THE NO-CONFIDENOE MOTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10417, 20 July 1895, Page 6

THE NO-CONFIDENOE MOTION.

CAPTAIN RUSSELL'S AMEND-

MENT DEFEATED.

(Feb United Pukss Association.) Wellington, July 19. . The House mefe at 2.30 p.m., and after the Hamilton Gasworks Bill had been read a third time and passed, Mr J. A. MILLAR resumed the debate on Captain Russell's amendment intercepting Supply. Respiting the three million securities, he uaid ha believed in fair and honest criticism, but he regretted to find members on the Opposition side of the House giring expression to opinions which they were not justified in doing. He hoped as the debate proceeded members would remfember that their first consideration should be the welfare of the colony, and not to impute unworthy motives to those ■who differed from them. Thp Opposition had ' last year criticised in a hostile manner such an I excellent measure as the Advances to Settlers Bill, and when the news came that the loan -was.floated it was a death knell to tho hopes nf the Opposition for the future. He spoka warmly of the Colonial Treasurer's mission to London, and said he htiid faithfully carried out the work he had undertaken for the colony. 1 Mr. GEAEAM thought sufficient time had been wasted on;this subject. . He did not know ■why Captain Russell had brought forward his amendment, as tho mp-tter had already been debated by the House, and would no douht' come on again in ths Financial Statement. He defended Mr Ward from the attacks made on him in this debate, and said the Treasurer should not be judged on mere newspaper reports. If Mr Ward would say that he bad used the words quoted in Captain Russell's amendment he (Mr Graham) would vote for that amendment. He quotgd from an English psper, which reported Mr Ward as telling the London people that his sole object in collecting the laud tax four mouths befoie it was duo wa< in order to prevent the if sue of the Treasury bills. He felt that the action "of the Opposition was unpatriotic, and said the Colonial Treasurer, who had a delicate task to accomplish, had done great good to the colony. Mr SAUNDSttS regretted, that this question of party, had! not been brought on before they considered the question of party Government. He felt sure that every member in the House thought the Treasurer had made a great mistake in-his London speech, bert as it wss a party matter he felt sure that members would not vote against the Government on ;'tbis amendment. The Government were, in his opinion, perfectly safoi and would riot be turned out on this question. If they- were turned put they would soon come tack again, and he was not at all sure that it would not do them good to be turned out. Those being his opinions he felt at liberty to vote as he plessed. on this question. He (Mr Snunders), considered that Mr Ward's fault in London was in reality- a small matter compared with the conduct of the Government during this debate, and that it was most unforfcnnate. that three Ministers had one after'another i.made' speeches which greatly weakened the confidence of the public in the safety of the'trust funds,: which should be held as sacred as any private investment in an ordinary way, and it was indeed unfortunate that the Government should have done anytfeintr to least n the confidence in the safety of the Post Office deposits, Government Insurance, and Public Trust funds. He said he had never heard from the Ministerial benches, or indeed in the House, anything like the speech-made on the previous night by the Minister for Education, which was of a grossly personal and vicious character, and should not certainly come from the Ministerial benches." His opinion was that the Colonial Treasurer on getting to England should have remembered that, he went there as Treasurer of the colony, and'not specially to raise money; Mr M'GOWAN. defended the Colonial Treasurer, and said tbs Opposition had been so long used to power that they ' were trying in every way to get back to office. \ He considered the Government securities which ■ they had heard so much of were something more than securities, and theyactually represented the assetsof the colony. Ifthosesecurities were not to be used in case of a financial crisis, why should they be sent Home at all ? They heard a good deal-about patriotism, but tho whole length of and breadth of the Opposition wss to get back to the' Treasury benches. Mr HOGG said the' Opposition mountain had been for some time in labour and had brought forth a little mouse. He' regarded this charge against the Colonial Treasurer as one of tho most paltry things that could be brought aijaicst a man. It was a case of " much ado about nothing." 