A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14531, 19 November 1910, Page 8

A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

MEMBERS IN REVOLT.

[ AN ANGRY MINISTER. WARM DEBATE IN THE HOUSE? [BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Friday. For some time past there have been increasing signs of disruption in the Government party. There has been a great deal of muttered discontent, but so far not much open rebellion. To-day, however, matters came to a head, and there was some very plain speaking between certain members on the Government side of the House and Ministers in important positions. It arose over the deletion by the Legislative Council of a clause inserted by the House in the Land Settlement Finance Bill. The clause was in effect to prevent the aggregation of allotments in the case of an estate acquired under the Bill. It will be recalled that the other evening the House decided not to agree to the deletion of the clause. When the innocents were being slaughtered this afternoon the Prime Minister included this Bill in the number. Among the members who spoke on the question was Mr. Poland (Ohinemuri), who said he was astounded at the action of the Prime Minister. The principle of the clause was unanswerable; it was not one of leasehold or freehold, but of settling as many people 011 the land as possible. If the clause was not a workable one, the law draughtsman should make it one. In conclusion, Mr. Poland said that lie would always vote that the Lower House should rule, and not the Upper House.

Mr. Ross (Pahiatua), who followed, said there were some Liberals who were prepared to absolutely depart from anything that one might be prepared to contend were Liberal principles. What was happening was tantamount to a transfer of the whole of the power that was placed in the hands of the representatives of the people to one man in the Legislative Council. If that were to be the position he would tell them plainly that he would not give them a single vote to help them in doing what they were trying to do that afternoonThere was one cardinal feature in regard to the land policy, namely, that the settlers should be allowed an opportunity to secure to themselves the full value for their industry If the Government failed to agree to that sentiment they were likely to go to the wall. Hon. R. McKeozie: They would have been there long ago if your vote could have done it.

Turning towards the Minister, Mr. Ross went on to say that one of the most amusing spectacles in the House was the attitude of tho Hon. R. McKenzie, erstwhile member for Buller. When he (Mr. Ross) came into the House five years ago he was a oniet and unsophisticated youth and inclined to come round at tho crack of the party whip. The man he found jeering at him and saying to him, "Aren't you a Highlander, Ross'/ Surely you have Celtic blood in you?" was the Hon. R. McKenzie. (Laughter.) Mr. McKenzie: That is a deliberate misrepresentation. He said the attack made by Mr. Ross on the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, was one of the worst and most contemptible that he had ever known.

The Chairman : The words "attack" and "contemptible" must be withdrawn. Mr. McKenzie said he would withdraw, j bat he would still hold his own opinions. 1 The Speaker then, amid some noise, in- | sisted on a full withdrawal, which was given. Continuing, Mr. McKenzie asked if the Ministers had ever asked Mr. Ross fop advice or a vote. Mr. Ross was floating between two parties, just as he was before the last election, when he had to,be carried in on the backs of the Liberal party. The Ministry did not care two straws which way lie voted. The Opposition would have to take their share of responsibility for the Bill being dropped. He knew how far to trust tho member for Paliiatua, and that was not further than they could pitch him. (Laughter.) Later Mr. Poland rose to a point of order. He said the Minister was making a sort of personal attack on liim, and he asked him m fairness to speak in some intelligible language so that he could follow him. "I cannot possibly follow the language he is using," added Mr. Poland, "his voice is much worse than his writing." (Laughter.) Mr. McKenzie: You don't like it, I. know. I am as good as you two put together (indicating Messrs. Poland and Ross). Until I came across two such members as the members for Pahiatua and Ohinemnri I thought we could do without a second Chamber but now I have had to change my views. > The Prime Minister said it was easy to see that the Opposition had voted for the restoration of the clause for party purposes. As a matter of fact the Opposition liad always voted on the side of the large landowners. When taxation was proposed to burst up large estates the Opposition objected. As regards those on his side who were opposing him he would say that he thought it would be 10,000 times better for them to go right over to the other side and stay there. It was no use having members who would not stick to their own party. It was no gain for them to vote for the Government when the Government was all right. It was only when there was a pinch that a member's vote was really of use. What were the uses of vacillating members, members who sat on a fence, who voted one way to-day and another to-morrow? They were no good to any party. He was not going on with the Bill with the clause. He proposed to ask the House to strike it out or let the Bill drop. He had no feeling in the matter. Upon the resumption of the House at 7.30 the debate was not continued. Sir Joseph Ward stated that as the House had expressed a desire that the Bill should remain on the Order Paper he would not press the matter. He asked leave to withdraw i his motion, which was agreed to. There was a strong impression in .the lobbies that the Prime Minister's motion would have been defeated.