WELLINGTON.

Otago Witness, Issue 1241, 11 September 1875, Page 6

WELLINGTON.

September 2nd,

The weary fight over the Abolition. Bill is to commence again this evening. When it will end no ane can say. The hist couple of days' debate on the second reading were by no means bad, Mr Stout's speech being, of course, the principal feature. It was really an admirable effort, and made, a very great impression upon the House. I do not, of course, mean that it altered a single vote, but that it gave Mr Stout at once a position as one of the beat speakers in the House, and a rising man. Barely has any speech before excited such general applause from both sides of the House. Mr Ormond's speech waa also a remarkably able one, by a very long way the best delivered on the Government side of. the House, as Mr Beynolds'a was equally undoubtedly the very worst made during the debate. Why Mr Reynolds, having nothing to say, did not adhere to his original intention of not speaking at all, it is difficult to understand. His colleague, Mr Richardson, showed a wise discretion in holding his tongue. Mrßradsbaw made a very excellent speech, which treats the subject in a more practical manner than most of the other speeches, and which ia well worth reading. Major Atkinson, in replying, spoke much better than he did in moving the second reading of the Bill, but when he attempted to reply to Mr Stout about the -\loa Flat land sale, the gold duty, and one or two other matters, he got rather fogged in details, and a few wordd of explanation from Mr Stout made the Treasurer look foolish, so that he was glad to at once seek firmer and more safe ground. The la3t speech of the debate (before the reply) was Mr J. C. Brown's, and out of it arose a very pretty little row indeed. Mr Brown was anxious to get an adjournment, which is usual about half -past 10, and to be allowed to continue his speech afterwards ; hut the Speaker behaved in an extraordinary manner. As I have already sent you the full particulars by telegraph, 1 need not recapitulate them. On Tuesday there was a smart little skirmish of a financial character over the proposal to go into Committee of the whole to formally give leave for the introduction of the financial clauses. Messrs Reid and Wood rather bothered the Treasurer to know where he was tfoinjr to get all the money to do all the wonderful things he has promised ; but Major Atkinson, after defending himself as well as he could within a maze of figures, asked that the matter should not then be -pushed too far, as the Government would prefer to discuss the financial aspectrf of the measure on Thursday. One important admission was, however, dragged from him, to the effect that the only administra- \ tive saving likely to be secured by the abolition of Pr .vinciall-ra throughout the Colony, was £.30.000 a year. A series of very elaborate bibles, jmrporting to .show the effect of abolition o.n osLoh Provincial district, has been cir- ! eulatv!. but I hear the correctness of the ! fr_'iuvN impugned nn .all side.-:. This, however, j v ill .:11 come out this evening, when a discuspi..!). Kkelv to last several days, will be comrn^nctr'l. The Government was so anxious to get tla- pc-ond reading division over on Friday nijht. that it induced Mr Carrington, Mr (}e(>r'<" M'Lean, and others who wished to .speak, not to do fo. promising them an oppirtunity of doing so fully on the motion for fe'«»in£f into Committee. If the Opposition i ;iean business, as I have reason to believe they do, of course they will delay as far ax

