THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL POLICY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2985, 5 August 1870, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL POLICY.

The following is a portion of Mr Vogel’s speech in reply on the debate, as reported in Hansard :— ... -

-1 am afraid that I shall have hon. members to allow me to time-to some considerable length. . JteJSf not from any personal reason*-that I- shall consider it necessary to. go through nearlaftbe whole of the debate on the proposals, contained in the financial statement, but because I think that the Committee, has, and thamthe country has also, a right to expect from the Government which brought down the proposals, that have been under the, last fortnight, thqTullest explanation upon all the points raised during the debate, no matter whether those.point* were raised by friends or by opponents. I shall endeavour to give such an explanation. The, discussion has been one. of a very extraordinary nature—. perhaps one such as never before took place in this House. Its most noticeable feature has been that the opponents of the measures of the Government have to *, very great degree answered one another. . They have thus to some extent deprived the Government of the opportunity, of., the pleasure I should rather Say, xrfdefending their policy ; because one hon. member, after another, while raising some objections on his own behalf, has at the same time answered objections raised against the proposals by a preceding speaker or by preceding speakers. I doubt whether any higher compliment could, on the whole, have been paid to' the financial proposals than that it has been found impossible, with very few exceptions—and those exceptions not including any of the/hon, members whom we have been in the habit of looking to as leaders of the House—for the Opponents of the proposals to find anything like a bond of union. I am perhaps not quite correct in using the phrase “ Opponents of the proposals/’ since almost all those who have stated objections to - parts of what we have proposed, have, expressed itheir intentions to support the proposals generally, I shall endeavour to group under three heads the remarks which 1 am about to make.—l. Replies as brief as possible, consistently with my endeavour to do justice to the task, to the principal speeches delivered during the jdebate.—2. An explanation of some points of the policy of the Government, which, seemingly, have not been generally understood.— *3. A statement of the intentions which the Government have formed, consequent upon itfae debate, as to the modifications of their proposal whibh they will be willing to adopt. The bon. member for Grey and Beil, who had credit, or the temerity, first to rush into the JEray, told us he had a sort of pre-emptive right to do so, because for five long years he •had been consistently advocating proposals of the kind-how made by the Government. The -Information was. no doubt verjuintgpesting, and it was certainly to some extent novel to many members, 1 do not presume to attempt to throw the slightest doubt upon the word of the hon. member; but I m'mfc say that I think he has taken a most odd way of promoting the carrying out of proposals such as he says have for five years had so large a place in his mind and so strong a hold upon his heart. I am not aware that he has taken any practical steps towards embodying his thoughts in resolutions or in Bills to be submitted to the House. On the contrary, when, two years ago, I. brought down a resolution, and subsequently a Bill, proposing to give to the Provinces someadditional power in regard to immigration, the remarks made by the hon. member were, as it seemed to me, not only inconsistent with the idea that he entertained the intention of bringing down proposals such as we have submitted to the House, but he appeared to think it was impossible that such proposals could be brought down. I find this in the third volume of Hansard : —“ Mr Richmond hoped the statement of the hon. member for Caversham was not really founded oh fact—that if they did not continue a large system of immigration, the colony would go back. If he thought the colony was so leaky a vessel as that, he would pour no water into it at all.” The hon, member must : tliink the colony very leaky now, because he says it does require this large system of immigration. “ He did not believe that such was the case. He was inclined to believe that the hon. member for Manuherikia was right in saying that to make any great effort in the way of pouring immigrants into the country was beginning at the wrong end. Any scheme of immigration, to be successful, must be very carefully balanced, not only with respect to the amount of work the provinces introducing immigrants could supply, but also in respect to those other attractions to which the hon. member for Manuherikia had referred. He did not think it was likely that they could go on successfully with the work of immigration unless their land laws were of a liberal, and. he might also say, a lavish kind, as lavish land laws were in force in the neighbouring colonies.” “ Hear, hear,” the honmeraber says ; but considering that the hon. member knew he could not pass such land laws—that he knew he was tied to a colleague who made the land laws of the colony one of the most important questions of the day—it seems to me that, by the opinion I have just read, the hon. member put himself safely out of the way of coming down with any such large proposals as are now before the House and the country. “This Legislature had from first to last consented to allow the provinces the sole responsibility of immigration along with the land fund, and he did not wish the Mouse should resume that responsibility.” That was clear, at all events. ” For, he repeated, it was a very delicate matter to balance the immigration to the attractions of the country ; and ns the Legislature o* the colony could not take upon itself, in the present financial condition of the country, and under the arrangements of 1856, any large scheme of public works, ho did not think it ought to interfere in any immigration scheme, or make any general order respecting the appropriation of the land fund tor immigration ” The hon. member was very successful in concealing any large inclination for public works and immigration which lie may have had in his mind, when he made those remarks. The hon. member complains that the proposals of the Government are like a large Christmas tree-all prizes and no blanks; but ho could not have paid to those proposals a higher compliment. 