PARLIAMENT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11029, 19 August 1903, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

House of Representatives. (Per United Press Association.} WELLINGTON-, August 18. The House mot at 2.30 . FIRST READINGS. The following Bills wore introduced and read a first time : — Land for Spttlomonts Act Amendment, Teachers' Superannuation, Wine Adulteration, Referendum, and Butt Road (Seddon), Mixed Cloths (Mills), Electoral Act Amendment, Regulation " of Local Elections Amendment, and Produce Exports (Ward), Native Land Hating (Carroll), and Fertiliser Bill (Duncan). MAHUTA. , The Native Aflair^ Committee reported that it had mo recommendation to make on tlie petition of the South Island .Maoris against \hc gazetting of Mahuta as king. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30. ARBITRATION COURT. The second reading of the Arbitration Court Emergency Bill was postponed. FINANCIAL DEBATE. The Financial debate was started by Sir W. R. RuEsell. He referred to the Budget os an extraordinary Budget which contained no concentration and really no policy. It contained no detailed reference to the preferential trade question, and its reference to the Bank of' New Zealand was very vague. In fa-et, there was a- vagueness in every direction. The Budget appeared to have been compiled as an address to the people outside of New Zealand -and intended to confuse Hie issue, Mr Scddon reminded him of the ancient tkipper of at) old sailer wlm was prepared to make for any port available. Sir W. Russell went on to make a comparison between the state of t he L finances of the colony when Mr Ballam'c took office in 1892 and their condilion at the present time. In 1892 Mr Balla'nce added .£333,819 to the p\iblic debt, which then stood at -4*37,675,303. Last year .£3.932,572 was added to the public debt, brin«in» it up to Tljip enormous increase in our indebtedness war- i ranted him in saying that it. must soon bring us to grief. In the Budget the Pre- ! mior represented the colony's assets at 355 millions. A more misleading statement than that had never been foisted on a credulous public. Tim excess of assets over liabilities wore stilted to be .'3Ol millioiiß. In making those assetiions Mr Seddon bad deliberately withljeld the fact- that lie had included in Ihp assets 24-0 millions of private wealth which had nothing whatever to do with the public assets. , Mr Seddon gave the. public debt as 54 millions, but Ir; this had to be added fonie seven millions of local bodies' indebtedness, making 01 millions. As the colony's public assots were correctly 115 millions, this meant that the excess of the colony's assets over liabilities was, ouly 34 millions, and not 301 millions, as claimed b,y Mr Scddon. He objected to the proposed increase in the tax, as boms 1 wrong in principle, and s«id this kind of .-In*** )ee{ii?latir?v irfl«* flftfi flf tllC Worst thinffß-tfoat. could happen to New Zealand. He congratulated the Government uuoii showing n desire to devote more attention <o higher education, although they had allowed ye,nr aFtor year to go by without doing their duty in Ihis respect; but the proposals contained in the Statement were unintelligible and absolutely insufficient. Jt wsis monstrously absurd to expect that rh(v PreJQJcr, with' the numerous offices he IWd, could do -justice to lb» portfc»lio of F.ducatjnn..Er>vprtiniv to tbo iiuancial po«itanci of (he p«lnny» Sir W. Russell went on in contend that- our credit had been over- _ pledged. "Would w.e, he nsked. have had to lake <£9l ]ss, for our last loan if our credit had not been over-pledged? lie - 'muut'-iined ihat not only should we refrain from borrowing at tlie late proposed, but the outlook Jor the future required very seriouF consideration. Durin"- the nex< yoar or po loans would >••» f-»lliiin- in, •■mr l :is wo conld n/^1 <*o im t'> We JJow marlt"t lot-al financial institutions would comw 1 us to rcnow th^m at a higher rato of in li'ivst. .We had to fsu-p the stirtli'isr f;ic< thnt the sum of £1.700,000 had to bo inoi next yoiir, whether the money market wii.^ f::votirable or nol. and within tho next twi> years or so .£2,300.000 would have to br provided for. In the words of Mr Bullance in -1892. "that was enough to make sane men pause." Mr Taylor moved as an amendmpiit tluit this Iloufir. is of opinion thnt tho i^tnrfpiv r^iec of tho. lSxocutivc with the right of Iho police to seek th«» enforcement of Hir liconsinof law in the Newtown oloctorntp- if unjustifiable mid subversive of the populai rights and liberties. Hp wont on to sny Iliat Mr Soddou had urpod that if Hip Newtown hotelkeepers were prosecuted they would carry the case to the Privy Council : but no one convicted of sly-crop selling could carry his caso further tlvui the Appeal Court of New Zealand. • Wat the Premier to take up an attitude superior to the police force and the- Inw courts of tho rolonv? It was simply an illustration of the • fact that the Premier had reached a .point when he could not disi tinrrnish Ijptwppn his own will and the rights of any spction of the community. The Premier did not dare to leave tin 1 TTourt i'reo to vot° on this question a^ it pleased. Hp could only live by bringing bis followers inio a condition' bnvdpri'ip I on nlvject-sUwcry, In answer to Mr ftod-