they can, the going into Commitee. Mr Mac* andrew's notices of additions to clauses 9 and 18, and his new Bills to secure the land fund and Educational Endowments of Otago to local bodies, are not at all relished by the Government. The Government cannot agree to them, as every other Province would want the same concessions, and their proposals would be useless, and yet it will be rather difficult to oppose these matters, for the Otago members, who vote against such proposals as Mr Macaudrew's, are scarcely likely to be sent here again to represent an Otago constituency. A good many members will thus be placed in rather an unpleasant dilemma, which, no doubt, is what Mr Macandrew wishes. There is, I think, no doubt that the Government intend to abandon the local Government Bill. They recognise the impossibility of carrying a long: measure like this through, and even their own supporters are fain to confess that the sort of local government that Bill proposes to give is not the sort the country wants, and is decidedly inferior to the system of local self-govern-ment conferred upon the country districts by several of the Provincial Legislatures, that of Otago, for instance. Ministers will, therefore, concentrate all their power on the attempt to force the Abolition Bill only, and will offer no objection, it is said, to have the clauses about nominee delegates struck out, and the whole administration of Provincial affairs left directly in their own hands until the end of next session of the Assembly. I still doubt, however, whether, with all their mighty following, they will be able to accomplish what they aim at. We had a very instructive little debate last Tuesday night over the Branch Railways Bill— a Bill introduced by Mr Richardson, with the avowed intention of facilitating the construction of railways by private companies. Mr Pitzherbert strongly opposed the Bill, as giving the Government of the day such powers of interference that no one would be safe in investing money in any private Railway Company. Mr Sheehan, Mr Reid, Mi- Stout, Mr Macandrew, Mr Montgomery, anil several other members, also opposed the Bill for all sorts of reasons, some or them of the most contiadictory character, and ultimately the matter resolved itself into a kind of free fight over the Peninsula, Ocean Beach, and Dunedin line. Mr T. L. Shepherd attacked the promoters of that scheme somewhat fiercely, accusing Mr Macandrew of countenancing and promoting a scheme whichwas intended to have the effect of ruining the very district he represented— Port Chalmers— and speaking of the railway as intended to be run as an opposition line to the Dunediu and Port Chalmers line. This little misconception was soon set right. Mr Stout was loud in his complaints of the General Government having leased a portion of the ground required for station purposes at Port Chalmers to Mercantile Loan and Agency Company for a warehouse. Mr Richardson defended himself by asserting that the land in question was not wanted for station purposes— that it was one of the conditions of the purchase of the Port Chalmers line that this land would be leased to the Agency. He also defended the general policy of the purchase of the Port Chalmers line, saying that if the Government had not pressed it on, thev^ would have lost it altogether, as the original owners were very unwilling to complete the transaction, having a prospect of being able to dispose of their property to much better advantage. The Debtors and Creditors Bill, and ita companion Bill, the Fraudulent Debtors Bill, came on for their Becond readings on Tuesday night in a very thin House. Mr Bowen did not _ say very much about them, but they did not seem to enjoy any very great increase of favour in' the House* Mr T. L. Shepherd was very severe in his condemnation of the Bill, and ultimately Mr Bowen consented to the adjournment of the debate. There is not the slightest chance of these Bills passing this session. There was a long debate yesterday on the subject of the appointment of a SurveyorGeneral. This seems to be a favourite subject with the Otago members just now, and people not connected with your Province say that the interest arises from an intense desire that Mr J. T. Thomson may be appointed SurveyorGeneral of the Colony. There is, I think, very little doubt that Mr Thomson will be offered the appointment There has been a nice little row between Sir George Grey and Mr Ormond as to the alleged use by the latter, in his abolition speech, of the word "rotten," as applied to the people of Auckland. Sir George Grey came forward next day as the champion of the people of Auckland, demanding an apology from Mr Ormond. I fancgr Sir George Grey was really more indignant with Mr Ormond for his very severe remarks about himself rather than for those about his constituents, but of course this could not be shown. Mr Ormond refused to apologise until he had seen the Hansard proof of the speech, so as to see the sense in which he had used the objectionable word. When this proof was obtained it was found that the word was applied to the Auckland system of Government, not to the people, whereon Mr Ormond turned round and demanded an apology from Sir George for making false charges and accusing him of saying what he had not said. Despite the Hansardproof, however, as far as my memory goes, Mr Ormond used the word rather in reference to the people than to the system of government in Auckland. Mr Rolleston is very much scandalised at the disclosure that Mr Buckland, the member for Franklin, has had various land transactions with the Government, thereby bringing himself verynear, if not actually within, the bounds of the Disqualification Act. He has brought the matter three times before the House, and has at last got a Committee to fully investigate this and several other similar cases. I believe that, technically and legally, Mr Buckland has not forfeited his seat, but he has certainly sailed very close to the wind in the matter, and so have one or two other members also.