MR. EDWARDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 6442, 6 December 1881, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR. EDWARDS

MB COFFEY

SOUTH WELLINGTON ELECTIOH.

AT THE ARCADE.

SOUTH WELLINGTON ELECTION,

MR EDWARDS

AT THE ARCADE,

Mr Edwards, one o£ the candidates for the representation of South Wellington, met the electors at the Arcade, Manners-street, on Saturday evening, December 3, at 8 o’clock. Notwithstanding the very inclement state of the weather there was a very large attendance. On the motion of Mr Moody, seconded by Mr Le Chen, the chair was taken by Mr T. K. Macdonald. The Chairman said Gentlemen, all I have to do in introducing Mr Edwards to-nigbt is to make the usual request, which, I am sure, will be granted without any trouble, 'fcthat you will give to the candidate a fair and impartial hearing, and at the conclusion of his address you will ask any questions that may occur to you, which I am sure he will answer in as frank a spirit as that in which they are asked, I have very much pleasure in calling upon Mr Edwards to address the meeting. Mr Edwards then came forward, J : Mr Chairman and gentlemen,—X have now so often appeared before yon, and have so much aired my political views, that it will not probably be necessary for me to go into them all at length to-night. I shall, however, touch upon a few of them, because a few of them are of greater importance than others, and because upon some of them I have been grossly misrepresented by some, or at least one of the other candidates who have addressed you. [A voicp : “No, No!”] Possibly the gentleman who says “No ” will allow to know my own views better than he does himself. (Hear, hear.) One of those questions, gentlemen, upon which I have been misrepresented as I say—and grossly misrepresented—is the EDUCATION QUESTION. It has been represented, gentlemen, that I am a person who advccates that the children of the poor shall be 10stricted in their education, I say—and I say it fearlessly and unhesitatingly—that that representation is wholly false ; that, on the contrary, I am most anxious that the children of the poor should obtain the highest advantage of our educational system, and that that system should not be diverted from the chiMren of the people for whom it was intended, and who ought to have the benefit, by the children of persons who are well able to pay, and ought to pay, for their own education, (Loud cheeis.) Now, gentlemen, to-night I have brought down statistics, and the very papers themselves, in preference to quoting from notes, in order that you may see X am not making anything as I go along, but quoting from statistics that are accessible to all of you, to show that what I have stated is the truth. (Hear, hear.) Now, gentlemen, you are probably all of you aware that in my first speech at the Princess Theatre, in Tory-street, I stated that, after having fully considered the matter, I thought it was not to the advantage of the people that gratuitous education should be continued beyond the fourth standard, but that that standard should be raised to a greater tension ; that the whole of the teaching power should be given to the instruction of the children educated up to that standard, and that they should be thoroughly grounded in it. Now I propose to show you the reasons that induced me to form that opinion, I am reading now from the last report of the Minister of Education, and I have brought this report down to-night, because a certain anonymous writer in the ‘‘Evening Post ■' has thought fit to impugn the figures I quoted, and has misrepresented what I said on a former occasion. Now, gentlemen, these figures show 'that up to the fourth standard there are 76,275 children being educated at the expense of the State. These are males and females. Upon the former occasion I quoted the statistics relating to the males alone, but the proportions are exactly alike. There are 6X26 children beyond that standard being educated at the expense of the State, These figures in themselves are sufficient to convince you, X apprehend, that the children of the people do not benefit to any appreciable degree by gratuitous education beyond the fourth standard. *lhere are 76,275 children being educated up to that standard, and 6126 above it. But besides these statistics, X have taken the trouble to see several gentlemen who are much better qualified to judge of these matters than myself. One of them is, I say most unhesitatingly, the most liberal man and the best qualified to judge of these matters in Wellington, and he has told me he holds unhesitatingly the same opinion as I do—that beyond the fourth standard the gratuitous education is only availed of by persons who are perfectly well able to pay for the education themselves. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, it must be at once apparent to all of you that the parents of the 76,000 children should not be taxed for the further education of the 6000 children belonging to other people. (Loud cheers.) That, gentlemen, is not a liberal measure, and is not what can commend itself to the people of New Zealand. (Cheers.) But I beUeve, gentlemen, from my inquiries —and X believe by the exercise of my own reason—that if the sixth standard is discontinued, the children can be put up to the fifth standard in the same time as they can now be put up to the fourth. And, if that is the case—as I do believe it is, and must be to a great extent—it is at once evident that beyond the wrong which you suffer in being taxed for the benefit of the children of the rich, you suffer a further wrong in the loss that your own children in nob receiving the beat and fuUest teaching power of the school up to the time you can keep them at school. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It sounds a very liberal and very democratic cry, no doubt, to say that all education from the lowest to the highest ought to be free, and hat from the common schools to the colleges t ie poor man ought to be able to send his children to obtain the same educational advan*

