The New-Zealander. AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, FEB. 23, 1856.

New Zealander, Volume 12, Issue 1028, 23 February 1856, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, FEB. 23, 1856.

"Be just and fear not: Let all the ends thou aira'st at, be thy Country's, Thy God's, arid Truth's. ;

The Provincial Secretary seems anxious to do all he can to lower the estimation in which the Provincial Council has been held by the public, whether electors or non-electors. Having taken some dislike to one of the members for the Southern Division, Mr. Dilworthwe presume only on political grounds—Mr. Carleton omits no opportunity of endeavouring to treat that honorable member with all the disrespect which a careful study of the Standing Rules, supported by the non-interference of a friendly Speaker and the inconsiderate acquiescence of an obedient majority, will enable him to exhibit.

The causes of this conduct are not difficult of discovery Mr. Dilworth has carefully studied the Land Question and has obtained a thorough insight into the motives which: have influenced the late and present Executive in throwing every possible obstacle in the way of the working of the existing Land Regulations—in propounding an entirely new set of Regulations, whose object is to sacrifice Labour to Capital—and, finally, in bringing fonvard a long string of amendments and a BilL the purport of which is to get the whole available waste lands of this Province into the hands of a few keen capitalists, who have bought up the fabulous "old claims" for a song, and have succeeded in returning to the Provincial Council a majority favourable to their selfish policy. j Such, if we judge rightly from Mr. Dilwortlr's course in the Provincial Council, are the conclusions at which he has long since arrived; and it was the conviction that he wouldvbe one of the most formidable opponents to the policy of this Executive that led to the strenuous opposition to his return —as it has since led to the course of conduct to which we are alluding. One of the most marked instances was the exclusion of Mr. Dil worth's name from the select committee named by the Provincial Secretary for the consideration of the proposed Regulations, after having refused assent K, the committee moved for by the honorable member fet,the Southern Division. A greater tfpl'each of legislative courtesy and proprilfiy we never remember. And the endeavour to throw the onus on some hidden objectors whom he would rather not name, only fixedthe responsibility more deeply on the real objeetoi*—the Provincial Secretary.; The last striking case occurred on Wednesday, in the charge virtually preferred against Mr. 'Dilworth, that, after giving an offensive, notice of motion, he had covertly erased the objectionable portion. And such a charge, the honourable Speaker—who is- so constantly rising to check the,independent members at the suggestion of the Provincial Secretary— A never rebuked by even a word of interposition. ~■' ■ . " : "■'':■' ■'•'" J

In drawing attention to this matter, we must not be supposed to absolve Mr. Dilworth from the liability to a charge of having committed a breach of the Standing. Rules, by adding a verbal rider to his notice.,

the import of which was liable to misconstruction. But if he was out of order* —as we think lie was —he should have been checked at the time by the Speaker or the Provincial Secretary; Neither did so. And as the written notice from which Mr. Dilworth read was the only paper he had in his hand, and was given ■•over, nmnediately; to the Clerk, —from whose custody it was never known to have passed,—Mr. Carleton had it in his power to have satisfied himself whether it had been altered or riot, before bringing* so grave a charge. The Provincial Secretary, we think, had some ground for asking the honourable member for an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the notice as understood by him (Mr. Carleton) to have been read, and as: (through the accidental omission of a few words, either in: the writing or typographical "composition" of our ..." summary" on the night of publication), the NewZealandefy sustained him in believing to be.the case—and the question as now; put. But he did not thus approach the matter. He insinuated that Mr. Dilworth meant to insult him, and then, fearing the consequences, had altered his notice in an underhand way. This was denied by Mr, Dilworth, who was supported by several members who) speaking from observation as well as hearing, declared positively that the objectionable' words, were only spoken, not read. The 'Provincial -Secretary-)--, persisted in asserting that the words were read,—thus committing the grave breach of decorum of charging hisopponent with teliing a deliberate falsehood. He;even went further.. Insisting* on a quibble as, to the words :" as read," he declared that the Speaker could not decide the point in dispute;—and we regret to say: that the Speaker showed .himself so ill-informed as to the course that would have been pursued in the Home Legislature, as to be induced

to say that a comparison of the written notice with the questipn now put, would not enable him to decide whether the words complained of had been spoken or read., though he admitted that the words on the notice paper corresponded-with the written notice handed to him by Mr. Dilworth. The whole proceeding was inade worse on Thursday, when Mr. Merriman, on the part of. Mr. Dilworth/ wished to give an explanation that he thought would be satisfactory to all parties. The Provincial Secretaiy would not suffer the explanation to be given, and when the Speaker was reminded by an honourable member that he had not yet given his decision on the point referred to by the Council-—he (Mr. Carleton) took upon himself to warn the Speaker "carefully to consider what he did say in recording his decision." We are not surprised that the Provincial Speaker, has caaised this extraordinary discussion to be wholly excinded from the report in the paper which is under his control. The warning, however, did not ■■pass without rebuke at the time, and it will be some time before it is forgotten in the Council. The intent was too palpable. So far from looking on the Speaker as an I impartial referee, Use Provincial Secretary considers himself entitled to violate the rules of debate with impunity, and to look to the Speaker for shelter when he brings charges, calculated to inflame political antagonism into personal animosity and to bring the Council into general contempt. Although Mr. Dilworth was out of order in adding averbal requestfor an answer in wri tingto his question, there are' not wanting arguments in support of such a mode of reply. To say nothing of the very unsatisfactory answers which the Provincial Secretary has given to several members, in the present session, a very strong ease in point occurred in the late Provincial Council. A question was put in a similar way to the gentleman (Mr. W. I. Taylor) who represented the late Superintendent in the Council. The answer was given verbally; a note of it was taken and entered in the minutes by the Clerk of Council; on the minutes I being read at the next sitting, the correctness of the answer as thus recorded was disi puted,—whichled to a suggestion being made at the time, that it was desirable that when specific, questions were put in that way, the answer should be given in writing, so that it might be recorded in the minutes. We think such a plan is more than ever desirable, when we have a Provincial Secretary who accuses honorable members of falsehood, and warns the Speaker to be careful how he decides what is a very simple matter—whether he has any reason to believe that either an honorable member or the Clerk of the Council (at that member's suggestion) has improperly altered a-notice of motion by the erasure of a sentence that was read. I