1 he hon. member may think that the fact of our proposals benefiting all classes in the colony may destroy what he regards as “ the balance of power, —may take out of the hands of the few governing men of the colony that large power winch 1 believe the hon. member thinks '''en .avc « rich), to retain ; believing, also, that lie is g ‘i ZL governing men. But the view “'’i'jf of "J a i_ t mounted to this • —Jhu country fJin a stated depression, or stagnation ; the 18 m , v inniiires and demands that th.«t decountry be removed ; and everybody in pressiou shall I B i ml - e in the advanthe colony has a no *^ BBUreg calculated to tages resulting fr , greatly to remove that depression. and very . y improve the U. ruling idea of the have ft probkm°to solve, namely, howto im-

videncehaa fivanjfltothair hands; that it is thfi-duty ofthoie oolonUtg not gelflihbJP endeavour tc* keep..that estate for themiwyes ; alpne ; not lit *« weakmindid spirit to r«M* to go over their estate,and ! to hd Mrtid al nostrto iook at it, but to set to work-to open and improve! it, end really to pqpttlate it I; and moreover, we think that those who resolutely seL. themselves to solve, that great problem, will largely gain from doing so. If that is the sort of Christmas tree to which the hon. member objects, 1 think that the great majority of those who return members to this Home will not at all Share in or Sympathise with bis objections. This hon. npmber was pleased to try to be very fanny aboutJthe .conclusion of a speech I made in this, House two years ago. I was sorry to flhd that 1 all poetry has been knocked out of the hon. member; for he was rather addicted to that kind of thing himself. I was satisfied, if I may be allowed to say so, with that effort of mine two years ago—l thought it was rather good ; and when I heard the hon. member deriding the effort, it struck me that I must have been throwing pearls before swine. The hon. member’s derision did not at all alter my belief that the conclusion of that speech—in which I referred to the picture of “ The Christian Martyr ” was very applicable at the time. 1 believe that the hon. member for Grey and Bell is himself an artist of no mean ability ; and I have tried to realize what might be his conception of a “ Christian Martyr.” I fancy he would not choose on a of the softer sex as the central figure Pf 'hltf,composition • hut I can imagine his producing a sketch of this kind Seated at a desk, in an officially furnished room, my bon. colleague the Native Minister. The door sufficiently opened to show the wistful face of the hon. member for Grey and Bell; and proceeding from his mouth, the words, “ Oh, that that room were mine 1” That, Sir, would be the hon. member’s conception of a “ Christian. Martyr.” The hon. member declared that he desired to seethe measures of the Government pass through the House ; but I cannot reconcile that declaration with the approval which he gave to the course taken by the hon. member for Parnell, immediately after the financial statement had been delivered. I am not qware whether any exigencies of party required such an approval from the hon. member for Grey and Bell. If so, I can only say that the proceeding altogether was so clumsy —first declaring that he could hardly refraiu from using similarly strong language to that used by the hon. member for Parnell, and then saying he approved of the Government proposals—that it the hon. member is trying his band at leading a party, he has as yet proved only that be wants practice to enable him to do so. The hon. member made a great deal of capital, 1 suppose I may call it—and some other hon. members did the same—out of the letter written by the Commissioners in England—and which was laid on the table of the House—in reference to the pamphlet containing Mr J. E. Fitz Gerald’s letter to Mr Selfe. 1 did not hesitate to say at once, that I was certain the Commissioners had no intention or idea of anticipating the decisions of the House as regards future loans. I admit that the letter was not very happily phrased, and was susceptible of misinterpretation ; but I must add that I think the attempts made to misinterpret injuriously to the colony the letter written by the Commissioners, came badly from the friends of the gentleman whose letter caused the Commissioners to write to the Government, and which gentleman has really been very kindly treated by the Government in relation to the matter,. I do not suppose the hon. member for Grey and Bell really supposed there was any specific declaration by the Commissioners to the effect which be tried to lead the Committee to believe, and which was so far exaggerated by the bon. member for Mongonui, that he said the Commissioners had assured the Government of England that there was no intention on the part of the colony to issue a fresh loan. I think, as 1 said at first, that the letter must be read in the light,of its own context. Mr Fitz Gerald wrote to Mr Selfe substantially to the effect that he thought there would be a deficiency, and that an application would have to be made to the money market for a loan to make good that deficiency. In reply to that the Commissioners said they were aware that the policy of the Colonial Government was, not to apply to the money market for the purpose of meeting any present requirements. That, at all events, was clearly the meaning of the letter of the Commissioners; and