NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2546, 26 June 1895, Page 2

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The debate yesterday was brisk and remarkable. It was remarkable for many things, but chiefly for the financial discussion. The attack was made by Sir Robert Stout, who found fault with the Treasurer and the Agent-General. They had made wrong statements, and suppressed the truth and suggested the false. One reply of the Premier’s was very effective. In the comparison of the 3 per cent, loans, the fact had been suppressed that a 3 per cent. Canadian loan had come out under the Imperial guarantee. The same for the loans of the Mauritius and other places. The Premier said nothing about falsehoods and suppressions. He merely said that the leading fact ought to have been mentioned.

It rather took the steel out of the really magnificent peroration of the senior member for Wellington. No one will deny that the peroration was true as well as magnificent. It was a groat effort of eloquence. But whore is the application ? Such heavy material ought not to come from a man who makes such a cardinal mistake as to forgot the Imperial guarantee in a loan comparison. When one compares Lombard street to the familiar China orange, one does not leave out Lombard street.

As to the peroration; of course we all believe in honesty and veracity and the virtues. These things are very well marshalled in that peroration, and they are very well placed in tho quoted poetry. But we cannot accept tho peroration as a blow at the Government', or at tho Treasurer, or at the Agent-General. When there are two sides to a question it is not right for one side to accuse the other of falsehood merely because it takes the opposite view. The peroration in the dry light of facts becomes a burlesque.

Nothing better was done in the debate than the Premier's analysis of the Canadian 3 per cents. The average price of tho issues of four of these loans was a few pence better than the first New Zealand. It was of no use for the senior member of Wellington to urge that Im was only dealing with the ordinary quotations. The point ho raised was thus by_ his own admission shown to bo not tho point at all. The question of tho price of issue is the bed rock, and the Premier showed that on tho bod rock wo are practically level with Canada, in spite of t-he enormous start they have had, and in spite of tho greater bulk of all their resources. That is a fact which nothing can get over. The personal experience of Opposition theories in London which Mr Duthio contributed to the discussion, and tho support given to those theories here by tho senior member for Wellington are alike ineffectual. Comparison with Canada was challenged, and wo have the comparison on the bed rock, and tho comparison settles the matter for tho Government.

Then there is tho Ceylon loan of 3 per cent. Issued at less premium than our 3 per cents., and tho money (less than onethird of our issue) not covered by subscription. Practically tho Ceylon loan was a failure. And this was a comparison which was sujJposcd to flattoh us out. Such is tho consequence of ill-advised asperity 1

The only point of this farrago of the most serious accusations of bad faith and misrepresentation which remains unanswered is tho point relating to tho three millions of unpledged securities. Tho Premier has shown that at all events the amount was correctly stated, as Parliamentary papers do not contain everything. As to the plodgablo unplcdgable nature of a large proportion —it was shown that there Vvas enough unpledged to cover several times the amount of the land tax in question—there are two sides to that question. That ought to have prevented anyone from making charges of unvcracitys happily, the good sense of the House has agreed that the question shall bo left open till Mr Ward is here to defend his side of it. The conclusion is a grave rebuke to the style of criticism that has been adopted, because it declares emphatically that it ought not to have been made.

Unpatriotic it was, of course; hairing regard to the time arid manner of its making. A lame attempt was made to proto that the Government absolved everybody by beginning tho criticism. Bub all the ingenuity of Mr Georgo Hutchison is unequal to the task of proving that tho Speech did anything more than claim credit for tho success of tho 3 per cent. loan. Mr Hutchison himself declared tho success to have been great, and therefore ho endorsed tho reference in the Speech.

The general effect of the debate of last night ia very marked. Last year Sir Robett Stout and the Left Wing went apart a pace or two, or perhaps more, from the Government. Last night the Loft Wing was brought back by Mr G. W. Bussell’s emphatic remarks about the prudence of the Ministry, its careful finance, and the Premier's strength of character' and eyo to the main chance. Sir Robert, on the other hand, Went further off than ev'ef.

In the matter of Sir George Grey’s absence, the House sided mainly with the Government. It is to the credit of Sir Robert Stout that he practically proposed a Bill of Validation to secure the veteran from the consequences of n possible adverse verdict of tho legal aspect of the question. Ho one will misunderstand his attitude in the matter after that. Tho House, however, preferred a shorter course to the same object, by deciding that it required no Validation Act, but found tho present Act quite sufficient. Sir Robert is the only lawyer in the House who thinks that it is not, and the only lawyer in the country. The only point raised was that tho leaves of absence last year were not sufficient. But tho point is that a leave of absence causes absence to count technically as presence. Therefore it follows that Sir George was not absent for a whole session, in tho technical legal sense. From Mr Duthio’s account of Sir George’s feelings—Mr Duthio spoke up like a man, and all honour to him —it is clear that tho veteran will bo pleased with tho result. But wo make bold to say that if ho can possibly manage it he will be hero before the end of the session.

We heard much about the gross surplus last night. Now no one denies that the .£230,000 was paid over to the Public Works Fund out of tho Consolidated Fund. The objection is that the money having been paid over ought not to bo reckoned in the surplus. In the abstract that is right enough. But in the concrete comparison has to be made with former years. The great fact of tho situation is that this is tho only Government that has over paid anything over to public works from tho Consolidated Fund. It has, as a matter of fact, assisted that fund by threequarters of a million. To make clear tho fact that it has done this, it beoamo necessary to draw a distinction between a gross surplus and a not surplus. Tho gross surplus shows tho unprecedented difference between this Government and its predecessors. The net surplus |is the record of how tho finances stand after tho transaction. To leave out mention of tho transaction would bo unfair to tho Liberal administration, and would give tho previous administrations an unfair advantage. Hence those tears. They are crocodile tears dropped into a bottle labelled “Financial virtue.” But the proceeding imposes on nobody.

Ono word as to Parihaka. The Premier, wo notice, said nothing in reply to the criticism of Captain Bussell, which waaamplified, and very pleasantly amplified —with mastery of humour and graphic power—by Mr George Hutchison; and this we notice found the Premier laughing good humouredly with the rest, but not making any interrupting protest. The Premier was right, for his object was to defend his absent colleague and the AgeutGeneral. On that task he concentrated all his energy and power. His own case ho left alone. The country will admire the self-denial which was in every way worthy of the position of Prime Minister. His own case may come later. Enough has transpired since Parihaka and in the House to show that there is a good deal to be said for his conduct on that occasion. Good judges say that he made a mistake in going to Parihaka at all, but that being there he scored heavily. As to his going the last word has not yet been said.

Two points in the debate remain to bo noted. Every one will agree that Mr Hutchison’s compliment to the Premier on his birthday was both graceful and handsome, and Sir Eobert Stout’s speech struck every Wellington newspaper reader as having been written in instalments in the leading columns of the Evening Post. All the details had a familiar air, even to the doves that were sent to Australia to find material on the labour settlements.