Far called, our navies melt away:

On every dune and headland sinks the fire.
Lo! all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre.

The pageant passes away. The enduring thing in a nation, a Government, is what? It is that of good administration, of wise and able measures; and how is this colony hoping to deal with these things? Let us look at some of the administration of this Government even since the last Parliament, and we shall see how the administration has been in the past in dealing with our affairs in New Zealand. What, Sir, is the great evil that is to be found in our democracy and our Government as established in New Zealand at the present day? Parliament is becoming a mere cipher. Parliament has no power. Take the question of buildings. In the old days of this House-in the old days of our Provincial Councils-what did we see? There was not a single vote of £50 expenditure but what had to be explained by the Minister to the House, and the authority of the House asked for. What do we see now? Buildings are constructed, roads are made and bridges erected, and then you come to the House and ask for a vote, and the House is given no opportunity of discussing the vote. You have to pass the whole vote for roads and bridges and buildings in one night; you get no information about them. Parliament is become a mere cipher; and along with this you have introduced that which Laveleye points out and Leckie refers to in his work on democracy in reference to France, where has been established a system of district bribery; that is, you give a certain favoured district roads and bridges and other things that ought not to be given. You ought so to have established your system of local government that all local works shall be done by local bodies, and that Parliament shall have nothing to do with them at all. You should have some clearly-established scheme of local finance; and unless you have that, what does Government consist of? We have the Lands Improvement Act: what is it meant to do? It was meant for the purpose of improving Crown lands prior to sale, and so increasing settlement. And how has it been used? Thousands of pounds have been voted under that Act that have no reference to Crown lands at all. This man will get a road; that man a carriage drive and the third a bridge, entirely for political purposes. Do you call that honest administration? What is to be the end of it? You are going on year by year heaping up debt on the colony, and I should like to know where the end is to come? That is one thing-that Parliament is left without any influence or check on the disposal of public money. Now let us see how the Government departments are adminis

tered. Take the police. What do we have recorded in our own Journals? We have it recorded, coming not from politicians, but from two Judges of the Supreme Court, that the police were neglecting their duties at an election. Why? Because they knew that if they had done anything against persons who were working on behalf of the Government they would have been liable to dismissal, or, at any rate, to disrating. Here is the report entered in the Journals of your own House:

"And we do further report that a considerable amount of annoyance to some voters was allowed to take place at the Skating Rink polling-place without any interference by the Deputy Returning Officers or the police, who appear to have neglected their duties in the matter. A large crowd was allowed to collect, obstructing the pavement and the entrance to the polling-booth; and one individual, who had posted himself at the entrance to the polling place, made himself, apparently for the greater part of the day, especially offensive by taking hold of voters who were going in, thrusting cards and papers upon them, and, when they refused to take them, putting them down their necks or in some other part of their clothing. But the said individual was a member of the association of brewers and publicans, who had by a majority agreed to support certain candidates, of whom the said George Fisher was one. There was no evidence of any obstruction or annoyance to voters at any other polling-booth."

I am glad to see that from his place behind Ministers the honourable member for Egmont is recognising his proper function, the function of members there being to try and cheer Ministers whenever they appear to have got in a hole. Why did not the police interfere? The thing is not half stated in the report. I saw what happened with my own eyes. Why did not the police interfere? Why, if they had dared to interfere with a prominent supporter of the Government, what would have become of them? What has happened in reference to the police generally? Why have the police not been carrying out their duties? Can you blame the poor men? Why, if any member of the police, or any other Government officer for that matter, was thought to be favourable to the Opposition, the result would be that he would get no promotion; and if through any fault they should do anything wrong, how would they be treated? I have heard it stated that policemen have been disrated and in some cases dismissed, and have been taken back into the Service or into some other Government post because of their political influence. If the police have been mismanaged in the past it is not new inspectors and new detectives who are wanted now. The Force has been in existence in this colony for some fifty years; and are you not able to raise men competent enough to be inspectors of police that you have to go to London for one? So long as you have this principle underlying all these Government appointments, that all in the Government ser