tages aa the rich. (Cheers.) But it is a sound only. How many among you are there really poor who could afford to keep your children at l the schools beyond the age when they become bread-winner? ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) You are obliged to take them from the schools because you have not the moans to keep them there, and if you provide gratuitous education beyond that, you are providing gratuitous education not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of the rich, who are perfectly well able to pay for it themselves. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, this is a cry not raised by thinking people, not raised by the true working men of Wellington, but raised by those who seek, by miarejTreaentation, to depreciate true liberal sentiments in order to hoist themselves into position and power. And [now beyoud_ this, gentlemen, there is another reform which I propose, and which no other candidate has ventured to touch upon with reference to the education question. Beyond the enormous edhoation vote that appears anually in the Estimates, there is an enormous public estate set apart—an estate so vast that probably few of you have any conception what it is, or have reflected to what purpose it is turned. lam quoting again from statistics that any gentleman in the room is at perfect liberty to inspect. Beyond this large education vote, there is set apart from the public estate for education purposes two millions' worth of land two millions ! gentlemen —and this estate goes, not for the benefit of the poor, but to maintain colleges —so-called colleges—and bastard high schools, at which the children of the rich are educated gratuitously. You are not in a position to avail yourselves of that education. You do not avail yourselves of it. If you did really avail yourselves of it, no matter how much it cost the State—and it does cost the State a great deal—l say I should cheerfully give way and see it administered for vour benefit. But it is not so, and I cannot stand quietly by and see it administered for the benefit of the few. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) More than that, gentlemen, this estate is vested in a number of quasi responsible Boards, Boards of Governors, and Lord knows what. They administer this estate according to their own sweet wills, and the only revenue they get is £36,000 a-year. I say that that is a gross perversion of the public funds and the public estate, and these reserves ought to be forthwith resumed by the State, to which they belong. (Cheers.) Now, so far from being in favor of limiting the education of the poor, X am in f ivor of devoting a very large part of that estate to the foundation of scholarships, which will be sufficient not only top iy the children’s fees, but to maintain them until they can obtain the highest education that the State can afford, (Cheers.) Not every man's child, of course, can hope to obtain this ; but there will be a prize to which every one of you can look forward as the reward of extra intelligence and industry, and this would prove an immense incentive to learning, and would, I say most nnhesitatjngly, produce far greater results in the diffusion of education than the present system does. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, if these sentiments be illibera l , then lam illiberal. They are the sentiments I first proclaimed, and proclaimed all along, and if it loses my election not to take' them back, then do not elect me, for I shall still maintain them, no matter what may be the result of the present contest. (Bond cheers.) Now, gentlemen, there is another question with regard to this education, and that is the question as to WHETHER THE BIBLE OUOHT TO BE READ IN SCHOOLS. Now, I say, as X said at first, that if you return me to the House, I shall, unhesitatingly, oppose any attempt to introduce the reading of the Bible into schools. (Hear, hear and cheers.) Not because, gentlemen, I am any more deficient than yourselves in reverence for that Holy Book, but because its introduction would mean the introduction of the different dogmas which every teacher throughout the whole colony held; and I say, aa I have said all through, that the immediate result of that would be that your children would be taught to be unbelievers. One week they would be taught the dogmas of the Catho ic Church, another week the dogmas of the Presbyterian Church, another week the dogmas of the Wesleyan Church, another week the dogmas of any sect whatever to which the teacher might happen to belong. (Hear, hear.) The children, as thev passed from teacher to teacher, would be taught to disbelieve the last dogmas they were taught to believe, and, not being able to discriminate between them when they were asked to reject the dogmas of the one Church alone, they would reject the whole thing. And that, lam sure, is not what you wish. Every man among you is perfectly well able to instruct his children in those religious doctrines he has himself been brought up to and wishes them to hold • and, if he be not capable of imparting this instruction to them, there are abundant means for religious instruction among the Churches and Sunday Schools in the city ; and this cry which has been raised—an altogether uncalled-for cry for Bible-reading in schools—ls a false cry, and is not demanded by any considerable section of the people. (Cheers.) Passing, gentlemen, from the question of education to the yet more

SERIOUS QUESTION OP TAXATION, I shall say a few words, but a very few. It has grown lately—l know not why—to be a supposed Liberal cry to say the property tax ought to be abolished, and that in lieu thereof a land tax ought to be enforced. (Hear, hear.) Now, gentlemen, if you will attend to the statistics which I am about to read to you, and if you will follow the reasoning which I will endeavor to draw from them, you will, I think, come to a very different conclusion. Now, you have been told—not by one candidate, hut by several—that the propetty tax is an iniquitous tax, a class tax, and that it chokes all industries and Lord knows whan Now, gentlemen, what are the facts ? This is a class tax, gentlemen, but a class tax upon whom ? Upon the wealthy portion of

the community. Would it be a people s cry to repeal that ? These are the figures that will prove what I say. We know what the property tax has produced. We know upon whom it has been imposed. We know exactly who paid it. The property tax for one year, ending the 31st of March, 1881, produced £255,914. Now, was that tax paid by the people ? _ Probably there are few of you aware how lightly this property tax touches upon anyone but the really wealthy. The whole number of persona who contributed to that large sum—over £250,000 throughout the colony—was 22,087. It cannot be said that these 22,087 persons are the oppressed poor. They are the wealthy people who are perfectly well able to pay, and, so far as we have discovered, are perfectly willing to pay their share of property tax. Gentlemen, if you return a member to Parliament pledged to repeal the property tax he will find plenty of aid, rely upon it, from the wealthy merchants and from the man who invests his money in freehold securities, shares, or Bank stock. These men will be with you, rely upon it. And who is to benefit by the change ? Suppose you revert to the land tax, what would it produce? We know its actual result. At the rate of a penny in the £ on all lands, irrespective of encumbrances upon it, that tax for one year produced £100,175. The property tax, at the same rate, produced, as I have already told you, £255,914. That was the first year of the property tax ; but to this has to be added £45,000 a year more, because duiing the first year of the operation of the property tax there was exempted certain foreign capital, which it was deemed inadvisable to tax. Bast year this capital was made liable to be taxed, and the Colonial Treasurer estimated—and you may be sure he knew what he was talking about—that that would bring in £45,000, being the additional taxation upon eleven millions of foreign capital. So that the property tax would bring in something over £300,000 a year, whereas the land tax would bring in £IOO,OOO only. Now, if the property tax be repealed, where are you going to make np the extra £200,000 a year from? From the pockets of the people ? It must come from somewhere. It is necessary tor carrying on the services of the State, and it will come in the shape of increased Customs’ duties, or in s ime other shape that you will find more unpleasant than the property tax. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) More than this, even with the present property tax small holders contribute comparatively but a small sum. The return shows the amount of tax paid by the different classes of persons. The total number of persona who contribute to the property tax, as I have shown, is 22,087, and the number who contribute under £1 is 5417. And you actually find that eo ne persons or firms pay between six and seven thousand a year. .It may seem to you a liberal cry to say these persons and firms ought to be exempted, but, for my part, X fail to see it. Now, you have to consider what sort of persons will go exempt from taxation if the property tax is repealed ; and I say unhesitatingly that they are really some of the most wealthy classes of the community—all the rich merchants, all the holders of bank stock and property of that description. The total amount of property which will go untaxed altogether amounts to between £48,000,000 and £50,000,000 ; and that property is held, as 4 have said before, not by small persons, not by the struggling poor, but by the rich, because you must remember, gentlemen, that up to the present time every person who has been taxed under the property tax has been allowed an exemption of £SOO. Now, probably to a great many of you it will appear that people holding actual property exceeding £SOO are not really very poor. But, gentlemen, although X am in favour of a property tax, I do not say that the present one is by any means perfect. Ido not say that the taxation under it cannot be equalised, and certain classes of property made to bear extra taxation, as it really ought to be. I think, for my part, the property tax ought to be classin-d into three distinct classes. The first consisting of land, which would bear heavier taxation than the others, for many reasons, but for one which is quite sufficient if there were no others, and that is, that lands benefit, as other classes of property do not, by the large sums that are annually spent for public works. We all of us know that every £IOO,OOO raised at Home, and spent in the colony upon public works,, does increase the value of all lands within its vicinity, and increases the value of that land, without any exertion or merit on the part of the persons who hold it, and I think, therefore, it is only just and right that land should bear a heavier share of taxation than other property. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, gentlemen, as I said at my first meeting—and I am not going back from anything whatever that I said at my first meeting—l think that if it can possibly be managed the tax upon this class of property ought to be progressive ; not so much as to drive foreign capital out of the country, because that would mean the ruin of the country ; but sufficiently so to be a gentle inducement to holders of large estates to break them up. We know of the existence of large estates, many of which are really a scandal to the country, and we are all very much at cue in thinking it would be highly desirable for the country if the owners of these estates could be induced by anything short of confiscation to divide them into small allotments, so as to be more reproductive, and to provide the means of support for a greater number of human beings. (Loud cheers.) These means, I believe, can be attained —and I believe can be attained without injuring the credit of the country—by a progressive tax, arranged in a judicious and reasonable manner. The second class of property which I would divide would be securities for money, shares in public companies, &0., which are not subject to the losses and fluctuations to which property engaged in trade is subject. Th : s class of property is principally held by absentees. You are probably aware of the enormous sums of money sent from the Home country to be invested in real securities