I think that hon. members who were not inclined to misrepresent the matter might have been charitable enough to put that construction upon the letter. To suppose that the letter, or anything the Commissioners could have said, was to preclude the Assembly from discussing large questions affecting the future of the colony, was, to my mind, a very strained interpretation. But all doubts may now be removed from the minds of hon. members as to any declaration or assurance given by the Commissioners in England. In several ways we have received evidences that the Commissioners have not given any assurance in respect to the future action of the Assembly; but that, on the contrary, it has been a matter of discussion between the Commissioners and capitalists at home, whether the colony would and should borrow money for public works in future. When Earl Granville said that he, or the English Government, had decided to give a guarantee upon half a million only, several city men waited upon the Commissioners, and begged them to accept such gmrantee, and assured them that without guarantee they could get for the colony in the open market any amount of money really needed to supplement the half million. That I am able to tell the Committee as a fact ; and it disposes altogether of the idea that the Commissioners gave in London any assurance which should preclude the Assembly from future borrowing. If further evidence to that effect is wanted, I can supply it, for I feel that I shall not, in doing so, be violating any confidence , by reading extracts from private letters brought from Dr Feathersion ny the last mail. He writes “ You will see the credit of the colony never stood so high, the 5 per cent, bonds having, since the Imperial guarantee was promised, touched par, and the 6 per cent. liaj. So great is the confidence inspired in the city by our having established friendly relations and got the Imperial guarantee for the million, that money wid be forthcoming on tasy terms lor any legitimate undertaking. The universal impression is that money will be cheap for several years.” Again, Dr Featherston writes “ I he city is jubilant; our credit atands higher, far higher, than it has ever done. I shall be deceived if our securities do not leap up to an extraordinary extent. You may raise any amount at a low rate, you plea-e. Capitalists feel that this Imperial guarantee for a fresh million is ample security for them for any loan put upon the market on the colony’s own credit.” Hon. members opposite cry, “ Hear, hear.” They will see presently that there is one condition attached : simply to ask and receive, but you must have no change of Ministry. Capitalists tell me that they are now ready to assist the colony in any enterprise while feasible. All believe now in New Zealand’s future.” I hope, Mr Carleton, we shall not hear any more on this subject of the assurance given by the Commissioners ; but if the hon. member for Avon, who made must capital out of it, desires to take this opportunity of apologising to the Committee, I shall be most happy to give way to him. I do think, at all events, that that hon, member should be pleased to find that there is no risk of our violating—because of the proposals made by the Government any confidences, or of wounding the credit of the colony, as he in no vague terms insinuated would be the re suit. The statistics as to Victorian railways, which the lion, member for Grey and Bell so industriously searched out, were exceedingly imeratting; and 1 am sure they will be regarded in future as a valuable record. I believe that those statistics have been most carefully worked out; and, as far as I can test them, they are sufficiently accurate. But the hon. member did not tell the Committee —at least, he did not sufficiently dwell upon—what is a very great distinction between the railways we propose shall be constructed and those which have been constructed in Victoria ; for whereas he spoke to the Committee of railways that bad cost eight mil-

saven millions, and a lo oonstructiDg 1690 miles, another mlllloii being 4 proposed for water supply bli the goldfields, and Bther purposes with which hon. members are! already ‘familiar. Then, hon. member’s argument iabolit lines 6f railway running parallel with lines of steam communication, is one that till experience combats. The great first expressed in England, that railways would ruin the canal interest, has been prdved to be wholly fallacious; instead of that interest being ruined, canal shares have risen in value. I say, judging fairly from experience, that new means of transit, stretching from one end of the country to the other, will not bfe in the least affepted by, or affect, the very valuable water r cflrrifige which we possess; but that each will favourably re-act upon the other, to the. increase of trafflc„upon both. The hon.: member for Grey and,; Bell talked, as did ,tb.e hon. member for Mohgouui subsequently, of the question now before the House and the country being one of difa and deaph, of bankruptcy, disgrace, and ruin—or of advancement and prosperity. Such" were the exaggerated terms, I think, Which the hon. member for Grey and Bell was pleased to employ. I can only say that to assume that such results are possible from the policy which the Government have initialed, is to assume that the new House of Representatives which will have ere long to be elected,, will not watch over the interests of the country; Listening to the hon. member for Grey and Bell and the hon. member for Mongonui, one would suppose that v the Assembly was to be pror; gued for ten years, and ■ that . the, Government were to have irresponsible power during that period. >But there is nothing contained in the proposals made which is at all to the effect—there is nothing' further from the thoughts, of the Government than—that there shall be . a withdrawal from. the Assembly of the legitimate exercise of authority from year to year, with regard to the progress of the great plans which the