the Colonial Institute, and in scores of important financial houses. I say that, instead of being traduced and vilified by men who profess to see the country prosper, I had surely a right to expect that, even if their envy overmastered the'r sense of right and fairness to myself, that they would, at least, have spared their own country. I do not ask them for praise. I ask for nothing but the truth. The half dozen people whom the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) alluded to may be judged from the newspaper extracts I have read, which were widely circulated and read by many thousands in England; and therefore I say the hon. gentleman did not do me justice in saying what he did. He did not do me the justice of saying what was correct. I say that I endeavored to put the position of the colony in a way that I believed, and still believe, to be fair, honest, and right before them. That is all I attempted to do, and it is what I am prepared to defend. If hon. members want to see something more discrediting this colony let them take the ‘ Birmingham Post’ of 25th January, and, sir, if we want to see more, let them take the important papers in England through which the ordinary press telegrams are daily disseminated, and they will find that broadcast through England this statement was published before I left the colony, “ that the colony had a deficit of £250,000.” Will the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) attempt to say that for the Agent-General and myself there was nothing for us to do in removing the unmerited stain cast upon the financial position of the colony? Did the hon. gentleman in his private capacity do anything to refute the aspersions on this colony when he read in the British Press what was being said as to the colony’s position? Did he, as a representative {of the people and as a citizen of this country, put his pen to paper to rebut these statements, or did he use his influence to defeat them when he was aware that all these things were wrong ? An Hon. Member ; Did you ? Mr Ward ; That I did. In the public papers, before the Chamber of Commerce, before the Colonial Institute, before the House of Commons, and in business circles. I was not afraid to put forward all the arguments I possibly could and to state my opinions, in order to prove that the solvency of this colony was undoubted, and lo do my utmost to remove the feeling that had arisen that our position was not sound financially, as far as our ability to pay was concerned. Did the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie), who was there, do likewise ? Let me say one word to hon. members about the trust funds. What is it that hon. members are accusing me of? They are accusing me of having made a statement before the London Chamber of Commerce to the effect that “three millions of our securities were unpledged.” Let me ask hon. members to recall to whom I was speaking, and they will then know what the position was. Let me ask hon. members to recollect that I was not talking to people in this colony. I was talking to people upon the scene where our investments were supplied from, who were fully aware of the financial requirements and position of this colony. What did I say there? I said; “We have got three millions of securities unpledged.” Will the hon. member in question deny that so long as the various State Departments of the colony held these securities free that they were unpledged ? I ask any hon. member if he can deny that, or that the Government of the colony, which had not the use of these securities, could not in a crisis or in the event of default, as had been suggested, devote them to the existing necessities of those departments ?—the concurrence of the custodians always being necessary. All those who know anything of our finances always understood that they were absolutely and really unpledged beyond question ; and it was in that sense that I used the term “ unpledged.” I say that the use of that term was right and proper, and I adhere to the assertion. Yet hon. members now play upon the word “ unpledged,” and say that I used that word in connection with the securities of the Post Office, and not the Government Insurance Department. But hon. members are drawing a very fine red herring across the scent. The hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Bell) gave us from his point of view, and, with legal astuteness, what I believe to be his honest conviction as to the legal aspect of the position. But will the hon. member deny this fact; that the three keys he referred to are three keys for ensuring the safe keeping of all the departmental securities on behalf of the departments ; and supposing the people who placed these securities in charge of these departments were desirous of obtaining these securities from the departments, they would he told that the securities were under the custodians 1 keep on behalf of the department, and that the investors were entitled to cash and not to the securities, And yet we are told coolly that the purpose for which these keys are in operation is to protect the securities on behalf of the investors, I say that, they are departmental securities, and it is for the protection of the department that they are under three keys and that the security of the investor is the State. The State must protect the investors, the State must protect the departments, and in a great crisis it would surely be madness, where the credit of the State was calculated to jeopardise the State departments, that the latter were to stand by inertly and do nothing to assist to uphold the country’s credit. Can the hon. member deny that to be the case on legal grounds ? I ask him and those who agree with him to look at the Public Revenues Act and to read the clauses to which I call their attention—viz., clauses 70, 74, and 79. I think if they read these clauses that they will find that it is not the depositors but the department which is to be protected by the use of these three keys. It is the credit of the State that protects the depositors, and to which they rightly look for their security. And they know that it is the finest security in the world, and all the talk indulged in by Government opponents cannot alter this great fact. There is no Treasurer in the world, and no Treasurer in this colony, who would interfere as Treasurer with any of these securities or could use them until he had the consent of the custodians of the departments. I never said, or implied, at the London Chamber of Commerce that they could be used otherwise. I said there what I say now. I was refuting the calumniatory statement published broadcast, as the result of a debate

