THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 79, 1 September 1874, Page 4

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(From a correspondent of the “ Press.") Wellington, August 29. You were so fully made acquainted by telegraph with the progress of the great debate that I am spared the trouble of inflicting upon your readers what now would be old news, were I to supply other than a few observations upon the final scene. The circumstances that led to the collapse of the debate earlier than was anticipated have also been communicated to you. How well estimated the strengthjof parties was is shown by the division. A week before I set down the Ayes at 46 or 47, and the Noes at 27 or 28. Let me analyse the division list—On the division there were Ayes, 41 ; Noes, 16 ; or with pairs, 46 and 21 respectively. There were absent Messrs Pyke and Webster, who, had they been in their places, would have supported the Government, but they were never included in the calculations. Of the eight within the precincts of the House, but who did not vote, Mr Wales, if he could have been present, would have voted with the Ayes, and the predilection of Messrs Pearce and Johnston were in the same direction. The rest are undoubtedly with the Opposition. Thus then, there may be fairly claimed for the Government out of the present House, fifty—a majority that has as greatly surprised Ministers themselves as the country. Mr Yon der Heyde has given to his constituents the following explanation of his not having voted “I did not vote on account of my present anomalous position, having been examined before a Select Committee, the decision of which would be given this morning. The matter was thus suhjudice. I consulted several old members, who confirmed my view that I had better not vote. I told Mr Vogel, and it was well-known to several Auckland members that had I voted, it would have been against the Government.” As I have said, the result of the division was astonishing. The defeat of the Provincial party is conclusive, but they are not disposed to quietly give up the ghost. As Mr Stafford said on Monday, a large bread and butter interest is involved ; and of necessity the persons interested will make a struggle. The division was succeeded by caucuses. The defeated ones met immediately after the House adjourned on Thursday evening, when it was resolved to bring down, the resolution of which Mr Fitzherbert gave notice, and was yesterday disposed of. The original proposition was to move that the Government resolutions should be expunged from the House journals ; but the ridiculousness of such a proceeding soon made itself apparent, and the idea was abandoned. On Saturday there was a caucus of ministerial supporters at Mr Vogel’s residence. Some forty-six or fortyseven were present—all who have given in their adhesion to the resolutions, except Mr Bradshaw, who absence was owing, I believe, to private engagements. The utmost unanimity pervaded the meeting. As you know, Mr Stafford was for striking the iron while it was hot, and urged a special session to carry the resolutions into law ; but to the majority there were good and sufficient reasons wny there should not be unnecessary haste to take advantage of their great and decided victory. Then on Monday forenoon we had the caucus, which gave birth to that great Constitutional party which is to shake the country to its very foundation, and wage the war of Provincialism against Centralism from one end of the colony to the other. It is only right to say that those who attended this meeting were very unanimous. The debate on Monday on Mr Fitzherhort’s resolution was a treat, and yet a disappointment—a treat because of the moderate tone and excellence of the speeches ; but a disappointment, and a keen one, to those who provoked it, by exposing their utter weakness. Mr Fitzherbert was bound down by his supporters to make a short speech, and to import into it nothing that should or could give rise to acrimonious discussion ; and he performed his task admirably. He was gentle and kind ; cornmendably brief, but woefully unargumentative, “My province” and “the rights of the people” were the burden of his lament. Not a word of explanation—no defence of the position he himself occupied, championing provinces instead of urging their destruction, as he did in 1865. Mr Vogel’s twohours’ speech was about the best he has made this session—close and well reasoned, and carrying conviction to all but prejudiced minds. Thercwasjusta touch of savageness in his allusions to the member for Selvvyn, Mr Stafford followed the Premier in—for him—a short speech, occupying about twenty minutes, but every word the hon gentleman spoke had a meaning in it. He opened by accusing his old ally with inconsistency in condemning a course of action he himself had taken in times past, and with opposing a principle that, in his heart, he must believe to be right. There was an outspokenness about Mr Stafford that was very refreshing tie straightways declared to the House that this was but the beginning of the end; that a great fight had to be fought, and the sooner the intending combatants prepared for the struggle the better, for there was a large bread-and-butter interest that would die hard; bu,t the end would be none the less sure, —provincialism was doomed in the land, and the South would soon be served in the same way as it was proposed to deal with the North Island. The other speech of the evening was Mr Fox’s —eloquent and forcible. With the true ring of sincerity he defended the change in his opinions, which drove him from the ranks of the provincial party, with whom he had acted from almost the establishment of Constitutional Government within the colony. There was a sort of valedictory expression in his remarks, a something that led his hearers to suppose that probably this, and certainly the next session would witness his retirement from political life. If that is his intention, he will leave a blank not easily to be filled, for however much one may disagree with his views, none can deny his great ability, and that he has always had the courage of his opinions. There were just two other speeches made in the small hours that deserve a passing word. Mr W. Johnson had been trimming during the last fortnight, uncertain to vote onehvay or the other, but the Premier’s explanation of the manner in which it was proposed to localise the revenues removed all doubts, and he went over to the Government side. Then the irrepressible Mr T, L. Shepherd must needs follow Mr Fox, for the solo purpose of being Hansardised, lor be was not listened to. No sooner had he opened his lips than the members trooped out one by one, until the House was left without a quorum. The most particular friend the member for the Dunstan has, is Mr J. C. Brown, who amused himself by calling Mr Shepherd's attention

