THE ROYAL VISIT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1533, 18 July 1901, Page 65

THE ROYAL VISIT

CRITICISM OF THE PREMIER. In the course of his speech on the Local Bodies Indemnity Bill in the House of Representatives last week, Mr A. R. Atkinson asserted that on the occasion of the Royal visit to Wellington, the Minister for Public Works—and they knew who that meant—actually had the question of the shelter sheds opposite the Post Ofi fice, made a test question. This paltry personal question was made by the personal spite of a single man against a single city. Mr Atkinson went on to say that in the presence of a number of distinguished visitors he had felt positively ashamed of the colony when at the banquet tendered to them, the toast-list had been monopolised by a single man, the Premier. Though other Ministers were there, not on© of them was allowed to propose a single toast, excepting the Hon Sir Joseph Ward. On the following day at a reception to some returned troopers, the Premier again proposed the toasts, and every man who sat out the banquet missed tbe farewell to the Royal party, whilst Sir John Anderson had to ba pitched on board the Ophir. Mr Atkinson urged that in view of the direct part take by his Excellency the Governor, a constitutional question was raised whether it was not utterly wrong that the Governor should be brought into conflict with the public. The Premier described Mr Atkinson’s speech as that of a carping critic. Not satisfied with finding fault with local bodies, with members of Parliament and the Premier, he had attacked the Queen’s representative in this colony. Dnder the guise of a constitutional question, Mr Atkinson had brought on to, the floor of the House the difference between the committee of which Mr Atkinson was a member and his Excellency in regard to the route in Wellington. The fact was teat his Excellency had bad direct special instructions and special responsibilities, and he had in no way trenched upon the position of the Prime Minister. The name attitude had been taken up by the Governor-General of Australia. Mr Atkinson : Who instructed it ?

Mr Seddon: The Secretary of State. The Premier went on ‘to say that there was no question of administration of this country involved, and the hon member’s argument therefore fell to \he -ground. As to the shelter sheds, Mr Atkinson had acted unjustly towards the Minister of Public Works. The -question was whether the reception should take place outside the Post Office, but it was found that there would not-be room enough unless the platforms were carried back, and this could not be done because the shelter sheds were there. This was how tee shelter sheds had come in. The hon member seemed to be very delicate about the shelter ’sheds, but he (the Premier) had no hesitation in saying that a grosser breach of faith with the Government could not have been committed J than that of putting those shelter sheds there. Mr Atkinson had stated that he had monopolised the toast list. The only toasts proposed on the first occasion outside tee formal toasts were that of “The Visitors” and that of “The Press,” Sir ’Joseph Ward proposing the latter toast. If it had not been that the hon member took nothing -stronger than water, he might have said that lie had wanted a full toast list so that he might enjoy himself a little longer. The fact was that it galled the hon member, as it galled others, to find him J (Mr Seddon) where he was. but so long as he was there he would maintain the dignity of hi s position. As to the second occasion, the only other toast proposed was in reference to a railway officer who was leaving New Zealand; and by special reouest of the Minister for Railwavs. he had proposed this toast.