in this House, that because we bad collected the Land Tax twice the colony was on the verge of defaulting, and that the reason we collected the Land Tax was because we had no Treasury bills, no Imperial-guaranteed debentures, and no cash. I repeated there what 1 said in the House on the occasion of the debate; “ That we had Imperialguaranteed debentures, we had Treasury bills available, and we had cash at our public account, but we had not: £600,000 in cash at Loudon to meet our interest when it was due. But, as the result of that statement, it was published broadcast that we had not sufficient money to pay our way, and that unless we had collected the Land Tax this country would have defaulted. That was what I pointed out in the different addresses that I delivered in London. Will hon. members say that I am getting common justice ? I do not care whether I get one bit of credit from them for what I may have done, but let them refer to the speeches I made before the London Chamber of Commerce and elsewhere, and what do they find ? In none of the utterances of hon, members have they referred to the fact that that speech was not fully reported; and, let me add, if this paper which reported me bad fully reported me, the speech would have occupied twenty columns ofits space instead of the few columns in which occurs the allusion to which I am now referring. They say that I was not referring to the crisis, and endeavor to show that my remarks re securities applied only to our interest payments. Why have they avoided all allusion to my speech at the Colonial Institute, which was also very condensed ? What did I say there about the crisis we had passed through ? I said : It was of considerable importance that the streams of commerce from the colonies to the Old World and from the Old World to the colonies should not bo overlooked by the leading statesmen in the country, and that the statesmen of the colonies fully recognised their importance. After dealing with some items of social legislation, such as womeu’s suffrage and defending the taxation system of New Zealand, Mr Ward said that, from whatever point of view the colony was looked at, he thought the most impartial man would say it had attained a position which was most commendable. It was on the edge of a terrible crisis a short time ago—a crisis which only a few hundred miles away from it swept through a most powerful continent, and did an immense amount of damage. The colony of New Zealand passed through that ordeal without any serious injury. It was perfectly true that one of the financial institutions of the country was put into a strong position by the Government in order to prevent a financial disaster overtaking the country ; hut the result of that policy was that in 1894 they saved a great panic from coming, which, had it come, would have thrown them back considerably, and have seriously checked the progress which had been made in recent years. In his concluding remarks the speaker pointed out that owing to the pluck and energy of the peop’e the extension of the exports nearly equalled the depreciation which had unfortunately .taken place in the prices of the staple products.

Sir, will those hon. members attempt to tell me that I did not know, in speaking before the Colonial Institute on the finances of the colony and the Chamber of Commerce, that I was talking to many of the chief financial representatives of London? Those hon. members want to nail me down to a single phrase in a condensed newspaper report in order to impeach my veracity in connection with the three millions of securities. Would any one of them be judged upon a shorthand condensed report? I decline to be judged by a statement taken to suit their own purposes. I prefer to take the judgment of the people of the colony to whioh I belong. I shall not place myself in the hands of those hon. members who will not apparently view fairly what I was attempting to do there, and I ask for no credit, to be given to me for what I tried to do, but I ask that I may be judged fairly. Let me ask those hon. members who wish to pin me down to a mere phrase : Is there one of them w'ho will get up and say he would be nailed down to a solitary phrase that he utters in his speech delivered in this House, even in the slowest manner possible, unless he had the opportunity of correcting that speech ? Those hon. members would object to that, and yet that is the system which they want to impeach me on. I would invite them to try and take a higher and nobler view of their fellow-men, as I know' people of the colony will do. I know that these people at Home to whom I spoke were aware of the financial position of the colony ; and hon. members must recollect that I was dealing with men who knew the financial position as well as myself. At this meeting which I addressed there w r ere financial experts present belonging to financial houses in England who had been in business communications with this colony for twenty or thirty years past, and is it to be supposed that they did not know the state of our finances? With the amount they had at slake in this colony and with the experience they have, will the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) or the Opposition tell me that I was able to twist the whole of these people round my fingers in order to get my view accepted, if I wished'! To accuse me of that is to accuse me of being a cleverer man than the whole of the financial experts in England ! What a compliment