in New Zealand. I have sufficient statistics for my purpose. You know there are two systems under which land is held—one the land transfer system, and the other what is known as the old system. We have a Government return showing the actual amount of money invested on mortgage under the land transfer system, and I may tell yon the lands under that system up to the present time are not anything so extensive as the lands which remain under the old system. So that, if we double the amount, we shall be quite within the mark in arriving at the amount invested in mortgages in the colony. The amount actually invested upon land under' the Land Transfer system is £15,837,823, nearly sixteen millions of money. If you double that you come to £32,000,000. Nearly the whole of this is foreign capital, brought into the country either through the medium of the Banks or the great finance companies which draw their supplies from London, and lend out the money upon mortgage in the colony. Now, it is only just and right that property of this description should bear its fair share of taxation. I think it ought to bear a heavier share than property engaged in trade, because it is not subject to the losses and fluctuations to which that class of property is subject. (Cheers.) In the third class I place property engaged in trade. It is only just and reasonable it should be taxed, and for the exigencies of the State it should be, but the taxation must be lighter, and proportionately lighter than the taxation upon moneys invested as I have described. From the operation of the property tax, I should EXEMPT ALTOGETHER ALL MACHINERY actually in use. That is one of the suggestions I made at my first meeting—a suggestion that X notice ha* been adopted by other candidates as their own. I should further propose to give small traders an additional exemption of £SOO. It would not do the revenue very much injury, and would be a relief to a class which, I believe, is a straggling class, a deserving class, and a class that feels more than any other the bad times through which we have bad to go. These, gentlemen, are my views upon taxation. I omitted to say this : that, for my part, I have not the slightest objection to

AN INCOME TAX. I think it is perfectly fa'r that people who make large incomes ought to contribute their fair share to the taxation of the country. I stated that at my first There may be some difficulty about it. Probably, the initial difficulty will b§ the reluctance of the Government of the country to remodel their system of taxation —as it would be necessary to do—if this were done ; but in the end it, probably, will come, and, for my part, it will receive my support if brought forward in any well-digested scheme of finance. You may console yourselves, io the meantime, by reflecting that, u-ider the present system of society, those who make large incomes and spend them do contribute very largely to the revenue. You cannot make use of anything in this colony without paying 15 per cent to the Customs duties, and although you may think, as I thinlr, that those with large incomes ought to contribute something beyond this, stdi it may be some consolation to you to remember this in' the meantime. These are my views. If they be illiberal, X cannot retract them, because they are my sincere and unqualified views. If you think it is a more liberal cry to let fifty millions of capital go untaxed altogether, then elect some other gentleman to represent you. There are several soliciting your suffrages on that point. They say this capital ought to be altogether exempt from taxation. X say it ought not. We are at issue there, and you will have to judge between us on that subject. Now, there is another question, gentlemen, which has not been a very burning question in this part of the world, but which, during the currency of the next Parliament, will become a burning question, that is, the

DISPOSAL OP THE PUBLIC LANDS of this colony. During the currency of the present Parliament, the pastoral leases of enormous estates in the South Island will fail in, and the question will arise whether these lands shall be re-leased to the pastoral tenants who at present occupy them, or to persons of the same class, or whether a determined endeavor should be made to break them up and make them support a larger population. Well, gentlemen, I can only say that I should use my best endeavors to have those lands broken up and put in the market in small allotments—reasonable allotments, sufficient to enable any man to make a good living and to settle his family decently upon them, but not so large as to encourage speculators. (Cheers.) And I think those lauds ought, bo far as possible, to be sold upon the system of deferred payments. I do not think that residence ought to be strictly insisted upon, because that qualification can only be required to prevent the land falling into the hands of speculators. Now, I think these evils may very well be avoided by other means, and I think that the insisting upon residence prevents people in towns like our own City of Wellington from buying homesteads of their own—struggling tradesmen, it may be, who could- put by a small sum annually for the purpose of acquiring these sections, to put their sons upon them afterwards. I think it highly undesirable that settlers of this class should be discouraged, because I am quite convinced they are the very beat settlers we can procure. They are far better than any we cm procure from the Old Country. They have been for the most part brought up iu the colony ; they know what the colony is, what its wants and requirements are ; they know the trials and difficulties that have to be contended against, and they cau adapt themselves to these trials and difficulties better than persons who come fresh from the Old Country. And it is very desirable that every industrious and deserving person in large towns should be encouraged to acquire these small properties, and thus drain off from the town the surplus population which must sooner or later encumber them. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) We all of us know that