Govern ment are merely initiating. I think there is no danger of that extraordinary hazard which some hon. members have foreshadowed, , The Government proposal is, that railways shall be from time’to time constructed, as they pay more or less '; and if there are to be any such frightful consequences as have been spoken of, 1 believe they will arise from a change of Government. I declare moat positively that there is not, and that there has not been, on the part of the Government, the faintest thought of evading responsibility to the Assembly, year by year, with respect to the works to be carried on under the Public Works and Immigration Act. The hon. member for Grey and Bell explained his idea of the way in which immigration should be carried on, and that idea is not very unlike the one in the mind of the Government. It is no part of theintention of the Government—and hon. members have misunderstood the matter if they have supposed it- to be so—that there shall be a number of independent agencies at home, each acting without reference to the other. On the contrary,! freely admit that there must be a central controlling power in the United Kingdom, and that the agencies must be subject to that control. What we do say is, that there must be agents or sub-agents —call them what you will—in the United Kingdom, familiar with New Zealand, from, one end to the other; and- that, fat' whatever part of the colony it is desired to obtain immigrants, the services’ of agents familiar with that, part shall be available. We make it a point of the greatest possible importadee that immigrants shall be procured in the place or places where they are in the habit of residing. We are hot at all inclined to' allow it to be possible for any clergyman or justice of the peace at home, when it is desired to get rid of a young man or young , men who have been troublesome to a neighbourhood, to say, “ Oh, go to New Zealand ; we will pay for your outfit.” In the same way, as regards the other sex, we are not going to accept as immigrants, young women who are only sent out because it is desired to rid the places in which they have resided of their presence. We say tint immigrants must be selected at their places of residence ; not at any seaport town merely,/awhere it is , impossible to get at a knowledge, of their antecedents. The hon. member for Grey and Bell endeavoured once more to obtrude that irritating question, the alteration of the land laws. If the hon. member were sincere in desiring to see our measures passed, he would not endeavour to obstruct their passage by obtruding questions which he knows are of a nature likely to divert hon. members minds from the considerations of those measures. He is sufficiently familiar with the interests which, in this House, centres in all questions relating to the land laws of the colony, to know that if the question of a radical alteration in the land laws is raised, it will supersede the consideration of the Government proposals. If the hon. member does not know that, then his experience in the House has left very little impression on his mind. 1 will next refer to the speech of the hon. member for Christchurch, Mr Travers. I consider the speech of that hon. member to have been conceived in a very different spirit from the speech of the hon. member for Grey and Bell. I think that the speech of the hon. member for Christchurch was moderate in its tone, and very fairly critical. He began by saying that, without doubt, we were living beyond our means. He told us that, comparing revenue and expenditure, there was a deficiency last year of something over £IOO,OOO ; besides which, he said, an amount of extraordinary aid was brought to the relief of the year, in the shape of treasury bills. In round numbers the hon. member concludes that there was an excess of £290,000 expenditure on the year, over the normal ordinary revenue of the year. It is perfectly clear that there was about that amount brought into aid during the year ; but the Committee must remember that, on the other side, the expenditure included—£24,ooo, over-payment to Southland; £25,000, advanced to Patea settlers, and for Wanganui Bridge ; £25,000 for roads in the North Island ; £17,000 for extension of the telegraph ; £SOOO for confiscated lands ; and £240,000 for defence purposes ; the total of taose items being £336,000. If hon. members choose to say that war expenditure is part of the normal expenditure of the colony, then they can certainly say that we are living beyond our means. Some hon. members seem to find pleasure in declaring that we are so living ; and it is perhaps useless to try to deprive them of that pleasure. But if hon. m, in bars choose to consider that war or defence expenditure is abnormal expenditure, and therefore legitimately chargeable upon borrowed money, then they can conclude that we are not living beyond our revenue. I find that, from the year 1863, the expenditure for defence purposes, which has been made chargeable on the revenue, is £815,000, or considerably more than the amount of our floating debt at this moment. We may fairly leave this question, after I have made one suggestion. I suggest to h>n. members who find pleasure in impairing the credit of the colony, by declaring that we are living beyond oiir revenue, that when they make such a declaration in future, they should add, “ If you consider defence expenditure an expenditure to be defrayed yearly out of the revenue of the year.” I urged considerations to this effect, in the course of the financial statement. The hon. member for the Halt, Mr Fitzherbert, has very ably supported me on the point ; and I take this opportunity of heartily thanking him for doing so. lam sorry that the hon. member for Christchurch should have insinuated that the proposals ol the Government were made with a view to an election cry—that they were appeals to the moh—l think he used that word, although I am glad it does not appear in Hansard— or at all events, to the impecuniosity of the people.