don, Mr Taylor said he had consulted no one about his right to move this amendment. Mr Seddou asked Mr Duthie if he had been consulted. Mr Dutliio: \Vl>y on earth should you put such a question to me? Sir W. Bussell, in answer to a question by Mr Seddon, s,aid h'c had not been consulted. Mr Massey also said lie had not been consulted. Mr Seddon: My trouble is there is no leader of the Opy>ositicm. In reply to Mr Qninneaa, Mr Seddon said the standing of Mr Taylor did not warrant him iv taking this as a no-confi-dence motion, but as he was aware of Fomc members of the Opposition having: been consulted, there was no alternative but for him to" accept this as a uo-eonfideuce motion. Mr Ailken said if the police had been interfered with in this matter there could .be no liberty in thp country. This'was not a party question. It was a question of the law bsinjr allowed to take its course, and iic appealed, to the Government lo allow the matter to be tested before the' Courts. The Hon. McGowon said he had no doubt that the .\uicndnipnt was the strongest party micstion that "could be brought up in the House. As to the legal position, he contended that the Newtown hotelkeepers should not be prosecuted until the case in regni-d to their licenses had 'been fully and finally dealt with by the Courts, rtc dc--dared that there had been no interference with the police, and urged that it was not fair to have tlie case against these hotelkeepers decided while the question of their licenses is still sub judice. Turning to tlie Budget, the Hon." McGowau said everyone knew that when Mr Ballance pro- , nounced his self-reliant policy the country had been going too fast (Sir W. Russell: No, going slow.) But there Avas a large amount- of released sinking funds which enabled the colony to go on at the same r:ite of expenditure for the following years. Tho public and private wealth conati tinted the legitimate assets of {he, colony,, and it was quite fair to class it as part of those assets. Sir W. Eussell (who, having spoken before the amendment was moved, and could therefore speak- again) protested * against tho amendment being made a no-confideuco Kiotion simply because Mr Duthie bad born scon talking to Mr Taylor. Tho Premier wanted to force the Ho use _ into an uncomfortable and invidious position, v as pome members who would have to support Ihc Government on a no-confidence- motion would like to vote for' tho amendment. The vote that would be given on the question would be absolutely without significance. (Mr Seddon : "If you were in my place you would 'do the Fame") As to the Budget, lie dealt further with the question of 1 Ihc assets of ihc colony, ni'j?inj» that private «"crilt.h should irof be included in ostiinnting the public assets ;■ but the private wealth of the colony was nothing like the 240 millions stated by the Premier. w\b to the railways, he said that an 'examination of the figures would 'show that although as bctwoen ]9QI and 1903 there was an extra profit of <£31,C'X) there was an extra charge for interest on' increased ' capital of a. loss of over .£105,000. Nothing was allowed for depreciation of railway s.toek. alHidugu tlto 1 'depreciation annually would amount to a, very large sum.' He advisedly criticised' the " railway administration of the Government on several other points, and pointed out where he considered the management of railways was bad md unprofitable. They wero carried on in a way that no shareholders in a private company would tolerate, and they wore over capitalised and run by amateurs. He should vote for tho, amendment, because he had no cpnfidence'in the Government and not because 'of st'ny sympathy with the "imondmcut. '""'*, No further deba'w took place on the •nnendment, which Was negatived at 11.20 by 43 to 23. • :>: > DIVISION LIST. For the Amendment (23).— Aitken, Allen, Arnold, Bedford, Bollard, Buchanan, Harding', J>nt]rie. Hardy, Hardman. Hcrrics, Kirkbridc 1 , Lang, Lethbridgc, Lewis, " "Wander, Mnsscy,»Moss, Rpid, Eussell, Taylor, J". C. Thomson, and "Vile. Against the Amendment (43). — 15. G. Al1 len,"Baumc, Bennett, Buddo, Carroll, Co,lvin, Davey, Duncan', Field, Fisher, Flatnan, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Hall, Hall-Jones, Haniari, Hogg, Houston, TeTiniugs. TCidd, Lnyry, Mafor, McGowan. O'Mcni'a, Parata, Pc-re, Eemington, Euth■•vford, Seddon, Sidey, Smith, Steward, SyniPß. Tanner, Ward', Willis, Witheford, md Wood. „ Pair. — For amendment, Ell; against the nnendment, Witty. After the Telegraph Office closed Messrs ITerdmnn and Uerries spoke in the Financial debate, which ivas adjourned on the moiion of Mr IS. M. Smith, and the House rose at 1. a.m. \ _^