to the intelligence of the leading financiers of England and to the commercial Press *o suppose that I could mislead them in such a way. Why, even if they did not know our financial position, does any sane man believe that they would expect us to go on the market for a million "and a-half if we had at our disposal for ordinary revenue purposes some three millions of stock. It is ridiculous ; it is an outrage on their intelligence to suppose them so incapable of dealing with financial matters in which they are daily concerned. They must either suppose that I am unusually clever or that the English financiers are unusually dense. Let them try and treat with them and they will very soon discover whether they are not dealing with able and far-sighted financiers. I decline to take a position of that sort, even did I not know my hon. friend’s case to be wholly and absolutely incorrect. I say that I placed the financial position of the colony fairly before the people of England and they quite understood the position as w ell as I did. In connection with the securities sent to London, I made a statement at the time before the Chamber of Commerce, in dealing with the rumor that we would default if the Land Tax were not collected : that some three millions of securities were in London ; and at the time I spoke there were three millions. I can give them to the House in detail. There were £3,077,215 worth of securities, including £272,000 of cash available at the time. Now, what are hon. members trying to do ? They are trying to eliminate from the broad statement I was making for the ordinary purposes of maintaining our credit and showing the people at Home that we had command of resources to the extent banked ; they have tried to twist my statement to suit themselves, and to eliminate from the whole of the securities everything but the Trust Funds’ securities, Why do hon. members not be fair ? Why do they not recollect that I was dealing with the whole financial position so far as our securities before we could default were concerned? When I made that statement on the 20th October we had three millions of securities. What was our position then ? It was that we had £3,000,823 of securities, including cash, available in Loudon, so that when the Land Tax was collected I was right in saying that before we could default we had some three millions of securities unpledged. So we had, as the exact amount was £3,077,215, and the day I spoke at thp Chamber of Commerce it was £3,060,823. And yet I regret to say that my hon. friend, the member for Wellington, gives notice for the return so as to get a list of certain securities which he wishes me to be pinned to as having been sent to London, and to w'hich he wishes to make out it was those, and those only, I referred to in London. I say that is not fair. I wis not referring to the trust funds as the securities there. I was referring to the whole of the available securities that would, in the event of a crisis, be available for the purpose of saving the colony from default or insolvency. That is the position I was taking up. Now, just let me ask the House to deal for a moment with this contention about the Trust Funds. I have never said outside this House, in England, or in this colony, and I will not say so now, because it is opposed to fact, that I have sent the private Trust Funds or the Savings Bank securities of this country Home to be available for ordinary financial purposes. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke, went even

further than that. What did he. say ? Why, he said: “Is the thrift of the people of the colony to be applied to the current necessities of the colony?” But did the hon. member state that I told tbe House on that occasion that I had £1,026,000 of securities; that I still bad the £476,000 Imperial - guaranteed debentures free? Did I not state that I had £550,000 of Treasury bills available for the purpose of maintaining the ordinary necessities of the colony? When I have shown those hon. gentlemen this from the Treasury records, how do they dare to discredit or attempt to impugn my veracity before the country ? How do they dare to accuse me of having placed a wrong position of the country before the financiers at Home? Sir, they wish to twist these returns and these facts for purposes of their own, and for the purpose of injuring myself and the country, although the Leader of the Opposition knows that we had available for the ordinary finance of the colony £1,026,000, quite exclusive of the three million of securities to which '1 was referring in London. \et he had the assumption to twist the true position by asking: “Is the thrift of the people to be applied to the current necessities of the colony ? ” I say it is unjust, it is unfair, it is putting an entirely inaccurate position of the matter, and those hon. members know it. That is the position. And just because I happened to be the one who was entrusted with the financial operations of this colony I am to have an attempt to blacken my name by men who are themselves misleading, misrepresenting, and distorting actual ascertainable facts. And these men are my judges ! Let me remind hon. members in this House what happened in connection with the last two Colonial Treasurers. What happened in the case of Sir Harry Atkinson ? Did we not find the hon. member for Patea in a speech denouncing his character and traducing his fair fame ? And that hon. member now accuses me of misstatements and misrepresentations. And when he made the speech impugning Sir Harry Atkinson, who held a high position in the colony, he steals away quietly and stealthily in order that he may alter in his ‘ Hansard ’ proof his mistakes before it reaches the printer’s hands. And for what purpose, sir ? In order that when the corrected * Hansard ’ proof, with the alterations that he made here at the time, falls into the hands of the hon. members they may not be able to see that lie had made corrections to the extent of 70 per cent. The hon, member for Patea does all he can to blacken the character of all and sundry