'The splendid reception given to the Treasurer on his arrival from England was, lie thought, strong proof that the people approved of his mission. ', 3lr PLATMAN deprecated wasting the time of the House and country over this matter, which was trivial in' the-extreme. He considered the Opposition had not got a leg to stand on or a feather to fly with, aud the House should be at work"which would be more profitable to the country. It had not been proved, he held, that Mr "Ward had done anything at all to the discredit of the country. On resuming at Z3O, after the dinner adjournment, • MrDUTHIB said they had heard members' sneaking on all sorts of subjects in this debate, ■whereas the real question was whether or not the Colonial Treasurer had uttered tiue statements ;in London, and whether he had done anything to injure the colony whilst he was away. They had also heard from four Ministers who_ had spoken loud chp.rgsjs that the Opposition had made damaging statements against 5 the colony. He challenged the Treasurer if ho had sny charge to mske that, he (Mr Duthie) had, whilst in. London, said or done anything to the detriment of the colony, to make that statement openly in the House,, and he should be prepared to meet ic. lie absolutely denied that he hud ever :douc\ anything ef the kind. He went Home on his own business, at his own expenee, and hail no time to concern himself with the Colonial Treasurer or his doings. Speaking of Captain Russell's amendment, he asserted that the report of the Treasurers speech in the British Australasian was a correct one, and he^asked •whether -Mr Ward was prepared to deny that. There was no doabt. whatever that no matter wh*t the ■ Colonial Tressurer.meaut, he had distinctly led the British public to. believe that the colony had three millions of unpledged securities. He ' :referred to ihe recklens statements made in the debate by The Premier and the Minister for Labour, and denied that Government securities were available for any emergency, a fact which tie Government knew perfectly well, although they told the Housu to the contrary. Ho deprecated strongly tea Colonial Treasurer goiDg to London and making reckless statements, which his colleagues in the House had to defend, knowing they were absolutely unfounded. Mr MASLIN regretted Mr Ward's visit to ths old country wan so U'-fcimed, and that so great a magnate as Mr Duthie was in London at the same time as ths Treasurer. It was, he thought, to the credit of the colony that it could, send Home so able a financier as the Colonial Treasurer, who had held his own against the ablest financiers of the old country. He regretted to hear the remarks made by Mr Saunders, who had not objected to offensive remarks from the Opposition benches but found such fault with tee Minister for Labour for retaliating. If the Colonial Treasurer's visit to England had bs.-en a failure there would have baan great jubilation on the part of the Opposition. : Mr RUSSELL (Riecarton) opposed the amendment, and said that any members of the Liberal party who supported it should be logical a«id be prepared to follow the Opposition. At the same time, he thought Ministers had, aince the bpginniog of the session, brought the attack on themselves by systematically refusing to the Opposition aud to the House returns which they had a parfect right to obtain. He was satisfied, howevsr, that the actions of the Colonial Treasurer in London would bear the closest scrntiny, and the Government had nothing at all to fear from the amendment. Tho Opposition had quite changed their tactics. _ The Hon. Mr WARD deprecated the Opposition allowing member after member of the • Government side to address the Hoose without replying to them in order that he might kuow what he had to reply to. That, however, was on a par with all the tactics used ag'dnst him since his arrival from Eogia&d. When ha finished his remarks they would find Opposition members rising to reply, when he would have no chance of defending himself. That was not fair fighting, and he thought the House would agree with him in that statement. He referred to the Opposition changing their tactics- bj admitting that three millions of securities now existed in London, which they formerly denied. He complained that the Opposition speakers had :not given him fair play in quoting from his speeches in Hansard. He defended as a prudent thing "the collection of the land t:us before the due data, a coti'so which was followed by former Treasurers, and was nothing unusual. He assarted that after the speeches made by certain Opposition merc-bura in the House soms papers in England bad (stated that tho colony ws3 on the verge of bankruptcy. Did the Opposition not recollecu that when Siv H. Atkinson was Treasurer of the colony the j w&nied him to disclose cartain information, tvhieh he refused to do in the interesto of the