Mr Thayers : Since I addressed the Committee, an explanation lias been (liven by the Premier, that the subject of these proposals was under consideration by the Cabinet so long ago as October last—that the proposals were not in fact presented as an entirely new conception of the Ministry. Had 1 known that fact when I spoke, I should probably have regarded the matter in a somewhat different light. Of course an explanation such as that given by the Premier deprives the policy, as propounded, of many of those features which, without the explanation, must to the minds of those not in the confidence of the Government, have been pre-

Therefore, the worn* mentioned by the ColoniaL Treasurer are now' ltf ■ c ttkt they ought to be regarded as having no force whatsoever, when, we have learned from the Premier that the proposals of the Government had been the subject of long and anxlods consideration and deliberation. Mr Vookl.—l thank the hon. member very much for his frank and candid explanation. I hope that other hon. members will be equally frank ; and that the Committee will recognise that the accusations thrown out from more than one quarter during this debate, are quite unfounded. The hon. member, as I understood him, suggested that, as to the money proposed to be borrowed for public works, expenditure by a board would be preferable to expenditure by the Government'.

Mr Tratebs.— l wish to explain. In mentioning the Metropolitan Board of Works, I was wrong ; I intended to mention Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Public Works and Buildings. Mr Yookl : It is not very clear whether the hon. member means that the board should be subordinate to the Government or independent of it. If there is an independent board, it seems tome you will have a fertile source of mismanagement—that you will never be able to say, if there is anything wrong, who is to blame for that wrong. But if the hon. member means that the board shall be responsible to the Government and be removable by it—that the board shall be composed of persons skilled in the special matters that will have to be dealt with, and therefore affording a guarantee that those matters will be properly dealt with—then I am free to confess that such a board would have many advantages. The hon. member, objected that, elsewhere, new duties were never dealt with in the way 1 dealt with certain of our proposals in the committee. I am not prepared to say that the hon. member is wrong; because a most industrious search, extending over fifty or sixty years, has failed to discover an instance of a new duty being proposed in England. There were found many instances of increases of duties, which were always proposed in the way I proposed—in committee. Probably you, Mr Carleton, who are so well acquainted with the records of the past in such matters, will be able to inform me, before it becomes necessary again to take up the question in committee, when a new duty was last proposed in England. At the time I adopted the course to which the hon. member has objected, I was not aware, nor am I aware now, that any distinction existed between the mode of dealing with a proposed new duty and the mode of dealing with a proposed increase of an existing duty. I simply applied to the proper departmental officer to draw out the usual resolution, and the resolution I proposed in Committee was supplied to me. The hon. member raised the question of protection. I will not go into it, because it is not now convenient to do so; and, after all, one does not care' about arguing questions that have been argued so often before. If any hon. member chooses to adopt and to adhere to old-world arguments, and refuses to recognise, that there is a specialty in regard to the position of' a' young and struggling country, such hon. member may be right in so doing ; but his view is not our view. The remarks of the hon. member for Christchurch as to the commercial relations between the colonies and the mother country, were most interesting. I agree with a great deal that he said. Indeed, 1 may anticipate part of what 1 shall have to say under my third division, and state at once that the remarks of the hon. member concerning the Intercolonial Reciprocity Bill have had considerable weight with the Government, and have led them to resolve to propose to change ttie nature of that bill. The hon. member for Omata, Mr Carrington, spoke very heartily in support of the proposals of the Government ; therefore, it is not necessary that I should detain the Committee by referring to bis speech. But I must say, it is very satisfactory to the Government to find that an hon. member who has had such large experience in this country and in other countries, agrees so thoroughly with the proposals we have submitted. I come next to the speech of the hon. member for Gladstone, Mr Jollie. Short of the personally offensive manner in which one hon. member spoke,the hon. member for Gladstone was by far the most severe, with but one other exception, of all who have spoken upon our proposals. He used language stronger than we ordinarily hear in this House, and certainly much stronger than is ordinarily used by the hon. member himself, whose custom it is to be most mild-spoken and gentle. The hon. member evidently spoke under the influence of very strong and earnest conviction, not only as to the impolicy of the proposals, but he seemed to have entered into the minds of the Government, or, at least, he assumed a knowledge of the motives of the members of the Government in bringing down these proposals. He told us that we misunderstood alike our own position and the capabilities of the country; he Said that it was not the time for making any such proposals ; and then he lapsed into figures. But before I refer to those figures, I will deal with another point which the hon. member raised, and which requires some explanation. He says that we propose to take the money w hich the House is asked to allow to be borrowed for defence purposes, out of the consolidated loan ; and he conceives that we have no right to do any such thing. I explain to the hon. member and also to the hon. member for Selwyn, who referred to the same point, that we propose that this money shall come out of the consolidated loan, supposing there is sufficient balance to allow of it. Last year, when a bill with a like object was brought down, a clause was inserted to the