Years ago he was a member of the Stout-Vogel party. He retired from politics in 1887. It was even then supposed that one of his reasons for retiring, in addition to ill-health, was that he felt he was drifting out of touch with the extremists on that side. That might or might not have been true; he could not say. But at the last general election, at the crisis when, if a man comes out to speak, it is with the desire to help a party or with the intention to fatally injure a party, Mr. John Holmes wrote a long letter to the Canterbury Press, which was taken as a declaration of war by the present Ministerial party. That letter would never be forgotten by the Liberals of Canterbury if Mr. John Holmes lived to be a hundred years old. What was that association started for but in order to support the Conservative party, and to constitute the Conservative party on a fresh basis to constitute it on a powerful basis of Country versus Town? That was the object of that association; and Mr. John Grigg, who spoke at that meeting, showed his hand most freely. In seconding a resolution he said this Mr. ROLLESTON.- What has this to do with the question? Mr. W. P. REEVES said, if he was to be stopped now, a great deal of what had been said that afternoon ought never to have been allowed to be said. Mr. Grigg was supporting a resolution in favour of taking away the right which people in the towns had of giving three votes in the triple election, and he said, "Was it not a singular position in which to find themselves, that they, as farmers, had only one vote, no matter how much benefit they might do to the country, while a man who lived in a town had three votes? This state of things was brought about by a certain political clique connected with the towns"-he would like to call the attention of the honourable member for Clutha to this, because he supported it "assisted by some very stupid representatives of the country. He was only in Parliament one session, but in that short time he found out that it was nonsense to speak of parties in New Zealand as Liberals and Conservatives; it was a case of Town versus Country." more reprehensible and nothing more unpatriotic than an attempt to set the country against the town. That was the main object of this association. If honourable gentlemen were still in doubt as to the object and character of that association, he could read further extracts from Mr. Grigg's speech, where that gentleman talked of the Premier, and asked whether the Premier was not fitter to be in Bedlam than to be Premier of New Zealand. He could read extracts of that sort; but he would not do so, nor would he take the trouble to read other speeches at that meeting, which would leave not the slightest shadow of doubt as to whether it was a party organization or not. Mr. Grigg himself had gone out of his way to say that at the next election the agricultural labourers would show the Government they were mistaken. Would Mr. Grigg have made such statements as those unless he was speaking from an electioneering point of view? They were, then, dealing with a political manifesto issued by a partisan association, and it was for the House to decide whether any special privileges or special favour ought to be shown to a political manifesto of that kind. Mr. T. MACKENZIE said the Minister of Labour had given them a fair indication as to what the Government would do with the country settlers. No sooner did the country settlers approach the House in a courteous and proper manner in order to have a grievance inquired into--a grievance which the Premier had admitted required readjusting, for the honourable gentleman was bringing down an amendment for that purpose-than the Minister of Labour got up and denounced every person, whether directly or indirectly, whose name was attached to the petition. The Minister did not care what the men had done for the country; he did not see why these men should not be specially singled out for special taxation amounting to confiscation-those who were dreading another turn of the screw which the Premier had been threatening them with all over the country. No wonder these settlers approached the House, and asked in a respectful manner that this grievance should be inquired into. Why should one man be selected as against another for such penal As he (Mr. Reeves) had said, the object of this taxation as was proposed? The Minister of association was to establish the Conservative Labour, in his characteristic flippant style, party upon a basis of popularity in the country endeavoured to show that he (Mr. Mackenzie) -of supporting the country against the towns. had supported the provision allowing one man He did not say that these were not reputable to exercise three votes in the city constitusettlers, reputable landowners, men of experiencies. That was just on a par with the ence and character, and all the rest-he ad- statements which emanated from the Gomitted that as frankly as the other side vernment benches-utterly unreliable and asserted it; but what he wished to show was utterly untrue. that they had commenced a process which amounted to setting class against class in the worst possible form. They were setting the workers in the country against the workers in the town. There was an association