to the fact that his auditory was leaving—a sensible fact. This nagging went on for some time until the worm turned, Duustan’s member could stand it no longer, and called Mr Speaker’s attention to the conduct of Mr Brown in these words :—“ Sir, the hon member for Tuapeka is making such a noise —more like a donkey than anything else — that I really cannot go on.” Of course such language was unparliamentary and had to bo withdrawn. It is just as well to say that a few minutes before, Mr Brown had called the Speaker’s attention to the state of the House, and had the bells rung to prevent a count out. At two in the morning came the division, 45 to 10, and so ended with the complete rout of the Provincial party, the fight in the season of 1874, over the initiatory step towards the abolition of Provincialism. The Premier has got the best of the Wellington blue-gum over the Manawatu-Rangi-tikei business, but the advantage was gained by very discreditable means. Whether the claims of the province were well founded or not wore beside the question. The House having previously deliberately decided to act upon the award cf the Speaker, it was the duty of the Government to have acted on the resolution adopted by the House, and to have carried it out loyally. But not content with hedging the vote round with degrading conditions, the Premier gains delay, whips up his supporters, and opposes the vote tooth and nail, this time successfully. Such unexpected action drove Mr Fitzherbert almost to desperation, and led him to use language which provoked a scene, the like of which I hope will never occur again. The House was fairly divided into two sides, and when one would “hear, hear” the speaker, the other would with equal loudness cry “ no,” so that the unfortunate speaker’s words would be almost drowned by the noise of the contending parties. The following report of the debate from the Post will give your readers some idea of the scene :

Mr Fitzherbert said it was a new way to pay old debts. The Speaker had decided that the debt was due [cries of “ No, no”], the House had decided it [cries of “ No, no,” and “hear, hear”J, but the Premier said “No, this province isnottohave the money,” and now sought for a reversal of the decision of the arbitrator and the House. He (the Premier) exulted in the plentitude of his authority, but he could tell him that although he had a majority on his side now, the time was not distant when he would be in a minority. It was the most novel way of paying old debts ever devised by any financier. It was simply shameful and disgraceful. He accepted the Premier’s precious clause, but he supposed he would not be punished for expressing his opinion now, as the colony had been punished because he had dared to express an opinion before. But the colony would be greatly punished before his mouth would be shut in asserting the rights of the province. Mr Vogel gave a most unqualified denial that the Speaker had reported that the colony was indebted to the province of Wellington, He would not allow the House to be deceived in the matter. lie had no wish to punish the hon member for the Hutt; he thought that gentleman already sufficiently punished in standing in the position he now did before the House, No one had done more for the province of Wellington than he (the Premier) had, and he had frequently assisted the Superintendent in getting the province out of difficulties. There were many Government opponents among the Superintendents, and he believed the hon member for Avon would walk from here to Auckland to unseat the present Government. It was impossible to have any further confidence in the province of Wellington. If necessary, he could come down with figures showing what he had done for that province. It was simply personal power that the hon member for the Hutt craved for. He could not prevent the growing feeling that he had acted in a vindictive spirit, but he would be content to put up with that. In regard to Wellington, you might give ninety-nine times out of a hundred, and get vilified if you did not give the hundredth. The Province of Wellington gave the Government more trouble than all the other provinces together. The Government wished to see Wellington on the same footing as other provinces. If the Government had the power to displace the Superintendent of Wellington it would have done so in connection with the audit dispute. Mr Fitzherbert thought the hon gentleman had rather lost his temper over the matter. A bitterer enemy to the province of Wellington never was than that hon gentleman ; he had proved it throughout the whole of his political career, Mr Vogel had accused him of ambitious motives. Would anyone tell him if the Premier’s was not an insatiable greed for power. He blew his trumpet in a brazen manner to stir them into giving him credit for what he had done for the province. When he blew his penny trumpet made of brass he knew well he was not worthy of the praises he bestowed on himself. The Premier had shown a spirit of vindictiveness throughout. He defied that hon gentleman ; let him do his worst. He had been guilty of conduct disgraceful in a Premier. He would tell the House what the hon gentleman at the head of the Government had done. That gentleman had colluded, connived, and conspired with memners of the Provincial Council, and told them they need not be afraid of a certain Bill passing, as he would disallow it. Mr Vogel—lt is utterly untrue.

