The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1890. MR RHODES'S SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2054, 3 June 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1890. MR RHODES'S SPEECH.

Mb Rhodes is a wise man. On Friday evening* at Temuka, he talked about everything except the real political questions of the day, and on them he took particular care to remain silent. We have had some experience of speakers, and without exaggeration wo do not think that we have ever heard so much said about nothing at all. In the almost only real reference to the work of last session he made, he absolutely misrepresented the truth. He made it appear that the stonewalling was the work of the Opposition, but everyone knows this is not true, and that a large number of stonewallerß were Government supporters. The fight was City against the Country, not Opposition against the Government. Mr Rhodes Baid that small boroughs alone were benefited by the Representation Bill, and that the result of the stonewalling was that considerable advantage was given to country constituencies. When asked "Did not the stonewallers deserve the thanks of the country constituencies for giving them that advantage?" his answer was about the lamest thing we have heard. He first said the stonewallers opposed all the Representation Bills. Why did they do so ? We get the answer in Mr Rhodes's own speech. The Representation Bills were unfit to pass, and he himself voted against the first one. It is not true, as everyone knows, that the first Representation Bill was stonewalled. This was the Bill that csntained the Hare system of voting, and after a few of the leaders had made speeches on it the Government withdrew it, yet Mr Rhodes does not blush to tell us it was stonewalled, Mr Rhodes must really be in a peculiar state of mind to say this. The only Bill that was

stonewalled was the Bill which practically disfranchised every third man living in large towns, and Mr Ehodes's own speech shows that this monstrous measure ought to have been stone- 1 walled. He told us the result of the stonewall was to give an advantage of 25 per cent to country constituencies, instead of all the advantages beiog given to small boroughs. Then ; the stenewallers deserve the thanks of ! the country constituencies, and it was an extraordinary thing for Mr Ehodes to condemn them before the very people whom they had benefited. According to Mr Rhodes the stonewallers gave the people of this district an advantage ©f 25 per cent., therefore the people of this district ought to condemn them. And because the stonewallers did this he asked us to endorse his own views, namely, that the cloture should be adopted. '1 his is the point to which we desire to direct attention. The cloture means that Government should have power to Btop debate and pass the Bill at once, whether it was right or ™ on J- . Mr Ehod es himself admits tne Bill in queetion was wrong, yet he would give the Government power under the cloture to pass it. "We hope and trust the cloture will'never be adopted. Stonewalling is bad, and must be deprecated by everyone, but when perfidious transactions are being

perpetrated to resort to it is quite justifiable. Why was it resorted to last session ? Simply because the Government wanted to take away from every third man in the large towns the power of voting. How would we in this district like the votes to be taken away from one third of us ? We would not like it, and then why should we do unto the people in the big towns what we would not like to have done to ourselves ? The stonewallers deserve the thanks of every bonest man in the colony for the stand they took,, for the object of the Government was to take away one third of the voting power of large cities, so that fewer city members: would get into Parliament. City members are generally Liberals, and the to lessen the number of Liberals, so as to strengthen the hands of the Government. If the Government had power to adopt the cloture this would have been done, and consequently we warn the people against this proposal. The first thing the cloture attacks is freedom of speech, and this privilege the people ought never to part with. The cloture is a very recent affair. For hundreds of years the British House of Commons transacted its business without it, and it was, only adopted to deal with • Irish obstruction. The Irish members determined on not allowing Parliament to do anything until thev obtained their objects, and it was to shut them up it was adopted. That is altogether different from the reasons given by Mr Rhodes for applying it to this oolony, and we therefore hope it will never be adopted.

CORRUPTION RUN RIOT.

Ww published in our last issue an item of news from Wellington, which, like the proverbial straw, shows how the wini b'bws. A few months ago a Wellington lawyer named Edwards, of no greater prominence than that he was a great friend Jof Sir Harry Atkinson, vas suddeny by the collar of his coat and m »de a Judge of Supreme court, pnd commissioned to investigate native titlof. At a salary of £ISOO a your. It will be remembered thu when this was done we pronounced it ns an illegal act. There is only provision made for five judge* by Act of Parliament, and the appointment of Mr Edwards ns the sixth judge was unjustifiable and illegal. We also pointed -out that the appointment was made,solely and pnre y to prevent Judge Ward being elevated to the Supreme Court bench, and that it was a dirty, low, corrupt outcome of the dispute between Judge Ward and Mr Hislop. Now, the new judge, Mr Edwards, has been appointed for the past three months, and drawing his salary of -PLoO© a year, and it will be seen from a paragraph published elsewhere that I he New Zealand Times—the paper in which Sir Harry Atkinson issues all his manifestoes—9»ys tha»- he cannot act as judge until Parliament passes an "Act to anab'e him to do so. The fimeß sajs that there is too much work to do ; that the chief justice cannot 1 -do it all; that Judge Eiwurds cannot act until enabled by an Act of Parliament to do so, and thasomeone to be appointed temporarily as judge, to fill the place of f Jtjdge Richmond. The New Zealand Times is Sir Harry Atkinson'* mouthpiece, and would not say these things if it hrtd not been inspired by the Government. We may therefore tnke it for granted that this is the direction in which the wind is blowing, but what will the public think of this? What can they think of a retrenchment Ministry that makes an illegal appointment like this, which coats th* country £ISOO a year, and now wants to make another appointment to fill, the p'ace which the illegally, appointed jiiiere onght to fill. If another lawyer is appointed judgs to fill the place of Judge RichRichmond it means that the colony must pay £4500 for the latter's 12 months holiday. Judge Richmond must get his salary of £ISOO, Judge Edwards must get his salary of £ISOO a year for fooling about the native offbe, and the temporary judge must also K et his £ISOO a year. This is retrenchment: this is the delusive policy wlrc.h passes for ecoaomv. The duly of Parliament is clear. The Government have not only been guilty of an il'egal, but a corrupt and diegr.ceful act in appointing Mr Edwards as judge, and Parliament, if it passes an Act ratifying such a monstrous transaction, will become a participator in the whole shameful business. The duty of Parliament, therefore, is not to pus suoh an Act, and to relegate Mr Edwards back to hie native obscurity e*;en if compensation has to be paid to him.