colony, and yet ever since tlie present Ministry Mmc into office the Opposition had attacked ihesn for withholding information which it was not prudent to disclose ? He read portion of a confidential letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury previous to the collection of land tax,

v.-hich he said warranted tha Government in ti-.:'.;r action at that time. He said their

there woe a deficit of £114,537, to fimke up which the land tux had to ba collected before its doe date. They asked the House to consider what the position of the Governmeut wa3 at that time, and ha asserted that very faw people who knsw him believed ho would deliberately do what he was accused of doing by the Opposition. He hopad the House would never see him descend to the level which some OpDcsition

upeakers adopted. He asked the House to consider what the position was in October 1893, when the praat; Australian banking crisis occurred. The Government had in September 1893 sent Homo their seonrities. On the 11th July in the same year the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company suspended, and oa the 29fch Juno last the House had to come to the rescue of another great institution which it wss nettacsary to assist in the interest of the colony. The Government had sent Home the securities of these Government institutions for the purpose of protecting those institutions themselves, and not for the purposes which the Opposition represented. Referring to the speech he made to the London Chamber of Commerce, he said if ha had been fully reported it would have occupied 25 columns of the paper that had been bo much quoted. And members had played continually on " unpledged." He quoted from the statements made in the "Investors' Review" by an old New Zealaader, to the effect that every ■wholesale house in the colony had gone to the wall, and that the colony was rapidly approaching rain, and other statements to the same effect, one of which was that the presont Ministry lived in :a publichouse in Wellington, so thut when the _ crash came they could- take their carpet" bags /and clear out of the colony. It was statements of this. kind he had to meet when he reached England, and he was now attacked because he had defended the colony from Its traducers. A statemsnt made was that 10 years ago he (Mr Ward) was a] telegraph operator, but that statement was I only "10 years out, as be resigned his.position iv the Telegraph department 20 years ;agb, and'he hid never been ashamed of his connection with that departnient. After quoting several iother statements, derogatory to the colony, he said he had put the of the colony clearly and honestly before the London, Chamber of Commerce, and that' was all he; wished 'tb do." He did the same thing before .the Qolonial Institute, before the House of Commons,';and other assemblies, but he would ask Mr JQuthi.e wh&her he had taken the trouble to correct thd-mis-stateinents made. Respecting the investment of trust funds, ho had said they had three million securities unpledged, and he asked the House whether they were not absolutely .unpledged so long as they had the" credit of ; the colony behind them. Moat certainly they were^ as the Bfouse would admit. He asserted there was no Treasurer iv the,colony fchafc could ever use these securities without the consent of the d<^ pa-tments in whose names they stood. He should not place himself in the hands of the Opposition, but in the hand 3of the public, and he only wanted to be judged fairly. Let them recollect that he knew the financial position of the colony, and he was also dealing in London with inea who were also perfectly well acquainted with our position. He asserted that he placed the position of the colony fairly before the London people, and thatwsS'sll he claimed to-have done. ..He had; never .said, either in the House or in ,the old country, that the trust funds of the.oolpny should be available for the ordinary, financs of ,, thei country, a/ad he hurled back such a charge'oiil those who made it. He had never 'advocnted- nor ever should, advocate the hse\>f these/sebusities for the ordinary revenue of the colony. '■'•■'■""■ , Sir R. STOUT said that after the speech tbey had just heard he intended- to show the House the position in which the dehtte>stpod. T_he Treasurer had appealed .to tba "House tor Sympathy by complaining that the Opposition had not treated him fairly in refraining irom speaking till after his spaeeh tors made; The Premier had agreed in. the first place .that, the Agent-General's circular should be taken first on the question of the three million securities at a later day. .Why was that; arrangementhot carried out ? and why had the Treasurer ':, not moved the. House into Committee of Supply in the usual way? Instead of that the Premier ■had spoken for an hour in the most rambling way, he supposed to perpetrate some trick on the House. He-(Sir R. Scout) objected to.this debate because the returns that were by law required to be laid on the table'were not yet far-1 nished to the House. There was one return of the securities tn«' Government had for two months in their possession, and thsy dared net produce: it,vfor if they did so it would be seen that-the speech they had just heard was most inaccurate and misleading. He had sat in several Parliaments, and he had never known such a servile Parliament as the present—one that allowed tbe Premier of the colony to' wilfuUy.break the laws as ha was cijn=tintly-dding. They were told by the Premier- in his usual stylethat he took the responsibility for what he did in this respect. Referring to Mr Ward's sptech, he said there was a complete'change in the tone of that speech from the former one delivered, by Mr, Ward, and it was. totally different from that delivered by Mr Reeves thia previous iifehfc.