Mr Fitzherbert would prove it or stand disgraced. Don’t let the Premier talk of his new-born zeal. Poor and unaided as he was, he would yet beat that hon gentleman. He was justified in saying the Premier’s conduct to the province of Wellington was unlike that meted out to other provinces. The hon gentleman might have power, but he must bear in mind that it did not endure for ever. Every quadruped of a certain character had its day. The Premier had expressed pity for him. Was he to be pitied because he had spoken his mind, and had spoiled some of the Premier’s pet measures ? If the Premier did not dislike him he was frightened of him. If the Premier did not alter his manner, poor and unaided as he was, ho would yet give him reason to repent. Mr Fox said ho would not follow in the sarcastic strain of the hon member for the Hutt, but would simply say a few words in defence of the hon gentleman at the head of the Government. The hon member for the Hutt had uttered a threat against the Premier. He might say threatened men live long.

Mr Fitzherbert Superintendents especially. 4 Great applause.] Mr Fox did not refer to Superintendents, they were little gods. The whole period

during which he held office with the hon gentleman, Wellington had no more true friend than the Premier. Ho then went on to show the impecunious state of the province under Dr Featherston, and the manner in which the Premier had raised it from the Slough of Despond into which it was sunk, and how he had assisted Wellington on every possible occasion. The hon member for the Hutt had said the majority of the people in the provinces had expressed confidence in him. He (Mr Fox) could tell him that the people on the east and west coasts had no confidence in him whatever. By thirty-one to twenty-live was the claim of the province rejected, and great has been the mortification of Messrs Fitzherbert, Bunny and Co. in consequence. Its organ speaks out in unmeasured terms; “ Infamous,” “disgraceful,” “degrading,” “Judaslike,” arc some of the choice expressions applied to Mr Vogel and Mr Fox. To those at a distance from the seat of Government this reference to a “disgraceful conspiracy,” which the Premier is charged with aiding and abetting, is unmeaning. The Post supplies the explanation, and defence of Mi Fitzherbert in making the charge he has against the Premier. “In the special session of the Wellington Provincial Council, in November last, the statement was made by Mr Charles Pharazyu, and applauded by Messrs Andrew, Beetham, and Ludlam, that Mr Vogel had stated that if the Council passed the Roads, Bridges, and Other Works Bill, the Government would advise its disallowance. We discredited the statement at the time ; while stating that one or two votes had been turned by it, we said (November Bth): —‘It was positively asserted, and the assertion was used as a kind of clincher to the arguments of certain members, that the Premier of the colony, Mr Vogel, had publicly stated that the Roads, Bridges, and Other Public Works Bill was utterly illegal, and even if passed by the Council would not be assented to by the Governor. Of course the utter improbability of Mr Vogel making such a statement must be apparent on the slightest consideration, and, as we have said, we regard the assertion that he did make it as a positive untruth. We now only give currency to the statement, in the hope that it will receive an authoritative contradiction, so that those who have unwarrantably used Mr Vogel’s name may be shown in their true colors to those whom they have deceived by so using it.’ No such denial was ever made until last night, and in the interval circumstances have amply proved the truth of what Mr Pharazyn stated.” Mr Fitzherbert was amply justified in the charge against the Premier, and the latter’s denial docs not improve his position. And before I leave Wellington and her little affairs I would remark that we shall shortly have the opportunity of testing in some degree the feelings of two parts of the province on the exciting topic of the hour. When the time comes Mr Bunny will be defied in his stronghold of Wairarapa by Mr Charles Pharazyn, the leader of the antiprovincial party in the Provincial Council here, who has already sounded the warning note.