when the population of a town becomes disp.oportionately large to the population of the country, the town itself impoverishes the country, and unless we provide reasonable facilities for settlers to go into the country, the result will be that the population of the towns will become disproportionately large. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, there has been a talk lately of lending money out of the Consolidate! Fund to people who wanted to go upon the lauds. It sounds very liberal, very pretty, but unfortunately it is not practicable, and if it should cost me my election, I will tell you it is not practicable. The gentlemen who talk about lending money out of the Consolidated Fund in this _ manner do not known what they are talking about. They don't know what the Consolidated Fuad really is. They seem to think that it is a kind of Fortunatus’ purse, into which you can dip as often as you like and nobody will be the loser by it. If that could be done, where is the man who would not immediately become a selector a borrower ? Xam sure I would \ and probably there are few in the country who would not follow the example. And if we are all to be borrowers, where are we to get the money ? Do you think, gentlemen, that the Home financiers would, even if you thought it desirable, advance unlimited suras to lend it to persons with mt any security at all ? The thing is absurd and’impracticable, and I feel bound to tell you so at once. If you went on the lauds under such a system as I propose, you would have to do it by means of your own industry, Intelligence, and activity, and not bolstered up by the illusionary things which certain gentlemen may promise you ; but which the whole 92 members of the House could not give you, because it is impracticable, gentlemen. Now, gentlemen, there is another subject upon which I appear to have been somewhat misunderstood. When I addressed the first meeting at the Princess Theatre, I stated that I was clearly and unequivocably in favor of a TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON NATIVE LANDS ; but, at the same time, I pointed out to the meeting the difficulty there would be in the collection of such a tax. Some gentlemen appear to have misinterpreted that into a declaration that I was opposed to the imposition of a tax upon Native lands. lam utterly at a loss to understand how my words could have been so misinterpreted. But in order that there may be no mistake about it, I now declare that any measure whatever brought forward during the session of Parliament—any measure for the taxation of Native lands—shall, if you return me, receive my hearty support. It may be left to the Government, after the tax has been imposed, to use the best means they may find at disposal to collect the tax. I am entirely in favor of its being levied at once, and collected as far as possible. It is only just and reasonable it should be so, because the land which before the scheme of public works was carried out was valueless, except only for a hunting-ground, has now become of enormous value j and it is quite just and reasonable that the Natives should contribute their fair share of taxation towards the revenue of the country for the purpose of paying the interest upon the moneys which produced that increased value. (Cheers.) and I don’t think for my part that the Natives would be one whit the worse off. Probably those who know something about what the Natives do with their lands will come to the conclusion that it will be, at least, as well for them if a part of the result goes into the coffers of the State, which must sooner or later maintain them, rather than into the hands of unscrupulous and greedy adventurers. [A Voice : What about local industry ?] Now, that gentleman wants to know something about

LOCAL INDUSTRY. I am entirely in favor of every measure which will result in the encouragement of local industry. I am entirely opposed to anything in the nature of a prohibitive tariff, because, in my opinion, that will not encourage each local industries as it is desirable to have amongst us. One gentleman says he is not a rank protectionist, but is entirely in of such a tariff as shall be prohibitive to the import of anything that can be manufactured in the colony. And yet this gentlemen is not a rank protectionist I Now, gentlemen, just consider what would be the result of a prohibitive tariff. Bet us take an example—probably, one of the most familiar ones—of what can be most readily manufactured in the colony : agricultural machinery, I think, would be the article that could be more readily called into existence than, probably, any other, We have foundries here, doing good work, doing it well and honestly, and getting along very fairly. They are quite capable of turning out farming implements. I have no doubt; but put on a prohibitive tariff, and what is the effect ? The implements must rise in value. Wages are higher here than in the Old Country, and must be paid. The cost of production is higher, and must be paid. The foreign manufacturer is shut out, and of course the colonial article will rise much higher in price. Who has to pay that tax ? The farmer in the first instance, of course. But can the farmer afford to bear the whole of that loss ? The life of a farmer in New Zealand is not a particularly happy one. It u chequered, and he has enough to do to make both ends meet. Who consumes what the farmer produces? You consume it, gentlemen, and it is you who will pay the increased cost upon the production of the machinery. (Hear, hear.) And for whose benefit ? What sort of industries will be called into existence? These six-bob a-day men, to whom ao often one of the candidates refers, and from whom he seems to expect all his support, are to get employment. Why, gentlemen, you will not be employed at aIL That skilled labor will be imported from Home, and will be put into these various fac*. tones. It must be so, gentlemen, unless you happen to be members of particular trades. A man cannot walk from the street into a factory and take up any single trad ro than he can walk from the st eet into a watoW