-;; He asked whether the -.report in the British Australasian was correct; or not, and did Mr Ward.see the printed report before :it was published.—(Mr Wakd : " Who told you that?") He ajked Mr Ward whether he had seen : it or mot. Bat they saw the Treasurer was silent. He (Sir R Stout) asserted that hundreds of copies of that paper wero scattered :all over the colony,.paid for by.the.colo;iy with money contributed by. the Colonial Treasurer.: llf members searched through'the returns of the last year they would find that only atniliion and a-quatter of securities weresent Home—noli two millions. If the return he had asked for were furnished, a return which the Government had for two months past* the- House would see that the ■ statements made were* false ; statements. The House was asked to discuss finance, yet 'they were denied returns, without which they :could not discuss'finance, and this was what :tae Parliament of i New Zealand had come'tp. I The charge against the Treasurer was that he said the securities could be used .for paying ■interest on our debts. Was this statement itrue ? and,"if not true, should not the House .demand the truth as to whether or'not the Treasurer-had said these trust fundsicould be .used for the payment of our interest in' Ocbober ? : Some piembers of :the House would probably h'ava to ;gb before thoir constituents' in the recess and' acknowledge that'they Uvsre wrong morally in condoning the Treasurer's- statements, bub that, party had risen above alb that, and thsy had snp- : ported .their party. He (Sir Eobert" Stout) had been accused of saying last year there wss . no cash available ; but is was the Premier who had stated that, not himself.: It was the Premier who was the' tradncer of the colon v, ssid he .quoted from the Premier's speech in Hausard in proof of his statement. The Treasurer had also said thab if they had the money '.tiiey would not ask for the muney raised b/ the iaudtax. Hewas glad to hear the Treasurer say that the arguments used by his three colleagues were all' wrong, and he had to put bis colleague the Minister for Labour in a quser position. That gentleman had stated that the trust funds were the property of her Majesty, »qd the departments had no special 'claim on them at all.—(Hon. Mr Reevks : " I did not gay that.") Well, he should put ifc down to a treacherous memory on Mr Pweevs^'s part, but he was gitui to gee that the Minister for Labour was now ashamed of the position he took up last night. He contended that neither the Treasurer nor the' Government had any power to. toacli thsse tru3t funds a'o all, and he should like to kcow the Je?al authority that allowed them to be held in London. That was a violation of the law, and waa another instance of ghbw this Government trampled on the law and made all our statutes co much waste paper. These securities were cot pledgeable even in the event of a crisis, because they belonged to a department, and the Government had no more right to take them than the? had to go into a bank, and take sovereigns from its drawers. Could there bs a more damaging thiog for tha Public Trust Office or the Government Insurance funds than statements such as were made by the Treasurer. What right had the Treasurer to ask that the > money of policy-holder's should be used in the event of s crisis ? If that were the case it would, destroy the very essence of Government insurancs, which was to help widows and orphans. It was statements- Buoh 'as these, mada by three of the Ministers, that damaged the credit of the colony, and the rebuke the Treasurer had given his colleagues that night in Baying these trust funds could not be touched by Government was so severs that he hoped the Premier and Minister for Labour ■would uob make such rash statements in future. He did not deny that Mr Ward had done his bssfc: for the colony at Home, but he oomplained that he had made statements that were i inaccurate and mieleadiup, and this justified i the Opposition in pointing' that out. All the amendment affirmed was that the House regretted that thu Treasurer had made these statements in London, and was there a mem- ■ ber ia the House, even including the Treasurer himself, who had Dot regretted this ? Why, i thftratore, should they not vote for the amencl- : raeat ? They heard a good deal about; tfce I Liberal party, but that party had a high ideal : and straggled for progressive reform, and above [ all things the party should strive to speak the truth. ... The Hon. Mr SBDDON called the attention ] of the Liberal party to Sir R. Stout's speech, ■ and asked them whether the applausahcd come i from the Liberal patty or from the Tories. . He said Sir R. Stout wa3 doing his best to ; wreck the Liberal party, and was unconsciously , ! playing into the hands of the Tories. The s I speech he had just heard had pained him