—“ If this were the proper time to issue an address to the electors I should not hesitate to lake my stand on this ground, and offer to represent those who agree with me in thinking that the time when the Provincial form of Government in the Island was necessary has long since passed away, and that of late years it has been a mere incumbrance, involving an enormous additional expense, and offering at the same time most serious Obolaolco to realty good govprnment.” There is also a vacancy for one of the City seats in the Provincial Council, for which Mr B. T. Gillon, editor of the Post and an out and out Provincialist, is an announced candidate. The Legislative Council is not altogether an unmixed evil. That it acts as a check upon beneficial legislation is beyond question. There are the Wellington Reclamation ; the Otago Waste Lauds Bill ; the Highway Boards Empowering Bill, and several other measures this session, while the number of beneficial measures rejected in past sessions is legion. But every praise is due to our Lords for the keen scrutiny they exercise over all money Bills. The colony cannot sufficiently thank them for their action last year in throwing out the “ little pigs.” And this session they have been dangerously watchful of all the important financial Bills brought in by the Government, On the Public Works Bill, on Friday, we had a discussion equal in debating power, and close acquaintance with the finances of the colony, to anything to be heard in the popular Chamber, Mr Waterhouse was especially in his element. He opposed the second reading of the Bill in a speech bristling with facts and figures, which prove beyond all doubt that, despite the public works policy, our prosperity is diminutive compared with other countries and colonies, unblest with a Vogel and having no borrowed money, while our indebtedness is appalling and crushing; Two hundred pounds for every adult male in the colony, including lunatics, the sick, and the maimed. The speech deserves to be quoted, and alongside of it the speech of the Hon Dr Grace, which for outspokenness, cannot be too sufficiently admired. Last night too, the Council, by a majority of one, threw out the Railways Bill, the second reading of which was moved by the Hon Mr Buckley in an able speech, in the course of which he largely quoted the article in the Press, drawing an analogy between our position and that of the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately the Bill included some very useful and necessary works, for instance, the Waitaki Bridge, the Brunner and Greymouth Railway, &c., but in an Appropriation Bill these could not be separated. Mr Campbell tried hard to bring in an amendment which would have got rid of the objectionable feature of the Bill—borrowing twice on the same security—by providing that the purchase money of the Otago and Canterbury railways, instead of going into the coffers of the provincial chest should go toward the liquidation of the debentures in respect of those lines; but the Speaker, for the reason before stated, had to rule that could not be done at that stage. He, however, held that it might be done in committee,and it is to be regretted that the Council could not have seen its way to have passed the second reading, and have amended the Bill so as to rid it of the objectionable clause, and, if necessary, have struck it out altogether rather than have jeopardised these works, the speedy completion of which is a colonial necessity. It is no use my speculating on what the results of the Council’s action may be, because before this can reach you any action that may be required will have been determined and acted on. Tread on the tail of an Irishman’s coat and you know what is likely to happen. A much similar result is likely to occur if the 1

unfortunate word volunteer is dragged under the notice of the Legislative Council. There arc two hon and gallant members—Colonel Brett and Captain Fraser—on whom the mere mention of the word produces an effect much like what flaunting a red rag before a bull has. Only mention the word, and these military fire caters dance a regular war dance on the floor of the House. I was in the Council on August 12th, when the hon gentlemen made a fierce onslaught on the force, and can well understand how on a later occasion, Mr Scotland was tempted into using strong and decidedly unparliamentary language. In the eyes of Colonel Brett and Captain Fraser the volunteers are everything that is bad, and beyond the hope of redemption “ toy soldiers,” incapables,” “ guilty of rank insubordination,” are some of the choice terms which it pleaseth these military worthies to use on such occasions. On Friday, we had in the Council a regular scene, which is so well described in the Tribune, that I acknowledge its account of it. Colonel Brett had a long notice on the paper, regarding the proposed military defences of the colony. The hon gentleman, as is his wont, was not particularly complimentary to the volunteers of the colony, and his remarks brought the hon Mr Scotland to his feet. The hon gentleman defended the volunteers, remarking, with a good deal of truth, we have no doubt, that their inefficiency was due to those ex-military officers who were in the habit of speaking to and of them as mercenaries at thirteen pence a-day. As might bo expected, some of the military gentlemen, of which