maker’s shop and be a watchmaker upon the spot. Upo i you must fall the burden, it these burdens are imposed. It will tend to- the benefit of a few, no doubt—a few manufacturers who will establish their factories, and will probably have a monopoly in the country and charge as they p’eate. (Hear, hear.) But yo-, g i ot'emen, will have to pay proportionately higher, and if wages are increased, you will suffer more by paying more for what it is necessary to live upon. But while I am decidedly opposed to anything in the shape of a prohibitive tariff, I am decidedly in favor of any reasonable measure which tends to the encouragement of local industries. lam decidedly in favor of allowing the import of all raw material free from duty, and placing the duty on the manufactured article. You must remember, gentlemen, that if this is done, you have what is a protective duty already. You may not have a prohibitive duty, but you have a protective duty. Yon cannot call 15 per cent anything but a protective duty ; but if you cannot manufacture articles in the colony to compete with those from Home, it is better for you and the country to use Home articles until you can, (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, I propose to make a few remarks upon what I consider should guide you in your choice of a candidate for the House in this election. I do not propose to make any offensive personal remarks upon any of the candidates now before you soliciting your suffrages. But I propose to take the published addresses of those gentlemen, and to deal with them for a shott time. Now, with respect to Mr Hutchison, the member who sat in the last Parliament, I desire to say nothing disrespectful and nothing unkind. Mr Hutchison is a gentleman who, I am assured and believe, is possessed of very many high, excellent, and estimable qualities in private life. He has been described to me—and I believe him to be —an excellent friend, a pleasant companion, and a good father; and, gentlemen, I wish to take him as such; I wish to believe him to be all that he has been represented to be in these respects. But he may be all these, gentlemen, and yet it may not be desirable you should return him as your representative in Parliament. It is a matter upon which I should almost hesitate to tread if Mr Hutchison had not told us about it in one of the late addresses—he is undoubtedly a pro-fe-sional politician. He told us so upon the occasion of the recent election for the Mayoralty, and he there tells ns as much. He says : ” He really thought that he would have been able to put off harness, as he thought th-t he had been able to obtain a successor worthy of the citizens.” [A Voice : Is that the “Post ?”] No ; that is the report issued by Mr Hutchison himself for the information of the citizens. He goes on to say : “ The fact was, be had already made arrangements to enter into other pursuits when he received a largely-signed requisition to contest the election.” Well, gentlemen, there is a confession at once that politics were his pursuit. Of course we all know it is so, but X don’t know if he had not t)ld us so in so many words I should have mentioned the matter to-night. But he has told us so, and we know it. Now, gentlemen, I ask you to consider seriously, before returning your member to the ensuing Parliament, whether it is desirable to return a gentleman who is dependent altogether on what he receives from public offices as your member there. (Hisses.) Well, the gentlemen who hiss had better go to the ballot-box and record their votes in favor of Mr Hutchison. If they think it is better to have a person dependent altogether on public offices for what he lives upon, let them express their opinions in an intelligent manner at the ballot-box ; and if they are in a majority they will put Mr Hutchison in. If they are a minority, as I believe they are, then Mr Hutchison will not go in. Now, there are other reasons, gentlemen, why I think you should consider seriously whether Mr Hutchison is likely to do you justice in Parliament. One reason why I say be .is not likely to do you justice is, that he is one of the candidates who advocates the abolition of the property tax ; and I say that all those who advocate the repeal of the property tax are not true Liberals, They are persons who are willing to aid the rich at the expense of the poor. Now, we have Mr Hutchison’s scheme. I am now referring to the report of Mr Hutchison’s first meeting which appeared in the New Zealand Times of October 26. It has not been contradicted, gentlemen, and therefore we may consider it is authentic. Now, from this report we learn that Mr Hutchison’s scheme involves a recasting of the whole incidence of taxation. He does not exactly tell us how it is to be done. He tells us generally that he is in favor of recasting the whole system of taxation. Now, gentlemen, I ask yon what use is it returning any individual member to Parliament who is pledged to such wholesale changes as that ? He is simply powerless. It would be absurd, even in the Premier of the colony, to come down and make such a declaration to his constituents. It is far more absurd of an individual member who has only one vote to rely upon. . Every gentleman returned to Parliament pledged to support such ultra measures as these must inevitably find that he has no influence at all. That will be the inevitable result of returning such a person of such views to Parliament. Now, Ido not propose to say anything more about Mr Hutchison. Xam simply dealing, as lam sure all of y»u must say if you reflect upon the matter, very fairly with his own utterances. You may dispute the deductions I draw from them, but I am doing perfectly right to refer to them iu the same way that he is perfectly entitled to refer to mine. (Hear, hear.) He doubtless will do so if he thinks he can deduce any advantage from doing so. [A. Voice : What about Coffey ?] We are coming to Coffey, but, if the gentlemen in the ball will permit me, we will take the candidates iu alphabetical order.

is, I believe, an exceedingly estimable citizen. He is a very worthy member of a local Board, and I believe has done good service to the ratepayers in that capacity, but X have no means before me of knowing what his views are upon the great political questions which agitate the public mind at the present moment, and I apprehend that nearly the whole of the electors are in the same position as myself. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to criticise his views, and therefore X will simply pass him by, with the remark that T believe he is, what be is represented to be, an estimable and useful citizen. Whether he can expect to be elected without giving you a

proper opportunity of considering his views, is for you to consider, not for me. Now, gentlemen, I propose to say a few words about