greatly, and he never thought he should have to listen to such n speech from the hon. geatlemaa. He thought that after the able defence made by his colleague, tko Colonial Treasurer, •vho had refuted every charge made against

him, Captain Eusssll should have withdrawn

He had spoken of widows and orphans dependent on the Govecnmont Insuranca I department, but what had become of the thousands and thousands that had been spent by that depiwtmeut while Sir R. Stout was Premier in the expensive buildings that were then erected ? What atout the widows and ' orphans then ? He accused Sir R. Stoat of making absolutely incorrect statements respecting Mr Reevss's statement last night, aud he denied that Mr Reeves had stated that the trust funds could be pledged for ths ordiuary purposes of the colony. What his colleague and himself had said was that, g'uVject to the consent of the custodians, these securities could be used in tha event of a crisis. Sir Robert Stout, with his groat legal knowledge,-should have proved how Mr Ward had brokaa the law in sending theae securities Home, instead -of asking by what law they had boen ssnt Home. He justified the action o£ the Government in taking steps to avert the crisis which passed over Australia, and he would have thought after that action that those who made aucn attacks oa the Government would have withdrawn their statements. Sir R. Stout had stated that if the Treasurer admitted he made a mistake in London he would say co more about it, bat if. Mr Ward had done that he would ba stating what was contrary to fact, and would be ia fact condemning himself. Such an offer could not havß come from a triend. He charged Sir R. Stout with having made misleading statements to the House, and Baid the hon. gentleman wag responsible for the fact that ont of 19 Liberals who represented the Auckland district only three were returned after a general election. He agaiu laid stress on the fact that the Colonial Treasurer's speech, as reported in the British Australasian, had suffered in condensation, and he had expressly stated that the securities could only be used in ths event of a crisis with the consent of tha departments interested. He had never known a cisc in which charges which had so completely broken down were so j constantly reiterated, and he asked whether this should be the reward of the self-sacrifice and noble .work done tor the colony by the I Colonial Treasurer,

Captain Russell's amendment was then put and- last by 43 to 20.

The following is the division list:—

Ayes (20). — Messrs Alien, Bell, Buchanan, Button, Crowther. Dut.hie, Karnobaw, .Fraser, Green; Heke, J. W. ICelly, Lane, Mackenzie, Masaay, Mitchelson, Newman, W. '-K. Russell, Sau'nders, Stout, Te Ao. ' , Noes (43).—Messrs Buick, Cadman, Oarncross, Camell, Carroll, Duucan, Flatman, Graham, Guinness, Hall, Harris. Hogg, Houston, W. Hutchison, Joyce, W; Kelly. Larnach, Lawry, Mackintosh, Maslin, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, B. M'Kenzie, M'Lachlan, M'Nab, Meredith, Millar, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, O'Kegan, Pavata, I'ere, Pinkerton, Pirani, Reeves, G. W. Russell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Stevens, Steward, Tanner, Ward. ■■ ;

Pairs.—Ayes: 6. J. Smith, G. Hntchison, Wilson, M'Guhe. Noes: Collin3, Buddo, Willis, Thompson. ,

The House rose at 1.10 a.m,