the Council is largely composed, could not stand this. The hon Captain Fraser wished the words to be taken down. Even the Speaker, “ good easy man,” considered the language improper. The hon gentleman who hazarded the assertion stood to his point, the volunteers were superior to these “hirelings.” The irate Capt Fraser said such language was disreputable, and the hon Speaker thought it was in bad taste. The hon Colonel Kenny, however, interposed with a compromise. While he thought it was utterly out of place to speak of her Majesty’s troops as “hirelings,” the volunteers should not be depreciated by the intemperate language which the hon Colonel Brett used. The result was a general reconciliation all round. Everybody apologised to every other body for everything he had said, the hon Mr Scotland withdrew the objectionable words, the hon Captain Fraser withdrew his expressions regarding the former gentleman, and the hon Colonel Brett asked leave to withdraw his motion. The whole thing was as good as a play. Mr Mantell was a No among the chorus of Ayes —an Abdiel, faithful to discord among the faithless, and thus ended “ the scene.” And apropos of volunteers, the longpromised report of Major Gordon is forthcoming. It is a lengthy document, and will not come out of the printers’ hands for some days. I have had the opportunity of perusing it, and I rose up from that perusal with feelings of wonder and astonishment that such things as are narrated in it could have been tolerated. I have always been a strong supporter of the movement, and have neglected no opportunity of defending it with ray tongue and pen when I thought it was being unjustly condemned ; but I am now free to confess that those who have condemned it so loudly had not done so without cause. In the House the report has caused bi/ir among the volunteer officers who hold seats, and one or two of whom are not referred to in very complimentary terms in it. it io ivioVy for Major Gordon that the report was not produced till the last day of the session, or he would have come iu for a good roasting at the hands of the hon gentlemen I have referred to. Mr Murray, the member who represent the constituency of Bruce, is not a polished speaker, or an amiable creature —as a politician he ranks below a Shepherd or a Mcrvyn—but as the representative of a large and important constituency, he is entitled to some respect. The other day he tabled a motion “ That in the opinion of this House the nomination of tenants of the Crown to seats in the Legislative Council is highly objectionable and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament,” and used some strong terms in reference to the Upper House, for which he was called to order by the Speaker, who remarked that he would have struck the motion from the order paper, but that the Speaker of the Legislative Council did not object to the matter being discussed, if the House so desired, and he went on to express his own opinion that “ it was exceedingly impertinent of any member to pretend toTlimit by motion the prerogative of the Crown.” Having called upon the Government to express an opinion, Sir Donald McLean (the Premier was not in the House owing to illness), said he considered the motion in very bad taste, and altogether out of place, and should be withdrawn, which the mover, backed up by other members, refused to do; Mr White wanted the motion amended, so as to affirm that the Upper Chamber should be elective only. The resolution was supported by Mr Eeid, who objected to one or two members of the Upper House being able to regulate the proceedings of the majority of members, and all popular legislation defeated by interested parties, by Mr Shepherd, and by Mr Gillies, who considered the House had a perfect right to discuss an abstract question, Mr Fox was the only person who came to the Speaker’s rescue, and he endorsed his opinion of the motion, saying that it was a piece of foolish impertinence, and an insult to the House. Ultimately the motion was withdrawn. The papers here are wonderfully unanimous in condemning the action of the Speaker in this matter. The Post says : —“ Sir Francis Dillon Bell was himself guilty of the grossest possible impertinence when he last night presumed to characterise as impertinent the conduct of Mr Murray in bringing forward a resolution that it was inconsistent with the independence of Parliament that tenants of the Crown should be nominated to the Legislative Council. Mr Murray was but calling public attention to one of the most important questions, to one of the greatest abuses of the day, and he deserves thanks for having done so. The country will thank him, although Sir F. D. Bell, one of the very class alluded to in the motion, pronounces his conduct impertinent. There was neither impertinence or impropriety in it.”