vice are to work for the party in power, you will never have efficient administration in this colony. That is the dry-rot in the system existing at the present moment. We have heard that we are to have an inspector and detectives appointed. All I can say is that if they have been appointed they have been appointed in defiance of law. Under the regulations passed in March, 1889, they are ineligible for appointment, and the law as existing in the colony has been violated by their appointments. And let me say one other word as to the question of the police. What was the theory of Mr. Ballance? We know, Sir, that he wished the police of this colony to be a strong body of trained men, and therefore he provided this in his regulations, which were gazetted in January, 1887 that no person could get into the Police Force unless he had been in the Permanent Artillery or Permanent Militia, and no person could get into the Permanent Militia unless he had been a Volunteer for a series of years. That was his system; and you thereby encouraged Volunteers and Militiamen, and you thereby provided that your police would be all trained men. I submit it was a proper and efficient system, and should have been carried out. What has been done?. That system interfered considerably with political appointments, and therefore the regulations passed by Mr. Ballance were set aside, and have been violated in March this year, and now there is no requirement of anything of the sort, and we have had, as I have already said, an appointment made which is entirely illegal. And then, there are other things which are dealt with in this Speech, about the administration, which I cannot refer to. I have overlooked there a matter in reference to the education system. There is this passage: "The education expenditure in particular has increased considerably during the last six years, following the growth of the population." No doubt it has; but why single out education? How is it to be explained? Can it be suggested that the honourable member has been in the capital of Italy, and that, as in the first part of the Speech we hear perhaps the distant sound of the Jubilee, in this part of the Speech we hear the faint noise of an ecclesiastical drum-tap? Is it to be explained on that footing? If not, how is it to be explained? It is true that the education expenditure has increased, and taking it from 1892 it has increased something like £56,671. But if you take the increase of departmental expenditure all over since that time the increase has been £314,680; and if you look at the percentage you will find that the increase in education is not a higher percentage than the increase in other Government departments. If you still look at increases, what has been the increase during the past year in our net debt? It has increased by £1,280,000.

Mr. LAWRY.-You have the assets. Sir R. STOUT.-That is always the cry when a man borrows. Of course he has got assets. No doubt he has. That is not the point. The

point is this: You are becoming mere interestcollectors for the foreign capitalist. You are borrowing in London. You are not like a country such as England, that is borrowing even from itself. If I chose to go further into the finances it would be seen that even last year the increase in the departmental expenditure was £114,000, while the increase in the education vote was £7,974.

Mr. SEDDON.-There was the expense of a general election last year.

Sir R. STOUT.-Then, I will take the year before, and the increase in that year was £128,000; in fact, it was only in Mr. Ballance's time there was any decrease in the departmental expenditure.

Mr. SEDDON.-Apart from the natural increase, and taking the amount paid by way of interest into calculation, there is a decrease each year.

Sir R. STOUT.-The honourable member is

always_ready_with explanations. He is like the Colonial Treasurer who was told that the expenditure was going up, and in reply he said, "I will give you the items." I am not saying that the expenditure was not justified, but what I say is that it is not right to refer to one vote and to ignore the others. I wish now, Sir, to refer to other matters that have come up since Parliament last met. I refer' to the pardons issued at what was called Jubilee time. It is usual for sovereigns to issue pardons to criminals when any great event has happened in the sovereign's reign, but the pardons have generally been to political prisoners. I am not aware that sovereigns in England or anywhere else pardon murderers. Has it come to this: that a person who has committed murder is sufficiently punished with eight, ten, or twelve years of imprisonment? Two murderers have been pardoned. In the case of one of the murderers pardoned there were statements made by him to a warder in the gaol that were entirely inconsistent with innocence; and if the man was innocent there are two things that ought to be done: the man on whose evidence he was convicted - Dr. Cahill-must be a perjurer, and he has no right to be a doctor in the Government service. If Dr. Cahill's evidence is true that man was guilty; and, further, that statement he made to the warder was entirely inconsistent with innocence. Where is that statement? Is it on record, or has it been taken off the file, and cannot now be found among the Government papers ? I would like to hear about that. Then, in reference to the other person convicted of murder: he was convicted of a cruel murder. A young man who had recently come to the colony was shot. Why was this man released after twelve years' imprisonment? Has it come to this: that in this colony twelve years of imprisonment is all that is to be given for murders? Why, then, not open the doors to all-to those who have not been guilty of so serious a crime, and who have been in gaol over that time? On this point the Premier seems to have greatly changed. He said in this Chamber that he could not see his way