Mr Coffey did me the honor last night, in a crowded meeting, at which a great many of my own supporters were present, to say a few words about me. Now, my supporters on that occasion listsned to all that he said very patiently, and I am sure those gentlemen present in Mr Coffey’s interest to-night will listen to what I have got to say. (Hear, hear.) I do not intend to say anything about him in his private capacity, but to refer to what he said about me on political subjects. Agreit many of you will no doubt disagree iu what I have to say, but I think you will all feel you ought to give a fair hearing and listen to what I say. If you dissent, you will express intelligent dissent on the day of polling. In the meantime, you will be willing, as intelligent citizens, to listen to what I say, and give it such consideration as it merits. Now, Mr Ccffey, upon several occasions, in his public speeches, has told you that he did not profess to be an orator. He was not a glib speaker, he has told you, and it did not require an orator in the House of Parliament. I hold in my' hand a verbatim report taken by a gentleman very well known in the reporting world, Mr Grey. The notes have been transcribed by that gentleman for my own use. I asked him to go there and take a verbatim report of the proceedings, so that I might know what Mr Coffey’s views really were ; and from Mr Grey’s professional standing you may rely that what I am about to quote is exactly what took place last night. Mr Coffey has said that he is not a glib speaker ; but, for my part, it appears from what I have heard him say to-day, and the report of his speech, that he is a very fair speaker indeed. He appears to me to speak fluently, and with a ver. fair choice of language. The manner, gent’emen, is exceedingly passable ; but when you come to the matter, it is the matter that fails—and that is what you have got to consider. If it was the manuer that were wanting in Mr Coffey’s speech, I should say you should all, as intelligent electors, disregard it, if the matter were sound. Mr Coffey has endeavored to stir up the feelings of what he is pleased to call the working cla ses against me. He has endeavoured to make out that I am going about demanding your votes. (Cries of “ No, no.”) Yes ; I have got it here. (A voice : “ Cut it short.”) If any gentleman wishes to leave the room, of course he may do so." I shall close when I have delivered the address I propose to deliver. This is what Mr Coffey did me the honor to say about me last night ;—“And you have another sort of candidate who will ask you for your suffrage and endeavor to bounce you, and tell you yon have no right to elect one of ourselves, but to elect a man—a lawyer—Heaven save the mark ! Now, gentlemen, I don’t think I can accuse myself of anything of the sort.” Then he goes on with something that does not refer to me. It was something that was intended for somebody else. Mr Coffey goes on :—“ Ido not think you will think me in this place a political adventurer—a seeker after a billet. I am not a hanger-on, Mioawber-like, that I might be rewarded by something turning up for having so long neglected the interests of my constituents to further my own ; and I am not one of those forensic frauds—skulking political lawyers—that are flooding New Zealand from the North Cape to the Bluff, and in many places they are not asking you, but demanding your votes. They say one of yourselves is not fit to be placed in that House. Better the whole world should come to an end than South Wellington be represented by a working man. One of the candidates told them the otherday that, if the electors put Paul Coffey in the House, it was plain evidence there were not twelve men of iut-lligenoe in the district.” That is what Mr Paul Coffey says. He says I come before you demanding your votes. Gentlemen, I come before you ns the humblest citizen is entitled to do, asking you to return me as your representative, not demanding your votes. We all know it is impossible to demand votes. Votes at election times are great favors, and, even if disposed to demand votes, I am not quite such a fool as to do so. And if the statement refers to me, “ that, if the electors put Paul Coffey in the House, it was plain evidence there were not twelve men of intelligence in the district,” I may say that I never uttered such a statement. There may be, and will be, a great many intelligent men, doubtless, who will vote for Mr Coffey; but I apprehend, even supposing I told them that those were fools who voted for Mr Coffey, I presume there will be rather over twelve who will not v< te for him at all. Now, gentlemen, Mr Paul Coffey did me the honor—and a great honor it is, I am sure —to refer to me not only at the commencement of his speech, as I have shown you, but also at the end, and he referred to me in the end in these terms :—“ Mr Edwards I know nothing at all about. X know, gentlemen, there is a firm of lawyers in town where the name of Edwards appears, and I recollect, some years ago, seeing a gentleman of that name in the office of one of the oldest-established lawyers iu town. From that time to this, I don’t know anything about him. He may be a most estimable man ; I know nothing of the contrary, andbe, doubtless, enjoys the respect of his fellowcitizens, I have no doubt.” That L what Mr Coffey has to say to my disadvantage. It ir a very great misfortune for me, gentlemen, that I have not had the advantage of knowing Mr Paul Ccffey, lam sure, because it must be at once apparent, from his own etatt meut—and, surely, be is the best judge—that he is one of those men whom not to know is to argue one’s self unknown. But, gentlemen, if you are convinced that my views upon political subjects are intelligent, and that I am sincere in them, and that they are calculated to advance your interests, I apprehend a very large number will vote for me, notwithstanding the disadvantage I labor under of not being known to Mr Paul Coffey. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, I don’t know that X need criticise Mr Coffey’s political views at any great length. I have already intimated to you during the exposition of my own views that I dissent from a great many of them. I dissent, first of all, from the abolition of the property tax. I dissent from the imposition of prohibitive duties. I dissent from Bible-reading in schools. I dissent from the advance of money out of the consolidated fund upon no security at all. There are some other little matters, gentlemen, upon which also I am not in accord with Mr Paul Coffey. One of these is the direct steam service. When the country

is ripe for it I shall he the first man—it would be egotistical to say the first man, but I hope I shall be among the first to advocate anything that will increase the prosperity of the colony. But the experiment has been tried. The experiment has been tried and calculations made by those who are better able to judge of the matter than we are. The experiment was tried by the New Zealand Shipping Company, and it has been found to be utterly impracticable. It has been found that if such an undertaking were gone into it would result in an immense annual loss to the State, which the State certainly cannot afford to bear. It has been tried in the case of the Stad Haarlem. She came out chock full of passengers and freight. She came out most economically, under the auspices of the New Zealand Shipping Company, and although she was brought out most economically, and was chock full of freight and passengers, the experiment was a failure. That, with the inquiries lately made, is conclusive proof that a direct steam service at the present time is far in advance of the requirements of the colony. (No, no.) Possibly, if the gentlemen who cry “ No” had to pay the increased taxation necessary for the payment of the subsidy, they would alter their minds. As it is, it is another of those chimerical ideas which sound very nice coming from a candidate on the platform, but which every intelligent and well-informed candidate must know cannot be carried into effect at the present time ; and if he advocates it at the present time, he is advocating it simply with the view of gulling the public. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, Mr Coffey has drawn a very charming picture of the advantages which you will obtain by this direct steam service, and in order that you may have both sides of the question fairly and fully before you, I will read what he says, and it you believe in the beautiful picture he draws, then by all means vote for him. This is what he says on the subject of direct steam communication :—“Now, gentlemen, with the vastly improved condition of the colony, with the West Coast railway in operation, with the Te Aro reclamation gone on, with large and full-powered steamers running at a minimum cost, with coal at your very door, with steam colliers owned by your townsmen, with factories and workshops established on that reclaimed laud—gentlemen, it must and will come to pass, and we shall live to see a direct line of steamers running between Wellington and Great Britain, and the first note that is sounded by one of those steamers will be the signal for your representatives to wring from the Government of the day a sufficient amount of the waste lands of the colony as an endowment for the Harbor Board of Wellington to construct docks and accommodation for these vessels, and if your representatives do their duty, if you place iu that House three men who will work hand in hand together to attain that object, there is a day of prosperity in Wellington looming upon us we little dream of.” Now, gentlemen, as I said before, if you believe iu that beautiful picture, vote for Mr Coffey. You will live to see a direct line of steamers from Great Britain to Wellington, if you li"e long enough. I have every hope of living to see it myself, and probably those who are not very aged will live to see it, but probably not within the next few years, or during the currency of next Parliament, to which Mr Coffey asks you to return him on this cry. Now, gentlemen, to the statement, it attributed to me, that I say no working man ought ever to seek election to the House of Parliameut, I return the most unequivocal denial. There are scores of working men in this city who know far more about politics than I do. If any of these men come forward, I shall for my part be very glad to see one of them in Parliament, but not Mr Paul Coffey, because Mr Paul Coffey, by his published addresses, has shown that he does not know anything about politics. He called me a skulking lawyer. Ido not call him a skulking boatbuilder. I do not indulge in that sore of thing, I appea 1 , gentlemen, to your reasons, not to your prejudices. It is not by c tiling names, whether by Mr Paul Coffey or myself, that your reasons, as intelligent men. can be appealed to. I say that Mr Coffey is, I doubt not, an exceedingly estimable citizen, a very worthy tradesman, everything he ought to be in private life, I have every reason to believe ; I certainly know nothing to the contrary. But there is one fatal objection to him : he is absolutely destitute of any knowledge of politics. Now, gentlemen, if -you want to know where he got his political ideas from, I will give you a wrinkle ; I will tell you where he got them from ; I will tell you where you may find them for yourselves—at least, where you may find the originals of them, not in their diluted form, but in the shape where they had some strength. I refer you to the published addresses of Mr William Hutchison at various times. I venture to say you will there find the originals of them, in their native strength, and not in their dilated form ; and if you electors do approve of these views, it would be far better to return the man who originated them than to return Mr Coffey, who has simply borrowed that which belonged to somebody else. I do not propose to detain you very much longer. There a?e some inconsistencies, gentlemen, to which I failed to draw your attention, even in Mr Coffey’s prohibitive or protective tariff. If there be one industry in New Zealand which is deserving of encouragement, and which is capable of, encouragement, it is the coal industry ; yet Mr Coffey told you last night that he would not impose a duty on Newcastle coal for the protection of the native article. How that is reconciled with his statement about the imposition of protective duties upon anything produced in the colony, I really do not understand for my pact. I do not, as I said before, intend to detain you much longer, because I intend to say