which appealed to agricultural labourers and the farmers of the country, and their object was to set them against their brethren in the towns. They had heard a great deal about class and sectional feeling, but there could be nothing Mr. W. P. REEVES asked whether it was right his statements should be called untrue. Mr. SPEAKER said, Certainly not. He did not hear the honourable gentleman. Mr. T. MACKENZIE said he had said the honourable gentleman's statements were untrue. Mr. SPEAKER had endeavoured to make it perfectly clear the previous evening why he regarded the word "untrue" as inadmissible. | petition. What were the facts of the case? The reason was that, while any honourable The facts of the case were these: These farmers member could impeach the accuracy of another had discovered that the present Liberal party honourable member with impunity, he must had taken taxation to the amount of £100,000 not impugn any honourable member's veracity. off personal property, and had put it on the When an honourable gentleman used the word land of the country. That was the whole "untrue" he did so. kernel. The petitioners said that a fair and equitable system of taxation was to compel the wealthy cities to contribute, in proportion to their ability, to the same extent as was contributed by the country. What was the position of things just now? Mr. T. MACKENZIE withdrew the word a dozen times over if the Minister of Labour wished it. He would say the honourable gentleman's statement was contrary to facts; and the honourable gentleman knew it. Mr. SPEAKER said he thought he had made it perfectly clear that such a remark was not permissible. The honourable gentleman would see that, when he stated that the Minister had knowingly asserted that which was contrary to fact, he impeached his veracity. The honourable gentleman must not do that. Mr. T. MACKENZIE said he would withdraw the latter part of it. He said the honourable gentleman had made a statement which was contrary to fact, and if the honourable gentleman had referred to the records of the House he would have discovered that. He would explain what did occur. He had voted for the amalgamation of city constituencies; but when these city constituencies were amalgamated it did not necessarily follow that one man should receive three votes instead of having the same electoral rights as before. One condition did not attach to the other. He hoped the Minister of Labour would be a little more careful in any statements he made with regard to members on the Opposition side of the House. They had heard from the leading morning journal that the Opposition had been endeavouring to stonewall during the afternoons. If any speech was calculated to create a stonewall that afternoon it was the speech which had emanated from the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour had generated friction one afternoon a short time previously, for which he, no doubt, received chastisement at the hands of the Premier afterwards at any rate, they understood from what had appeared in the newspapers that the Minister had got into serious difficulty over it. That afternoon settlers had approached the House with a petition containing grievances, and just grievances, and the Minister of Labour got up and conducted himself in a way which was certainly undignified and unbecoming on the part of a Minister of the Crown. The Minister went on to say, "If you will show me the name of one person who is not opposed to us, we might give this matter fair consideration." What had that to do with the petition at all? If these people had a grievance they had a right to bring it before the House, and have it inquired into. Was every man in the country to be of the right colour before he signed his name to a petition? He understood that every citizen in the country who had a grievance had a right to bring that grievance on the floor of the House to get redress. He did not know that the Minister had any right whatever, occupying the position that he did, to inquire into the private history of persons signing a If a man had a farm, no matter whether he was deriving an income from it or not, he had to pay property-tax; yet a person might invest the same amount in business in the city, and, unless it was discovered he was making an income, no taxation would reach him. He considered that the whole movement on the part of the Government and those who followed them was for the purpose of strangling this petition, and refusing the petitioners the right of having their petition heard before the House and of having their grievances fairly inquired into. Yet they found that the Government were afraid to call for a division on the subject, and those who supported the petition were to be given their way, because the Government were afraid to give voice to that which would probably be their desire, but would be against the welfare of the community. Mr. MEREDITH considered the debate which had taken place on the presentation of that petition had been most irregular and inopportune. The petition, as presented by the honourable member for Selwyn, came from an important section of the community, and was entitled to consideration by the House, as the petitioners considered they had a grievance. The printing of the petition, in his opinion, did not commit the House to the allegations contained in the petition. If the House was satisfied to treat the petition with that generosity and consideration which it was justly entitled to, then he thought it ought to accede to the request. He thought the time spent in the discussion that afternoon, and the expense incurred by the country during that time, would pay for the printing of the petition ten times over. He should therefore support the printing of the petition. The House divided. Mr. PALMER said he understood the honourable member for Auckland City moved that the petition be read and printed. Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE said the honourable gentleman could not move two motions at once. the last discussion was essentially irregular. Every such petition not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which according to the rules and usual practice of the House can be received, is brought to the table by the direction of the Speaker, who cannot allow any debate, or any member to speak upon or in relation to such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk at the table, if required." What he wished to ask was, what was the meaning of the phrase "in relation to "?because it had evidently been embodied in this Standing Order to prevent not only a discussion upon the subject-matter of a petition, but a discussion on anything relating to it. The words were very marked as they stood there; and the object was clear-it was to prevent the time of the House from being taken up with matters which a special Committee had been set up to deal with. Every constituent would for the future want petitions read, and discussed, and printed before being analysed by the Petitions Committee; and they would never be able to get through the business. He would like to get the Speaker's opinion on that question before they proceeded further. Mr. SPEAKER said he remembered occasions on which the same thing had been done -namely, without any notice whatever it had been moved that a petition be printed. He was, however, quite free to admit that this practice might lead to serious inconvenience, and that it was exceedingly undesirable that a debate should take place on the merits of a petition upon the question of printing. thought, therefore, that he ought to have restricted honourable members on the last occasion to simply showing reasons why the petition should or should not be printed. He Mr. REES asked to be allowed to call attention to the rules about notices of motion-from Mr. PALMER moved, That the petition be 60 to 80. There was one special rule-88printed. He asked Mr. Speaker if he might which provided for the exception. The only refer to the merits of the petition. exception from the rule that notice must be Mr. SPEAKER said the honourable gentle-given of any intended motion was contained in man could show cause why the petition should be printed. rule 88. A motion might be made by consent of the House without previous notice. If, Mr. M. J. S. MACKENZIE rose to a point of therefore, the House consented that a motion order. He wished to take the Speaker's opinion might be made for the purpose, it might be on the point relating to one phase of the matter made under Standing Order 88; otherwise raised by his honourable friend the Chairman notice should be given of every intended moof Committees, a few minutes ago. He wished tion in due form, except the presentation of a to put it to Mr. Speaker in this way: The paper or report, when a motion must follow. House might have the right to order the print- In former instances, whenever a motion had ing of a petition-though he thought the proper been discussed or a vote taken as to the printtime was after it came back from the Com-ing, it must have been done under rule 88, with mittee-but he submitted that the motion should be taken without discussion, and that the consent of the House. Otherwise every petition would lead to a vote and discussion. Mr. SPEAKER said that would be so; but the Standing Orders were not sufficiently explicit on the point. He thought the honourable gentleman would do well to confine himself to stating reasons why this petition should be printed. Mr. PALMER said he accepted the Speaker's dictum and suggestion, and he would not speak to the motion, but would simply leave it as it was. That would be the best way, as it would be simply trespassing on the time of the House to speak on the motion. Mr. SHERA thought it might prejudice the petitioner's case if this motion went to a division, and he hoped the honourable member would withdraw it. Mr. R. H. J. REEVES said it was quite clear that under the last motion the House did wrong. Standing Order 283 distinctly stated that a petition could be laid on the table of the House, but must be referred to the Classification Committee to decide whether it should be printed or not without any question being put. They had gone outside their rules altogether during the discussion on the last petition. However, he did not want to prolong the agony. Mr. PALMER asked leave to withdraw his motion. Motion, That the petition be printed, withdrawn. He would submit that it would come within | in the House who understood a single one of the Speaker's ruling, but