THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE LOAN BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 1905, 25 May 1888, Page 18

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE LOAN BILL.

THE POSITION OF THE COLONY. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. Wellington, May 22. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr Lance asked the Premier, without notice, whether the financial condition of the colony was so serious as to warrant the statement attributed to the Attorney-general, " that if the loan was not raised the colony would have to file a schedule of insolvency," and, if the statement were incorrect, whether the Premier would instruct his colleagues to withdraw it, and explain why it was made ? The Hon. Sir H. Atkinson said the form in which the question was put made it a very difficult one to reply to. He had seen his colleague the Attorney-general, who had informed him that he had never made the statement at all. Mr W. P. Reeves (St. Albaus.) here stated that he had heard the Attorney-general say in the Legislative Council that if the loan was not raised at once the colony would have to file its schedule. The Hon. Sir H. Atkinson said his colleague had informed him that what he had stated was that "if Parliament did not authorise the raising of the loan we (the Government, not the colony) would be compelled to file our schedule." lie (the Premier) wished to add that )an had also seen the " Hansard " proof of the Attorney-general's speech, and it contained

no such statement. The House was therefore bound to accept the Attorney-general's denial' of the statement attributed to him. - Had the colony been in such a state as alleged by some public writers he (Sir H. Atkinson) would have felt it his duty to have called the House together months ago. The whole of the statements as to the serious financial condition of the colony were a tissue of misrepresentations. The facts \ were that the Government were advised that the loan should be placed on the market in May if possible, to take advantage of the advance in colonial securities, but it was not the intention of the Government to hurry it in any way. Mr Turnbull said he was compelled to move the adjournment of the House over this matter. He wished to inform the House that he had heard the Attorneygeneral make a statement to the effect that if the loan were not raised it would bring about a most disastrous financial crisis. He fully corroborated Mr Reeves' remarks as to the statement made in the Council by the Attorneygeneral. He was not speaking for party purposes, and he was prepared to give the Premier his hearty support in order to deal with the finances of the colony in a satisfactory manner. He thought the proper course for the Government to pursue would be to adjourn the House for a week in order to prepare the financial statement, and so allay the anxiety felt at the condition of the colony. He distinctly asserted that Sir F. Whitaker had stated that if the loan were not raised the colony would have to file its schedule. Considerable discussion ensued in which Messrs Levestam, Fish, and Seddon took part. Mr Lance said he did not regret having put the question, for this reason: that tne true state of affairs would now go forth to the country. He thanked the Premier for the statement he had made, but he agreed with those members who had urged that the Financial Statement should bo made as 6oon as possible. Sir John Hall defended the Attorney-general, and said that the statement attributed to that hon. gentleman, even if true, was strictly justified, as the Government had entered into engagements on the faith of the loan being raised, and the Government would therefore be responsible in the same manner as a private person would be who repudiated his engagements. After further discussion, The Hon. Sir H. Atkinson regretted the action of certain Opposition members over this matter. The Government could not for a momeut entertain the idea of adjourning the House in order to allay the anxiety professed to be felt, by those hon. gentlemen. The Financial Statement would be brought down in due course,and as soon as the Government were ready to deliver it. He then read the Attorney-general's explanation of what he had stated in the debate on the Loan Bill. The explanation was that he had never referred to the Bank of New Zealand in the matter. He had also never used the word insolvency, and he had neither stated nor implied anything so absurd as that the colony was insolvent. What he had stated was that the Government having incurred certain liabilities, unless they (the Government) were going to file their schedule, they must have the money. He had afterwards explained that this was language of exaggeration. He (the Premier) desired to state that the colony was in a good position, that it was steadily advancing, and was in a'fair way of meeting its liabilities. He trusted he should be able to show the House by the Financial Statement that the colony was not in an unsatisfactory condition. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) felt bound to admit that what the Attorney-general had said was, 11 We shall have to file a schedule of insolvency ;" but how he could use such an expression without meaning the colony passed his (Mr Reeves') comprehension. It was in his opinion a most indiscreet thing for the Attorney-general to say. He felt bound in honour, however, to make this correction. The motion for the adjournment of the House was then put and lost. I THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S EXPLANATION. In the Legislative Council, The Hou. Sir F. Whitaker made a personal explanation in regard to what he had said in moving the second reading of the Loan Bill. He said that he had been misrepresented, inasmuch as it had been stated that he alluded to the Bank of New Zealand. He wished to state distinctly that the remarks had no reference whatever to the bank, nor did he say that the colony would be insolvent if the bill was not passed. What he did say was that if the bill was not passed the finances of the colony would be confused. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington, May 22. Nearly the whole of this afternoon's sitting of the House was occupied by a somewhat heated discussion regarding Sir F. Whitaker's remarkable statement in the Council as to the effect of rejecting the Loan Bill. There is now no doubt at all that the expression was let fall in a moment of inadvertence and under the influence of irritation at Mr Waterhouse's amendment ; but, unfortunately, Sir Frederick has tried partly to deny and partly to explain away his statement, and in so doing has made matters rather worse than before. I understand his colleagues greatly regret the time he took up, but as he adopted that course in the Council there was nothing for it but to make the best of it in the House. The introduction of the Bank of New Zealand affairs into such a discussion is strongly disapproved of by most members. The whole affair has been very unlucky, and has don"c much mischief in more ways than one. The widest diversity of opinion exists as to what really passed between Sir Robert Stout and the Opposition and between the Premier and Mr Fulton and the Ministerial party. It is asserted that the one member who spoke with Sir Robert Stout through the telephone was really the mouthpiece of the party, and therefore that the party really did consult him and received his advice, but Sir R. Stout denies this. There is a similar discrepancy as to the Fulton-Atkinson conference. However, the plain fact remains that there was no such mysterious emergency as has been rumoured, and that this will probably appear when the Budget comes down.