AN IMPUDENT INVENTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11180, 30 January 1897, Page 4

AN IMPUDENT INVENTION.

Another very good instance of what one of our correspondents calls the Conservative faculty for invention was supplied by our morning contemporary yesterday. It will be remembered that the Bank of New Zealand and Banking Bill, which was introduced by the Premier during the expiring hours of the last Parliament, was the subject of several conferences between the Legislative Council and the .Housatof Represen-

•tatives. The bone of-contemaon-wa# a clause inserted in the Bill by the > Upper Chamber, by which it -sought to give the official .liquidators of the Colonial Bank power to settle adjust accounts without the interposilion of the Supreme Court. The Council insisted upon its amendment, and after every effort had been made to arrive at a compromise the Premier abandoned the Bill. In announcing to the House his-inten-tion to take this course Mr Seddon said: “I can only express my regret that we have not succeeded in coming to a satisfactory arrangement; We had everyreason for getting the Bill- - I have done my level best to get the Bill passed, but the barrier seems impassable. The Legislative Council will not pass the Bill •, with Clause A excised, and the House will not pass the Bill with clause A included. There being a deadlock, the Bill must stand over ’ until next session.” In the face of this our contemporary, with the coolest effrontery, declares that Mr Seddon dropped the Bill because he could not secure the insertion of the objectionable clause. “ Both Houses,” it says, in an article dealing with the Colonial Bank revelations, ■ “ passed a Bill last session providing for the removal of Mr Watson, and Mr Seddon dropped that Bill because ho , was not able to carry a clause which , would have enabled some of the transactions of the Colonial Bank, which have lately come to light,, to be hidden from the public eye/’ It is just possible that the author of"* this impudent calumny may seek refuge under the silly suggestion that Mr Seddon was not sincere in his . support of the Bill, and that he ‘ instigated the persistence of the Council for the purpose of defeat-? ing the measure. The reply to this is that the objectionable clause ' was supported by every Conserva-* tive iu the Upper Chamber, Here is the division list;—Ayes-r Hons Barnieoat, Bolt, Bonar, Grace, Holmes, Jones, Kelly, Kenny, M’Lean, Peacock, Reynolds, Eichardson and Stewart. Noes—Hons Feld- * wick, Jennings, Montgomery, Reeves, Eigg and W. C. Walker. , The idea, of Messrs Grace, Holmes, M’Leau and Peacock trying to help Mr Seddon out of a dilemma, while Mr W. C. Walker opposed their friendly efforts, is too ridiculous for- a moment’s serious Consideration, The truth is that our contemporary, presuming upon the notoriously short memory of the public, has grossly - misrepresented the attitude of the absent Premier towards the Banking Bill. Surely, after an exhibition "of .this land, it is not 'faecessary to pronounce any special condemnation, upon the methods of the Conservative Press. •