it would be necessary his statements, and I believe the honourable that the consent of the House should be given member understood less than any one else. for a motion to be made without notice. His speech was simply a lot of words and figures strung together, without any meaning or sense in them. I may say that the Financial Statement is one of the best Statements which have ever been delivered in this House. There is not a single member who has successfully attacked that Statement, even including the honourable member for Waitotara, who is, I I believe, the champion figurer of the House. The Statement stands, and it will stand, as a monument of the good sense and the ability of the Colonial Treasurer. I am very sorry to have to say that a good deal of this debate has descended into a personal wrangle. That sort of thing should not be, and I am happy to say that we on this side of the House have had nothing to do with it. I say it without fear of contradiction that on our side of the House, at all events, nothing in the shape of personal matter has been introduced into the debate. There is an old story which many of us have heard-an old story about an old woman hammering her husband. The husband, when remonstrated with for submitting to it, said, "What is the harm of her hammering me? It does not hurt me, and it amuses her." The "her" is the Opposition on this occasion, and she is trying to hammer the Government. It amuses them, and does not do the Government the least harm. Last night the late Minister of Lands was speaking of some of the misdoings of the present Government, and he tried to injure them in various directions, and he fired shots broadcast. I dare say the honourable member for Tuapeka thought they were very good. The wish, no doubt, was father to the thought in his case. But what did the honourable gentleman say? He made certain remarks in regard to the Hokitika-Greymouth Railway. It will be understood that I have nothing whatever to do with Hokitika or Greymouth; neither of these places is in my constituency, but I happen to know the country and those towns. The honourable member said that this railway was being completed for the purpose of bringing the unfortunate people of Hokitika away from the place. Why, what an absurdity! Does the honourable gentleman know anything about Hokitika? No, he does not. Well, Hokitika, although it is not the Hokitika of the old days, is still a nice prosperous little place, where the people are all well contented, and are doing well. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that as soon as that railway is completed between Greymouth and Hokitika it will be one of the best-paying lines in the colony. I do not, of course, pretend to say that this railway is going to pay a large amount of interest on the total sum expended; but when you come to bear this fact in mind-that a large sum of money-I think somewhere about £120,000 or £130,000-was spent on this line many years ago, and that that expenditure was practically useless-I may say that, in order to make that a success, it was necessary to spend more money. PUBLIC DEBT AND SINKING FUND. On the motion of Sir J. HALL, it was ordered, That a return be laid before the House showing the gross public debt, the amount of accrued Sinking Fund, and the net public debt, on the 31st March in each year since 1879 inclusive; also giving the name of the Treasurer in office on the said 31st March in each year. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. R. H. J. REEVES.-Sir, I rise to say a few words in the financial debate with a feeling of considerable diffidence, having in view the number of very excellent speeches and the very eloquent remarks which have been made by the various speakers who have preceded me. The honourable members who compose the Opposition have taken every chance they could possibly get of picking the Financial Statement to pieces. In spite of all they have done and tried to do, the Statement still remains intact; in fact, there is hardly a single honourable member, from the leader of the Opposition down to the speakers last night, who has touched the Financial Statement in any important way. Last night the honourable member for Nelson City gave us a great array of figures. He was almost a budding Chancellor of the Exchequer. He gave us a long array of figures, and he gave us a long oration, and as far as his figures went I venture to say that there were not three men The late Government, too, were also responsible | for a considerable amount of expenditure on this line. In order to make the past expenditure a success we had to spend more money. The honourable member for Wakatipu was one of those who advocated that, and the honour able member for Wellington City (Mr. Fisher) was a member of the Ministry at the time when certain sums of money were expended. I contend that the money now being expended has been very judiciously laid out, and that it will be for the benefit of that part of the West Coast, and that ultimately the line will pay handsomely on the moneys which have been lately expended upon it. As I said before, I do not for one moment say that it will pay on the aggregate amount of money which has been spent upon it; but honourable members must bear this in mind: that