The Tribune says, “it is hard to see how an expression of opinion can interfere with any prerogative crowned or crownless. Prerogative of the Grown fiddlestick ! This is a country where any man, and more especially any representative man, whether ‘ girt by friend or foe,’ may surely say the thing he will.”

There were a couple of amusing debates over the honorarium question in the Lower House, and, of course, the increase was voted without much demur. The resolution over which there was any debate, was that which proposed that the honorarium of members of the Upper House should remain as it was, but that the amount for members of the House of Representatives should be raised to 150 guineas, and that deductions should be made for every day beyond three days of a session during which a member might be absent. Some members objected to the way of calculating the honorarium as unfair. A member might make an appearance every day and then go away, doing no part of the work, while those members who attended to their business, but might be absent for two or three days during the session, would have deductions made. The honorarium should be paid in full at the beginning of the session, and the deductions calculated at the close. Mr Yogel jocularly suggested a system of marks, or of measuring by the number of lines in Hansard. If it were left to the Government, it would at once strike off all opposition. [Laughter.] He suggested payments and deductions for sitting days, as recommended by the Committee. Mr Reader Wood thought the honorarium tad nothing whatever to do with the attendance of members. He proposed that a guinea per day should be deducted for every sitting day a member was absent. Mr Yogel said the present session would last about sixty days. The sitting days would be about fifty. An hon member, therefore, who had not attended at all would, if a guinea a day were deducted, receive fifty guineas for being absent I The Speaker said that no difficulty would arise if no advances were required by members. Mr Fox thought the matter might be left to the honor of members. If any of them scandalised themselves by neglecting the business of the country, the constituencies would soon find it out. Let the honorarium bo paid to all in full, Mr Stafford desired to know whether “absence” meant absent from the House or the place of the sitting of Parliament. Mr Cuthbertson thought the whole system of deductions was discreditable. Sir J. C, Wilson thought the honorarium should be struck off altogether. The days during which a member might be absent without deduction were extended to five, and the clause was agreed to. In reference to the honorarium of Legislative Councillors, Mr Vogel made an important declaration, “He proposed to deal with the whole subject by Bill next session, as it was too late to do so in this session. They did not wish to see the other House mere representatives of wealth. There would come a time when men who had long been in and served the country would be of great assistance by their presence there. But many men of this class might not find it convenient to come to Wellington during the session unless they received an honorarium, which was not payment, but merely an allowance for expenses. These reasons he thought outweighed all that could be advanced on the other side. A sum of one hundred and fifty guineas was not too much to give. He therefore moved that it was expedient that the subject should be dealt with by Bill next session ; and that the honorarium of members this session, who resided beyond three miles from the Assembly buildings, should be one hundred and fifty guineas, and to those who lived within that distance one hundred The increase of honorarium was opposed by Mr W. Johnson as being inopportune, by Mr Fox because it introduces the principle of payment of members to which he objected, by Mr Ormond who thought the proposal would be badly received by the country, but by Mr John White because it was much too small. The sapient representative of Hokitika objects to having to undergo “ the turmoil of three months’ celibacy," and wanted the House to vote a sum sufficient to enable members to bring up their wives and families with them Mr Reid divided the House against the increase, but it was carried by thirty-two to twenty-three.

The Cobden Club intends to publish a series of essays on the system of loeal taxation which prevail in different countries. The essays will fill two volumes, and the first volume will be ready at the beginning of next year. A pathetic incident recently occurred at a railroad depot in Milwaukee. A young German, who by four years hard work in a brewery had saved enough money to make a home, was waiting for his betrothed, who was to arrive from Germany, She embraced him upon her arrival, and when he tried to disengage himself her hands were firmly clasped about his neck in death. Her heart was literally broken with joy. The real value of the Treaty just concluded between the British Government and the Ameer of Yarkund is not commercial, but political. We may possibly open a new market for Indian teas, and . the Ameer’s subjects may buy a few European articles they need, but the total amount of the trade can scarcely exceed a quarter of a million. But it is a real advantage to be able to maintain a European Envoy at a Court which knows pretty accurately all that passes in Central Asia, and has the strongest interest in keeping itself well-informed. At present, with only native agents—agents who are neither recognised nor accredited — we run the greatest risk, on any serious emergency, of being sold.