SOMETHING ABOUT MYSELF, and I shall not speak long on that branch of my subject. I can only say, gentlemen, that if you do return me to Parliament, you will return a man who is absolutely untrammelled, who is indebted to no merchant, no firm, no Corporation in Wellington for any support ; who has come forward of his own free will and motion, after consulting with a few friends ; who has not got up a lt bogusrequisition, but who is prepared to leave the electors to judge of him by hia principles and the way he advocates theirs. And you will find, gentlemen, that it I am elected I will do my very utmost to redeem every pledge which i have made to you, and you will most assuredly find that the principles I have advocated, though they have not the tinsel glare possessed by those spangled ideas that are brought before

you simply to delude you, will still bring far more real, lasting, and tangible benefit for you than the ideas I have just 'described. It would be just as easy for me to advocate all these crude ideas, if I were dishonest enough to do so. I could put into words a glowing eulogium on the working man, and say that I was a real British working man, and all the rest of it; but you would not believe me, and I don’t think you believe the other candidates when they come before you with similar declarations. I believe that in your choice for the ensuing Parliament you will be guided by a just consideration as to who among the candidates is most qualified to advocate your interests, and who among the candidates is most likely to do so with earnestness and singleness of purpose. During the currency of the next Parliament there will be a large loan raised. We know that from the Premier’s speech. We knew it before, but we don’t know what the amount may be. It may be two or three millions. Whatever it is, it will be raised, and there will be the inevitable scramble for it. There will be the Hon. James Macandrew from the South, and all his crew, eager and not particularly scrupulous. There will be another greedy crew from the North, and it will require all the intelligence and wit of your members to fight them. I will put this case to you. Supposing these three millions were in dispute in Parliament, and that each one of you had a share of it, and that each of you was to be represented at the bar of the House in support of your claims, which of the candidates would you send to represent you at the bar of the House in aup; ort of that claim ? I ask you to consider that seriously, to reflect upon it, and to vot? for the man whom you believe best qualified and best able to maintain your claims. And you must remember, gentlemen, that one vote in that House is nothing. What you should look to is the influence which your member will exercise upon other members of the House, and you should return him who is likely to have the most influence. What is one vote amongst ninety-two ? I say you must return the man, or ought to return the man, whom you believe best qualified to wield a just and reasonable influence upon his brother members in Parliament. (Loud cheers.) The Chairman ; Now, gentlemen, the opportunity is given for any elector in the hall to ask Mr Edwards any questions respecting the political principles enunciated in the speech which he has just delivered. Mr William Hcme : On what platform does the candidate wish to be returned ?

Mr Edwards ; I state, as I stated before, at my first meeting, that if it be a question between the return to power of Sir George Grey or adherence to Mr Hall, I prefer the ill we have to the greater one to which we should fly. But I am not an admirer of the present Ministry, by any manner of means, and I should be very glad to see that Ministry reconstructed, so as to give tlvs part of the colony, and this provincial district in particular, greater influence in the affairs of the countiv.

Mr Home : Would you kindly tell us wha_ maximum you wish to raise the Fourth Stan’ dard to ? Mr Edwards : I believe it could be raised so as to be, as I already stated, taken advantage of by all children attending the schools up to the Fifth Standard, by the means I suggest. I believe it could be raised to that —to the highest degree, of course, to which it could be raised.

Mr Hume : Up to what age would you like the children to be kept at school ?

Mr Edwards : I should like them to be kept at school to the last moment to which their parents, by any exercise of economy, can keep them. (Cheers.)

Mr Hume : Would the income tax not be more preferable than the property tax ! ould it not touch the pockets of the wealthy, especially lawyers ? Mr Edwards : Most unhesitatingly, no. I have already told you I was in favour of an income tax, but not the abolition of the property tax.

Mr Hume : Would an income tax not touch the pockets of the wealthy mere than the property tax ? Mr Edwards : No ; I have already explained my views, so far as it is possible to do so. If the elector puts a direct question, I will give a direct answer. Mr Hume : Would you not suppose that an income tax would be more just than the property tax ? Mr Edwards : No. Mr Hume : Would it not be more equitable? Mr Edwards : No. Mr Hume : Why ?

Mr Edwards : Because all foreign capital would be almost altogether untaxed, if not absolutely untaxed. Mr Hume : If elected, would you table a motion to make inquiry into the amount of money expended on the Wellington new station from the present terminus to Pipitea Point ?

Mr Edwards ; It is a matter I know absolutely nothing about. If there be any necessity for any inquiry whatever, I should be too glad to listen to the views of any elector on the subject, and to give due and proper consideration to those views, and, if necessary, place them before Parliament. If there has been any waste of public money, it is a matter which nobody can deplore more than I. Every taxpayer must deplore it, because he feels it in his pocket. An Elector ; Is the candidate in favor of putting a tax on Newcastle coal ?