a large portion of the money which was spent upon the line years ago was perfectly useless. There has been talk during the debate about the extra Minister. Reference has been made to the appointment of the honourable member for the East Coast, and an attack has been made by the honourable member for Dunedin City on the appointment of the Postmaster-General. It pains me very much to have to go back to former years, but I think it will be in the recollection of the House at all events, it will be in the recollection of a great number of honourable members --what occurred when the honourable member for Eden was a member of the late Ministry. Mr. Mitchelson drew his salary; and the late Ministry allowed Mr. Hislop, who was at that time Colonial Secretary, to draw his salary, when it was illegal, or was said to be illegal. Mr. Hislop drew his salary for months after he ceased to be a member of this House. Is that so, or is it not? That is so, and I defy the honourable gentleman, the leader of the Opposition, and his party, to deny it. He drew a salary for months after he had ceased being a member of this House; and what was the next step? We all know-if we do not we ought to know that Mr. Mitchelson was paid out of " Unauthorised expenditure." Is that not so? Can the honourable gentleman contradict me? And yet we find the leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ellesmere getting up and condemning the action of the Ministry by appointing Mr. Ward Postmaster - General without salary. Bah! What can you expect, Sir? Is it not something to feel grieved about that honourable gentlemen who have held the positions that those honourable gentlemen have held, should get up and carp at things of this sort? There is another instance, Sir, where an honourable gentleman held the position of Attorney-General of the colony. That honourable gentleman resided in Auckland, as you know and we all know-and I regret very much that the honourable gentleman is not now above ground. But, Sir, that honourable gentleman-I must not be understood to be speaking personally now; I am speaking on public grounds—that honourable gentleman drew a salary and drew houseallowance for a long time, although he never resided in Wellington. I do not blame him for it; I would have done the same thing myself. But why should honourable gentlemen pose as being extra good men, and twit the Government with having taken into their Ministry one of the most useful men, and without salary? One or two things I should like to mention with regard to Native affairs. The honourable gentleman who occupied the very high position of being sub-leader-I suppose that is the correct word-of the Government during the last Administration held at that time the position also of Minister of Native Affairs. He held that position for a very considerable time, and I have no doubt he did the work to the very best of his ability. I am not saying a word about that honourable gentleman, for he is one of that kind genial sort of men you cannot find fault with. But, unfortunately, he has not that "go" and perseverance in him which are necessary for a Minister of the Crown in fact, we had an example of that when he was acting as sub-leader of the Government party in the last Administration. For years that honourable gentleman had been trying to bring about a settlement of the King-country difficulty, but he could not do it. Whether it was owing to departmental obstruction, or whether it was owing to some other cause, at all events the honourable gentleman could not get a satisfactory solution of this great difficulty. But what do we find? I may premise my remarks by saying that this Ministry we have now in power are men of ordinary common-sense; they are men who run the Government on business lines; they are men who do not go in for any high-falutin'. They talk to the people at once, and they have got the sympathies of the people with them. Well, Sir, the honourable gentleman who has charge of the Native Department-what does he do? He goes up there, with the representative of the Maori race in the Executive, to the King-country, and what does he do? Why, the whole thing is in a nutshell, and the whole difficulty is settled in a few days. I do not profess to know very much about Native affairs, but I do know this: The greatest possible praise that can be given to any honourable gentleman occupying a position in the Cabinet can be given to Mr. Cadman for the satisfactory manner in which he has up to the present time administered Native affairs. I am very happy to see that the House as a whole agrees with me there. I am now coming to the Financial Statement; and what do we find? The first honourable gentleman who got up to discuss the Statement was the honourable member for Halswell. I do not think it is very "All's-well" with him in this matter; for he got up to attack, to worry, and to tear to threads the Financial Statement. He put me in mind of a dyspeptic rooster going about picking here and there, and leaving the indigestible portion of the Statement altogether on one side. He kept picking a flaw here and picking a flaw there and in another place; he kept hovering over the Financial Statement, and never touched any of the main points. That honourable gentleman and the |