and it rests entirely upon its Customs revenuewe are, per head, the highest-taxed of all the colonies. In Western Australia it is put down at £5 15s. 9d. per head; New Zealand, £3 7s. 9d.; Queensland, £3 2s. 5d.; Tasmania, £2 13s. 8d.; New South Wales, £2 4s. 5d.; South Australia, £2 4s. 2d.; Victoria, £2 2s. 6d. That is from our own New Zealand -blue-book. It is absurd to suggest that we are the lowest-taxed of all the Australasian Colonies. And not only that, but relatively to the number of our people our debt is mounting up more than any other colony in Australasia. And what does even the increase on our interest amount to for the last year? It amounted to over £25,000. What will it be this year? We have had foreshadowed in this Speech more taxation and more borrowing. Why, for example, is the oldage pension scheme shoved to the background? Because the Right Hon. the Premier knows that if this old-age pension scheme is carried, even in the modified form proposed under the Act of 1896, it will not be safe finance to do it unless some additional taxation is put on. And how is it to be dealt with? I submit, if you look-and there will be another opportunity to deal with that-at the finances of the colony we are not in such a sound and firm position as we ought to have been in. We have not carefully looked after our expenditure, and we have entirely abandoned the principle on which the party in power took office. What were their principles? What was the main principle that we were to observe? It was to be a policy of self-reliance; it was to be a policy of non-borrowing-self-reliance on ourselves. I submit that, even dealing with the question of Government advances to settlers, we could have done sufficient without going to the London money-market at all. We need not have done that at all. We had in our own colony sufficient money without going outside it to borrow. What has been taken up in the colony itself? Our Savings Bank has taken up of Government bonds over four million pounds of money. That could have been used in lending money to settlers if desired. And you have your Public Trust Office, and you have the Government Insurance Office - all dealing in Government bonds; with the result that you have millions of noney taken up, and you need not have relied upon outside people at all. And that was the scheme of the late Mr. Ballance. Any one who reads his speech at Feilding will find that he laid that down as a proper and safe course to follow. He said we must not teach people to rely for money on those outside the colony, or disaster will stare us in the face. That is what we are now doingrelying for money on those outside. I have not the time to deal further with this financial question; but, as far as administration is concerned, we are gradually increasing the cost of the departments. It is true it is said, "Look at our railways." I admit the Minister for Railways is a good administrator, and I have never ceased saying so, and I believe he does his best to look after and safeguard railway expenditure.

But if honourable members analyse the accounts what will they see? If you take the year before this what will you find? That the Stores Account is something like £12,000 less than it was two years before. If in addition to that you take the greater sums he now gets from other departments, for the carriage of mails, from the Education Department, and from the Police Department, you will find that but for this there would have been no increase whatever in the revenue as compared with the expenditure. On the contrary, there would have been a greater decrease per cent. of payments to the Treasury from the railways than even under the Commissioners' management. I do not blame the Minister. He may say that he has made large reductions in freights, and that that is the explanation of the matter. But there is this decrease, and do not let us run away with the notion that you have not got to put on additional taxation to meet it. What will be our outlook? I admit our produce is increasing. I am afraid, however, our pastoral interest is not in the best condition-that in the interior of Otago and Canterbury I do not think the pastoral interest is at all prosperous. I think it is in a weak state indeed; and, so far as dealing with the output of our pastoral products is concerned, though they may increase, the value is not increasing. We ought to look that in the face; and, although wheat was high last year, and may be high this year, on account of failure in other parts, yet we must remember that it is a most variable crop, and if there is an increase in wheat and not in wool we shall be in a very unsatisfactory position. All these things are to be looked in the face if we are to look our finances in the face. What we must do is to keep down interest account, and keep down borrowing. I know the way in which loans are distributed. Members are told by their constituents that they must get this road and that bridge, and therefore they do not feel at liberty to refuse a loan; but unless the colony is determined to do something towards looking our finances in the face we shall find we are not in such a prosperous position as this Speech would lead the colony to believe. But, Sir, there is only one other thing to which I would refer, and that is what might be termed the vote of those who are still democrats. What is meant by that? I understand that "democracy" is not the favouring of one class in the community alone. I understand by "democracy" looking after the good of all classes of the people-a Government for the people and by the people.

An Hon. MEMBER.-Hear, hear.