effe t that, should the consolidated loan be unequal to supplying the amount, there should be power to increase the loan for the purpose. There was such difficulty last year iu explaining the meaning of that clause, that the clause was omitted from the bill of this year; another reason being that it is very evident that at least a million of the proposed consolidated loan can never be consolidated —there has been actual refusal to consolidate it. I refer to the guaranteed portion of the public loans. At the same time, I think it will be well to introduce into the present bill a clause similar to that of last year, so as to guard against any supposition that it is the intention of the Government to diveit or alter the purpose for which the consolidated loan was authorised. The remarks of the hon. member as a whole would lead any one who listened to him, and knew no more on the subject, to suppose that the Government intended at once to borrow the whole amount of money, to take oyer the whole of the proposed quantity of land, and to enter into contracts for all the railways within a month at furthest. If in any part of the hon. member’s speech he seems to be aware that such is not intended, there evidently still lurks in his mind the idea that the whole thing is to be done rashly if not immediately. Any such idea is entirely wrong. The conviction of the Government is, and has been, that the Acts will have to be carried out in a leisurely and most careful manner ; there never has been, in the minds of the Government, the faintest thought of attempting to fix the colony at once with the whole of the proposed debt. The hon. member’s figures are interesting ; I wish I could say they were accurate. I fancy he prepared them beforehand—that they may possibly have been in his possession a considerable time ; and that lie thought our proposals afforded a convenient opportunity for using them. Certainly, the amount of the public debt is not now £3l lls per head of the population, as lie states it to be. Possibly the hon. member will tell me that there is a misprint in Hansard?

Mr Joi lib : Two years ago, I think the amount per head was quite what I stated, including the unfunded debt. If I recollect aright, the present population and present debt would give about £3O per head. 1 think the Colonial Treasurer’s estimate of the present population in excess of the actual number.

Mr Voogl : The hon. member instituted a comparison between this colony and Victoria. But, admittedly, Victoria is one of the most prosperous colonies, if not the most prosperous colony of the British empire; so that the comparison is hardly fair. However, the hon. member makes it. Then he says

this country ii of a poor, impoverished nature—that he has travelled over it, and therefore knows * ' all - which he told us in the most melancholy manner, his speech generally suggesting the idea that he had had “ the blues’ for a considerable time. But I believe that it is the general impression of people quite as well qualified as the hon, member to. form an opinion on the subject, that this country is capable of carrying a much larger population than Victoria, or even than Victoria and .South Australia taken together. But when the hon. member institutes a comparison between our public debt and the public debt of Victoria, and when he asks us to consider the relative positions of the two colonies, is it fair that he should overlook the circumstance that, from the first, we have had to contend with a great difficulty altogether unknown to Victoria ? The Native difficulty has been hung round the neck of the colony from the very commencement. Is it fair, too, that the hon member should overlook the circumstance that whereas, in Victoria, the whole of the territory belonged to the State at the outset, here, what we have has been obtained grudgingly, and at large cost ? And not only has the Native difficulty imposed upon the colony a large expense year by year, but, by that difficulty and its consequences, the energies of the people have been largely diverted from colonizing pursuits. Since the hon. member has instituted a comparison with Victoria, he has enabled me to put the position of the colony as compared with Victoria, in the most favourable light. I thank the Lon. member for having, by his objections, suggested to me that, in order to understand the real relative positions of the two colonies as to progress, it was necessary to ascertain what the total cost of the Native difficulty to New Zealand has been. I think the Committee will be surprised to learn that from 1853 to the present time this colony has on account of a difficulty whally unknown in Victoria, been charged with no less an amount than jE5,9 15,000. Before a comparison is made with Victoria, that amount must be deducted from our debt, and even then, the relative progress of the two colonies will not be quite fairly exhibited. Make the deduction, and what amount of debt have we left ? £1,350,000 —an amount which is covered, I believe, by the public works existing in the province of Canterbury alone. When we know that this colony, without those brilliant goldfields that raised Victoria so suddenly—with a mere handful of people—has been able to take from ordinary colonising pursuits tke enormous amount I have mentioned; am I to be told that because of the exceptional difficulties to which it has been subjected, but which it has been enabled, we may now hope, to surmount, owing to the wonderful way in which it has been colonised —am Ito be told, when it is proposed to adopt measures to improve the value of our estate, to open up the country—to look at it, in fact, for the first time—to prepare it for settlement, and to settle people upon it—am 1 to be told that because we still have this debt hanging around us, consequent upon difficulties which Victoria, happily for herself, has not known, that the example of colonising which Victoria has set is to be to us a reason for not colonising the country, and for not trying to make more easily to be met obligations which we cannot possibly avoid ? I confess. Sir, that I never fully realised the extraordinary success of past colonisingoperations in New Zealand until I looked into the figures, and found that, out of revenue and out of loans, we have, consequent upon the Native difficulty, been charged with the enormous amount of close upon six millions of money.

