WELLINGTON.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2069, 21 August 1875, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

Friday. Mr Stafford rose amid loud applause. Many members had told them this was a great occasion, but the House had risen to the occasion. They had never had members who had made more intelligent and abler speeches for the faith than was in them. Never did the suu of any expiring Parliament shine more brightly. There had been many new members come amongst them, but he did not think they had lost anything by the changes. He much regretted the loss of the late member for Rangitikei, but the mantle of Elijah seemed to have fallen upon his successor. Various positions during this session and in connection with the bill before the House had been attributed to him, but he repudiated all the honours sought to bo conferred upon him. He was only one of the rank and nle. The | bill was not his, nor that of any private member. It was that of the Executive of the country,.and they alone were responsible for it; they alone deserved any credit. He deprecated- the constant harping with great disingenuousness iv both writing and speaking of what was called the bribes in the bill, and in the same disingenuous spirit reference was made to the changes in the capitation. But it was carefully concealed that when those changes in the capitation tax were made, very many provincial charges were taken over; that, in fact, a great boon was conferred upon the provinces. (No, no. Yes, yes.) He regretted that that old veteran legislator, the member for Auckland City West, did not think it beneath him to try to stamp upon the young men of the House, instead of holding out the ri^ut hand of fellowship. Notably he singled out as objects of contempt the Colonial Treasurer and the Minister of Justice. These were the men, they were told, who were not fit to occupy their places. The Treasurer had again and again distinguished himself in the field as well as in the Senate. The Minister of Justice had for many years occupied a high and important office and raised himself as high as man could by his integrity and high ability. When in the early part of the session he used the word " revolution " in connection with this measure, he did not use it in the sense it was used by a journal inspired by the hon. member for ;

Auckland City West. [The Star.] He had no idea of imbruing his hands in the blood of his fellow man, —no idea of powder and brands held aloft. ]STo ; his idea of revolution was the power of reason represented by tho united sense of the people, such as was seen in the Corn Laws, the ■Caholic Emancipation,, and; olhcr great land peaceful revolutions, infinitely greater than ours. The hon. gentleman,..in most eloquent terms, roferrccl to the fate of Ancient Gfreece, in consequence of their petty local prejudices and dissensions. What might havo been a nation that should illuminate a. world hud sunk lower than the children of Ishmael, whose hand was against every man and every man's against his.; Coming down to modern times, had. they not seen, through similar disunion iv France', a nation of serfs' and an order of nobles, and what terrible carnage flowed from it! Tater still, had Ihny not seen the Herculean efforts of the people of the United States, who shed their best blood to prevent their great nation being destroyed. The hon. gentleman, referring to the occasion when he was elected first Superintendent of Nelson, said he realised the difficulties of the position.;- He visited an iso'atod portion of the province; and, in compliance with the earnest wish of the inhabitants, he got a road opened up, paying for it out. of his o\Vn pocket,: and, would it bo believed, the Council never reimbursed him that money, and it was a debt to this day. Soon after he recommended the Council to bring-out immigrants under the inducement of small grants of land. Yet, though there were millions of acres of waste lands, the Council absolutely refused. They said there was no more than they wanted for this purpose. That was his experience of Provincial Councils. He said he had seen nothing to admire in them. As to his idea of nationality, he could tell the House that the day that he first occupied the Government benches of the colony—that the day he made up his mind that he was not of Otago, or Wellington, nor Auckland, but of New Zealand, he hoped that during his politicareer he had done something towards establishing a national feeling. [The hon. gentleman then referred to various political changes which had taken place in England and in France by which Constitutions had been overturned and built up in a different fashion.] He could not but admire the audacity of the member for Auckland City West when he said that the Constitution Act forbade the Legislature to alter the constitution of Provincial Councils. He could tell the House that that lion, gentleman was one of the first to break through the Constitution and put this country and the Imperial Parliament to considerable trouble. The hon. gentleman proceeded to detail tho different instances in which, at the request of this colony, the Constitution Act had been changed ; and when the new provinces were created under power as good and as valid as the Constitution Act, they had made appeal after appeal against them. But in any that were created he ventured to say there had been no diminution of power, or liberty, or happiness. The hon. member for Auckland City West told them the Imperial Parliament had been deceived in regard to the Province of Westland. He ought to have known ifc was not so. He could conscientiously say that there was not one single clause in the original Constitution Act that that Assembly had not power to annul. Beferring to the various legal opinions given regarding abolition, he would say that while haying the very highest respect for Mr Gillies's legal power and considering him an ornament to the Bench, he did not give the opinion referred to by a member of City West as a legal adviser, but as a political partizan. (Applause.) An appeal was made about the invasion of the liberties of the people. What and where were these liberties ? Were they in that complicated mass of conflicting laws on the Provincial statute books; such as those relating to dog ordinance, horse trespass, and impounding ordinances ? In contrast with such powers, what were those vested in this House? The powers of founding courts of justice and of determining what the working of them should contribute towards the requirements of the State. These were the powers which guarded the liberties of the people. Why, the Provincial Councils could not-impose a fine upon scabby sheep without coming to that House. .Reference- had- been made to the officers to be nominated to supervise the affairs of the province. They had been called satraps; but why this should be a term of reproach, he could not see. The name in its real meaning was not objectionable. These officers were only to be appointed till next session. Then to come toSupeiintendents, whom they had inconstant conflict with their Executives, like the Bussian cannon of Balaclava, to the right of them, to the left of them, and in front of them. How were they the representatives of the people ? Look afc the hon. member for Avon. Why, he dared not dismiss his Executive, or appoint or dismiss a single officer without their consent. He counted as only one, and was perfectly helplessThen there was the member for Port Chalmers, Superintendent of Otago ; he, too,> was bound to act in accordance with the advice of his responsible advisers. Another Superintendent last session had told the House that he had often signed documents he did not approve of, because advised to do so by his executive, He could say that, when Superintendents were not in they were the abject slaves of them. Was it to be said that their AngloSaxon blood required Provincialism for the protection of their liberties ? He would tell the people of New Zealand, if they wanted to build up a paladum of liberty, they should not be distracted by little, petty, sham Parliaments, which were occupied in passing dog-taxes. Let them turn their individual attention to this, their own Supreme Legislature, and make that the guardian of their liberties. If this Legislature had not the legal jaower, it had the constitutional power to "make such changes as the time and occasion reqnired. He would vote for the passing of this bill. The hon. gentleman sat down amid loud applause, after speaking an hour.

: This day. ■ Mr Fitzherbert resumed the Abolition debate at 7.30 last night, and spoke until 12.30, when the House adjourned. He traversed the principal arguments urged in favour of the Bill by the G-overnment and its supporters in a very discursive speech, with redundancy of illustration. IJe denied that there had been any conflict between Centralism and Provincialism, and said Provincialism had -dpne more to create a national feeling in the Colony than anything else. He described the financial proposals as vicious, and

referred to the equivocal position of Mr Stafford. The real object of the Bill he (Mr Fitzherbert) contended was to get possession of the land fund, ao as to be able to offer specific security next time we want to borrow, which must be soon. He described the Colony as now being, and having been for some years, id a state of intoxication, the result of an unprecedented financial stimulus. In conclusion he" warned Ministers that the passing of this Bill would'bo rebelled against by the people. Mr Buckland moved the adjournment.

(FKOM A"N.OCCASIONAI. COBBESPONDEtfT.)