Sir R. STOUT.-Does the honourable member who says Hear, hear," venture to assert that is the principle on which this Government has based its policy? Has it ever thought of it? Not at all. What are the measures that may be termed democratic in this House? What are the measures by which we really hope to make this colony better for all? What do we see? We see, Sir, measures proposed for the sake of getting votes. They are measures appealing to one class alone. Take some elec

tion speeches. In those speeches it was said, "If you will only vote for the Government candidate I will undertake you will get such-andsuch a road and such-and-such a bridge."

An Hon. MEMBER.-Where was that? Sir R. STOUT.-That was done in the colony in more than one district.

An Hon. MEMBER.-Name one.

Sir R. STOUT.-I do not know whether it was done in Pareora, but it was done in more than one part of the colony.

An Hon. MEMBER.-Where is one?

| Administration"; and they drove away their own friends from office, as I say they will in New Zealand. I appeal especially to the younger members of this House-I hope they will pardon me for alluding to them-but I have faith in them that they should take up what is true democracy, and how it is to be saved. I, Sir, do not care whether I am in opposition or for a Government, I have never ceased to have democratic opinions. I started with them in my youth, and I still have faith in them. Sir, the honourable gentleman who laughs can jump from one side of the House to the other, and has done it frequently.

Mr. FLATMAN.-Quite right.

Sir R. STOUT.-I thought the honourable member would say that. What does that imply? Is that democracy-that you are to give Government offices only to those of a certain political colour? Why not give them to persons of a certain religious colour as well? There are certain religions which seem to me in this colony to get excessive favours from the Government of this day. Does the honourable member call that democracy-that you are to punish people for their political opinionsthat they are not to get appointments because their political opinions are not those of the Ministry of the day?

Mr. FLATMAN.-I did not say that. Sir R. STOUT.-Pardon me, that is what the honourable member said-that you are to give Government offices only to Government supporters. What is the position? I appeal to those in this House who call themselves democrats-who still have faith in the democracy. I have met men throughout New Zealand who during the last ten or twenty years have strongly held democratic opinions-not members of this House or members of the Council-and they tell me they have lost faith in the democracy when they see the kind of measures proposed, the unquestioning support given to the Government, and the way in which the whole cf the forces of the Government are used for the sake of one party and one class. I appeal to those who are young in this House, who have still hope and faith in this democracy; and I say the future democracy rests with them. But do not think, if you have any Government, however democratic it may be, that you will not have the pendulum swinging as you have seen it swing in France and in other countries in Europe. If the people begin to see that a Government, though really democratic, is only a Government for a class-that the administration is not pure, but corrupt-what will the people do? Those who are democratic and Liberal will rise, just as the Republicans rose some years ago in America and voted the Democratic ticket. Why? Because they said, "We are not going to have our democracy ruined by a corrupt

there is one thing that would make me question-that would make me examinemyself to see if this faith is correct it is to find a Government called democratic supported by such members as those who are interrupting me. This alone almost would make one have his faith shaken in democracy. Sir, the gentlemen who are laughing do not know the very alphabet of Liberalism. I venture to say they never read an intelligent book on the subject, and do not know why they vote; and therefore they will be found going backwards and forwards just as loans go-backwards and forwards with the Ministry, and backwards and forwards with office. I do not appeal to them, but to members of the House who are Liberals and democrats from conviction, and I ask them what they are going to do. Are they going to say, "We are to have New Zealand the first democratic country-an example to the world"? What will the example be? If our democracy is to exist and to be successful you must prove to the world, which is said to be looking over you, that you have a pure Government and a pure Administration, and that you are not using your power in any kind of Administration or in anything else in the way of dispensing public money for any special sect, or any special class, or any special party, but that the country is using it all for the good of the people as a whole. If you do not do that you may have majorities in this House, or in the next House, but you will so damn the name of democracy that no honest men would ever allow themselves to be called by that name hereafter.

Mr. SEDDON.-I take this opportunity of making a personal explanation. I did not desire to interrupt the honourable gentleman when speaking, but I think it only due to myself that I should not have words put into my mouth which are incorrect, and which I never spoke. In the first place, in regard to the defence expenditure, I never said our annual defence expenditure was £500,000. What I did say was this-and as I was Minister of Defence for a number of years, and had to carry the estimates through, if I did not know the difference between £70,000 and £500,000 I ought to have done so. What I did say was that we had spent out of loan over £500,000 on defence works; and I also said that to the annual charge for defence purposes must be