Mr Jollie : May I be allowed to ask whether the statement now made does not conflict with the statement made, on the Colonial Treasurer’s authority, in a despatch from the Governor to the [Secretary of State for the Colonies, recently laid before us, in which His Excellency was informing the Secretary of State as to the amount of liability which the country had been obliged to incur in consequence of the Native difficulty ? I think that the amount stated in that despatch, as incurred for war or defence purposes and raised by loan, was not more than four millions and a half. Mr Vogel : The statement which I have in my hand was made out under an instruction that a statement should be prepared, in which all sums should be included, which -were sums charged consequent upon the fact of our not possessing the territory of the country, as was the case in Victoria, and all sums charged consequent upon the difficulties with the Natives to which we have been subjected. I will read the totals:—Native purposes : charged on revenue, £666,338 lbs 8d; charged on loans, £156,122 Us 9d; total, £822,461 4s sd.—Defence purposes ; charged on revenue, £1,904,279 8s 4d ; charged on loans, £3,189,140 5s 2d; total, £5,093,419 13s 6d. Or, taking the two together, a total of £5,915,880 17s lid. There is added to the statement the following note: —“ This statement includes, under the head of Native services, the amount expended on land purchases (exclusive of surveys), and under the head of defence, all Militia pensions. The expenditure made out of revenue includes interest and sinking fund on the amount of loans applied to Native and defence purposes respectively.” I shall be happy to place this statement at the disposal of the hon. member, so that he may examine its details. The hon. member has been for years a dissatisfied being; he never comes up to the House without having something of which to complain. For years he has been in the habit of complaining that the outlying districts did not receive fair consideration from the House. One would suppose that a proposal for opening up these districts—which actually proposed what the hon. member never proposed or conceived, namely, to give a direct subsidy to those districts—was one which-, would meet the views of the hon, member. But we seek to carry out objects for which the hon. member has been long fighting; and he asks us, “ How dare you bring down such proposals?” What does the hon. member mean by his “ How dare you ?” Are we infringing upon his territory ? Does he fear that we shall deprive him of one of his stock grievances ? If the question is to be of daring, I ask the hon. member how it is he dared for years past to try to injure the credit of the colony, by making its position appear worse than it is ? How is it that he has never dared to propose a remedy for the evils of which he has complained ? Is he gifted with only the faculty of destruction ? Can he not possibly turn his mind to some effort at construction? The Government appear to be equally unfortunate with the hon. member, in what they do and what they do not do. It strikes me the hon. member has come to a country in which he never can be happy. He fails to find anything good or commendable in the country itself, the people, or the Government ; and I confess that I am hopeless of a change for the better in his case. I did think that if there was one member of the House who would have given a cordial approval to the measures of the Government, it was the hon. member for Gladstone. I thought he would have been speechless from gratitude, instead of more fluent in grumbling than ever I heard him before. I read the other day a very good anecdote which was said to have been told by the Duke of Edinburgh. He said he visited a place—l think it was in New Zealand—and that after he had been introduced to the various “ lions,” he a«ked whether a visit was not to be paid to the lunatic asylum. “ (Hi ! no,” was the reply, “ we havenoasylumhere.” His Royal Highness said he was very glad of it, “ Because,” he added, “ I have noticed that wherever I have gone hitherto, I have been taken to the lunatic asylum, and that over the door of it there has always been displayed the word ‘ Welcome !’ ” The hon. member for Gladstone must certainly have had something to dp with that management—he seems to think a lunatic asylum is the most interesting institution in the country, and one that we should welcome. If such opinions as those recently expressed in this House by the hon. member are to gain ground—if it is to be believed that the great immediate duty of New Zealand is to provide a colonial lunatic asylum and a colonial gaol—l do think that there will soon be great necessity for at least one of those institutions. The hon. member no doubt thought that, in this part of his speech, he was doing a little philanthropic business;” but I think he could not have advised anything more cruel than the erection of a colonial lunatic asylum. A great many of