Mb Edwards : I think that is an article that might very fairly have a tax put upon it for fiscal purposes.

An Elector : Would the candidate be kind enough to explain how a tax could be placed on N ewcastle coal before facilities are obtained to get supplies from the New Zealand mines ? ■v< k Edwards : That question involves a statement of fact which I believe is not a fact. I believe plenty of New Zealand coal may be got without any great difficulty, and that it would be burned almost exclusively if the duty was imposed. An Elector ; Are you in favor of a tax upon wool ?

Mr Edwards : No ; I am not in favor of a tax upon wool. A tax upon wool, as I have ascertained by careful inquiry, would mean the imposition of a heavy duty which would fall principally on small farmers. The greater part of the wool comes from small farmers. Probably the gentleman is ignorant of that fact.

An Elector : If elected, would you be in favor of bringing in a Bill to repeal the Gaming and Lotteries Bill ?

Mr EDWARDS : I think it is an unnecessary

and impracticable measure. It is quite possible there may be some evils that ought to be done away with. Ido not know, but I think in its present form the Act ought to be repealed, and a reasonable measure passed to remedy any evil that may exist. (Cheers.)

Mr Roberts : Would the candidate be in favor of sending to Sydney for anything that can be made in Wellington—for articles that can be manufactured here ?

Mr Edwards : No ; I am not] in favor of any such thing. (Cheers.)

Mr Home ; Is the candidate in favor of plural voting ? Mr Edwards : I think the city ought never to have been sub-divided, and a wrong was done when the city was sub-divided. Single constituencies, as a rule, are a mistake altogether ; but I don’t know that I would altogether prohibit plural voting. There being no further questions, Mr Charles Midlane said : Mr Chairman and gentlemen, I have a resolution to put to this meeting, which is as follows “ This meeting, having heard Mr Edwards’ opinions on the various political questions of the day, considers him a fit and proper person to represent the electors of South Wellington in the next Parliament.” I have very great pleasure in moving this resolution. There is one thing I am quitefcertain of, and that is this : that if you send Mr Edwards to Parliament as your representative you can depend upon one thing, and that is, that your interests will be represented —a thing which has not been in the past. Mr Edwards, I am quite sure, will work harmoniously with the others that may be elected, and I think then that Wellington will prosper ; and, by Wellington prospering, of course it is not only for one class, but for all. I have no doubt this resolution will be carried, and if it i-, I ask that you will prove it at the ballot-box on Friday next, between the hours of 9 and 6, and I believe then you will return Mr Edwards at the top of the poll. X do not say by any large majority, because my impression is, whoever is the winning candidate, it will be a very close run. But I think if you elect Mr Edwards, the electors of South Wellington, Te Aro, Thorndon, and Wellington will say, at all events, that South Wellington has put the right man in the right place. (Cheers.) The motion was duly seconded. Mr Hdme moved, as an amendment, “ That Mr Edwards was not a fit and proper person to represent South Wellington in the House of Representatives.” The Chairman ; The proposition made is a direct negative. The proper amendment to move is that somebody else is a more fit and proper person than Mr Edwards. Is there any amendment to the resolution proposed by Mr Midlane ?

Mr Home : I maintain mine is a jast and proper amendment. The Chairman repeated his former ruling. The resolution was then put to the meeting, and carried amid loud cheers. On the motion of Mr Edwards, a vote of thanks was passed to the Chairman, and the proceedings terminated.

An extremely important addition has lately been made to the list of valuable minerals found in Nevada. It consists in the discovery of large beds of nitrates near Brown’s Station, Humboldt Desert. The State Mineralogist of California, Mr H. G. Hanks, finds the mineral to be a very rich nitrate of soda, and regards the discovery as one of the moat important ever made on the Pacific Coast. Mr. Hanks expresses the opinion that other similar deposits will be found, as large regions of Nevada and California are of a formation suitable for its existence. Many years ago he predicted the discovery of nitrate in the southern partjof California, but as yet none has been found. The Nevada discovery will doubtless turn the attention of prospectors to this valuable mineral.

The subject of red rust has been engaging the attention of Mr George Francis, the analytical chemist, who, in a letter to the “Garden and the Field,” says :—“I have lately been examining into the character of the disease that attacks the common mallow about this time of the year. If a leaf is examined it will be found speckled nearly all over the under side with small brown and rather hard pustules about the size of pins’ heads, and the stalk will have the same kind of spots, but longer in shape, very much like the blotches of our red rust on wheat-stalks. These spots are a fungus, and I find that they are a Puceinia, the same as the wheat rust, but possibly a variety. If one or two of these pustules are taken from the leaf and crushed with the flat of a knife so as to break it up, afterwards moistened, and then patted about with the knife, it will be found that clusters of spores on their stalks or pedicles separate, and can be readily seen if a thin covering glass is put on and wateradded to thoroughly immerse them on a slide. It is well known that Puceinia attacks many plants besides wheat, such as most grasses, reeds and vetches, asparagus, primroses, sow-thistles, mints, mallows, and hollyhocks, strawberries and raspberries, in all about eighty different sorts of plants. As I am not aware that it has hitherto been recognised in this colony on other plants besides the cereals and some few grasses, I think it is worth recording that I have recognised it |on the mallow. A few days ago Mr Custance, our practical and genial professor of agriculture, happening to call on me, I mentioned the circumstances to him, and he at once remarked that he, only a few days before, had also found that the mallows were affected by a Puceinia. I requsted to be allowed to use his name as confirmatory of my views. He, in the true spirit of scientific generosity, immediately acceded to my request; so that I can with confidence say that it is found on other plants here, the same as in other parts of the world, and we may thence infer that Puceinia is firmly established on our general vegetation, and is not confined to one particular species. It is important that further observations be made to ascertain whether it can be found on any other weed plants, such as sow-thistle, the Cape plant, wire grass, and such like. Doubtless it may be found on raspberry, strawberry, and garden flower plants, in the form of a brand on the leaves, and an elongated rust spot on the stalks.” Probably some of our readers may be able to assist Mr Francis by making observations and communicating the results to that gentleman.