The Bank's Flunkey.

Observer, Volume X, Issue 607, 16 August 1890, Page 4

The Bank's Flunkey.

IS" When last week I ventured to assert that ' the Government is flunkey to the Bank,' I had no idea that there would so soon be corroboration of ray statement from a member of Parliament. Mr Saunders, M. H. R. in the course of a recent speech, raade the following telling revelations and remarks : — Mr Driver was in the House at the time (eleven years ago) who was supposed to represent the Bank of New Zealand. He came to me knowing my circumstances, how deep my sympathies were for my son, and how much that son was just then at the mercy of the Bank, and told me that the Bank wished me to vote in a certain direction. I said to him that if I had to vote in the direction the Bank wished, I would resign mv seat tomorrow, as I would never betray a constituency by pretending to represent it when I only represented the Bank of New Zealand. The next day I saw about twenty notes come into this chamber. One was handed to me. and the rest were handed round the Rouse. I opened mine, and found that it was a message to the same effect, that the Bank wished me to vote in a certain direction, and I never felt so much humiliated. I sat down to consider whether I should resign my seat or not, but I never considered for a moment whether I should obey that note or not. This shows in the most practical manner that the Bank is not above using its influence. If it was worth their while to stoop so low for my insignificant vote, is it likely they would bring no influence to bear on Ministers, who could put hundreds of thousands of onr money into their hands r How unlikely then is it that a Government, the majority of whom seem to be under some obligation to the Bank, would act on the part of the country in the same independent manner as they should have done ? I want to know nothing more. I believe that th ree members of the Government either are, or have been in the hands of the Bank, and if they are not in ita hands now, they are out of its hands simply through obligation to the Bank, and they are not in a position to sit on those benches. It is now darkly hinted that the Government intend to ' deal with ' Mr Saunders for his bold truth- telling ; but this is just another bit of bluster, for they know they can do nothing but deny the statement in one of their lying « Ministerial utterances.' I would point out that Mr Saunders, like Mr Hutchison, has not said anything libellous against Ministers in addition to what has been proclaimed in half-a-dozen newspapers months ago. It is vain for the Government to challenge members of Parliament to ' come outside ' and repeat the libels, when they have such a wid6 choice of people unprotected by privilege, whom they could prosecute, if they were desirous of effectively disproving statements which, if true, render them utterly unworthy of public confidence.