the lunatics in this colony are so temporarily on y-they labour under some particular hallucination or monomania; but their reason is not sufficiently taken from them to prevent their recognising relations or friends, or from enjoying their society. But what does the non member for Gladstone propose ? That such sufferers shall be converted into state prisoners ! That they shall be removed from n T. re ? c lf home associations, and iit B , ln , enCfcs °f friendship I That they shall be shut out from the memory and recollection of their past lives ; and be, in fact, made prisoners for life ! I cannot conceive of anything more cruel than to take lunatics from, say, Otago, and to shut them up in a central lunatic asylum, practically closing them from ever seeing their relations, and ever hearing the voices of those they love. I do wish that the hon. member would contrive to free his mind from any idea that his proposal is even humane, much le s that the necessities and the paramount interests of the colony are such as he s ; ems to imagine them to be. The hon, member spoke of railways in a manner which makes me believe that he has lately been reading “ Martin Chuzzlewit.” The whole tone of his speech was that of Mrs Sairey Gamp, when she complains that railways interfere with her ordinary avocations. It must be that he sees that when the railways we propose have been construted—when the district road boards are subsidized—and when our measures are carried out—that the part he has adopted In political life will be taken from him, for that there will be nothing left of which he can complain. The hon. member said in the course of his speech :—I think the Government have greatly miscalculated the wants and capabilities of the country, that they have also mistaken their own position and duty with regard to it, and that they appear to ms to have done so either because they were not capable of accurately estimating the position of affairs, and the policy which they ought to recommend for our adoption, or because, by a most improper use of their present political position, they sought to steal a march upon their opponents by bidding high for popular favour, and raising for the coming elections the party cry that they are the men to extricate the country from the depression and the dilemmas into which it has got, and thus be enabled to retain their power and extinguish their opponents.” I give to that a flat denial. I hope that it will not be supposed that I am pressing unduly bard upon the bon. member; and it is not my desire to indulge in language of the very strongest description. Bat I give to tbat portion of the hon. member’s speech a flat denial. Why does he not come forward in a manly way, like the hon, member for Christchurch has done, and recall such statements ? The hon. member would stand higher in estimation, whether judged by this House or by his own conscience, if he would adopt tbat course—be would go home a happier and more satisfied man. The whole of the circumstances connected with the proposals of the Government, give a flat denial to the charge made by the bon. member. Had we been seeking popularity, and feeling our way in the matter, should we have adopted the unusual course of coming down to the House, not only with proposals, but of attaching Bills to the several proposals ? Could we not have brought down resolutions only ? Could we not have asked the House to rid us of all responsibility by referring the whole scheme to a Select Committee ? But the Government actually staked its position upon its measures. We said, “ This is our policy, which we submit to the House, and which we are prepared to submit to the country. We have so shaped that policy that there can be no possible misconception as to it, and so that there is no room for evasion.” Everything surrounding onr proposals gives an entire and emphatic contradiction to the charges and insinuations of the bon. member ; and lam sorry that he has not now the moral courage to come forward and admit that he has been wrong indeed in making them. I will say but little as to the arrogance and the pedantry which really underlie the speech of the hon. member, when he tells us that these proposals are no doubt popular with the country, and are appeals to the cupidity of the people. What underlies all that is contempt for the people, who really are the Government—for the electors who send him to this House—for hon. members —and for every person and everything with which he disagrees. 1 say that those who are not prepared to admit that this country is governed by the people—that such is in accordance with the constitution of the country—have mistaken the place in which they are living. I do not say or imply that because a person is in a minority, he is not at liberty to promulgate his views. There is no nobler mission a man can set himself to than when he holds", honestly and strongly, opinions upon great questions, not generally shared in by the community, to work to make those opinions gain ground, by expounding them and agitating in their favour. But that is a course widely different from the coarse adopted by the bon. member for Gladstone, and by other hon. members, of saying. ”1 am right. The people are not capable of j udging what is good for them. They are as little children; and 1 know what it is best for them to have.” We are living under democratic institutions. 1 admit that there are many evils which easily find their way into those institutions; but 1 say that the real conservative element that wishes to guard against evils that may come into existence under a democratic constitution, does not set about its work by sneering at the people and laughing at democratic institutions, but endeavours by the force of intellect, by high personal character, and by the calm exercise of judgment, to obtain and to hold a fair legitimate influence. 1 hope that the hon.

-member for Gladstone will take this counsel to heart, and that he will act differently in future. ( To he continued .)