who happen to hold a position in this House. How far, judged by his own actions, are we to accept him as a judge ? How far would his friends on that side trust him? And this is one of the hon, members who wished me to be impeached upon his statements. Did -the hon. members on that side of the House agree with the aspersions of my hon. friend? If they did, I will ask them: What happened on a former occasion ? Can the Hon. Mr Mitchelson recollect ? Can the Hon. Captain Russell recollect it ? And they were then prepared to stand up for the character of the hon. member against whom those charges were levelled—an hon. member occupying a responsible position in this House. They denounced the member for Patea, and were prepared to have him expelled from this House. They all recollect the issue of those charges, aud yet when they see the same hon. member traducing the character of another member of this House they raise their hands in applause, forgetting that it was he who had traduced the character of and attempted to ruin their dead chief. It was the same with regard to the late Mr Ballance. Kvery one of those hon. members who occupied a position in this House at that time will remember that time after lime he (the member for Patea) endeavored to discredit him by accusing him of making misstatements in connection with the finances of the colony, and the people of the country knew well that those two Treasurers went to their graves as the result of worry aud overwork in connection with financial operations of this country. Sir, the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie) and the hon. member for Wellington Suburbs (Dr Newman) will recollect the time when the late Sir Harry Atkinson, upon one occasion, went to the country, when my hon. friends telegraphed to the Hon. Mr Richardson suggesting that they should not have Sir Harry Atkinson as leader on their return. Does the bon. gentleman remember that, because that was what occurred. And yet now he is prepared to come and back up the speech of the hon. member for Patea. Dr Newman: I did not approve of the hon. member for Patea.

Mr Ward ; I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say so. As my time is limited, I regret I cannot deal with the speech of the hon. member for Wellington City (Mr Duthie), but if the bon. gentleman does want me to call his attention to the fact, let me tell the House he aud Mr M Guirc were both present at the Colonial l Institute when I delivered my speech upon . similar lines to those of my speech to the London Chamber of Commerce, and though the hon. member for Wellington City says they would not move a vote of thanks to me, which I never heard of till I saw it in the newspapers here, and which was done Ly much better men and carried unanimously, did either of them do what they had a perfect right to do, for my speech was open to discussion, and was discusssed? Did they get up in their place at the Colonial Institute and say that I had misrepresented the true facts or figures ? No; they stood there, amidst the applause of the people at the conclusion of my speech, and neither of them uttered a single word. Yet the hon. gentleman comes back here and says that 1 misrepresented and misled. If I did do so, was he not there when I spoke ? Was he not entitled to put the British public right'; Nothing of the kind was done by him, yet he re'urns here and attempts to belittle me: and he says also that I only addressed a few people here and there. It is a pity he has not a greater regard for stating what is correct.. He has not acted fairly, and lie did not attempt to put me right aud to show the British public I was wrong. That is not the way to rise to an occasion. In conclusion, I wish to say that I never advocated the use of Trust Fund securities. I never advocated, and never will advocate, their use for the ordinary current finance of the country. I do not believe in if. I am not going to lie judged on the utterances of a few members, who have selected a phrase or two. If, as the result of the crisis that was pending for some months before the sending Home of the securities (which was over a year before I went to London)—if in order to defend our fair fame should trouble overtake us—if a crisis were going to injure our credit—if the credit of the country were so threatened that these institutions, in the ordinary course of events, would not only be damaged, but irretrievably damaged, I say it would be in the interests of the country that the trustees—the men who have the three keys —as the result of communications made to the heads of the respective departments by the Government of the day, should accept on their shoulders the serious responsibility of saying whether or not, in the interests of their own department and of the country, they should stand by and see that these securities, behind which stood the State guarantee, should be used to save the credit of the country. The responsibility of refusing to assist in saving the credit of the State if we were on the verge of defaulting, which, I am thankful to say, we have never been, would be on the custodians of the securities, and I say it would be a grave responsibility for them to refuse to assist to prevent a great disaster, which would involve their departments and the important trusts under their care. I contend that I was strictly correct in arguing that between the colony and default these securities were available. But I have never said, nor is it so, that they were at the command of the Government, unless with the consent of the custodians of the three keys, and then only in the gravest circumstances that could overtake the country. I consider I have been badly treated by the Opposition. No Treasurer has ever had so trying a time to pass through, or such grave responsibilities on bis shoulders as I have ever since I took office. It is not encouraging to be subject to snch treatment. I feel confident that the judgment of the people is against the unfair and ungenerous attacks of those opposite, who, to attack me, would destroy the credit of our country.