Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Personal Volume

Questions

Questions.

The Chairman then invited questions.

An Elector: I ask Mr Stout if he will keep the promises he has given? I would like him to give his promise that he will faithfully stick to what he has said to-night.

—(Laughter.)

An Elector: Is the Liberal party in favor of leasing the land?

Mr Stout: Oh, certainly. The best proof of that is the motion I read of Sir George Grey.

The Elector: I mean in the future,

Mr Stout: Certainly, I tell you again that I shall certainly support the leasing of lands.

The Elector: Will the party do it? That is the question.

Mr Stout: What party?

The Elector: The great Liberal party you were talking about.

Mr Stout: Well, I can only say this; that if the Liberal party do not do it then I shall leave them.

—(Applause.)

Mr Denovan: Mr Chairman, I would ask Mr Stout, as there is manifest inequality in the decisions of the Licensing Committees—some hotels having been granted twelve o'clock and some only ten o'clock licenses—whether he will promote equality?

Mr Stout: I hope by next year all the wards will vote for ten o'clock licenses.—(Applause and laughter.)

Mr Martin: Why did Mr Stout resign from the Grey Ministry like a rat from a sinking ship?

Mr Stout: I am very glad that Mr Martin, who I believe is an elector of South Ward—(laughter)—should have come here and asked mo that question. I did not resign from the Grey Ministry because it was a sinking ship. So far as I know, the Grey Ministry were going to keep in office, I resigned because my partner was in such bad health that the doctor advised me that if I wanted to see him alive I must come home. I resigned, though I was told by my colleagues "If you only remain in we shall not ask you to come to Wellington. You need only come up for a day or two during the session." I said "No; I have my duty to fulfil to my constituents, and if I am not able to do so I shall resign my trust into other hands."

—(Cheers.)

An Elector: Might I ask is it a fact that the Government of which Mr Stout was a member spent or hypothecated L2,221,104 of the L5,000,000 loan of 1879 before that loam was authorised by Parliament?

Mr Stout: It is utterly untrue, and I will prove it. The Hall Government spent Li,750,000 in 1879-80, and in 1880-81 L1.950,000—altogether L3,700,000. They had a balance in hand on the 31st March, 1881, of Ll,860,000, so that there was L5,556,000 to spend. The best proof also that the Grey Government were not to blame was what Major Atkinson said in his recent Financial Statement, viz., that the sole page 16 cause of the deficit was the falling-off of the laud revenue.

An Elector: I might ask Mr Stout, through you, Mr Chairman, if he at any time changed his political ideas?

Mr Stout: Well, I do not know what you mean. I can only say this: that I am in the habit before I express an opinion on any subject of thinking about it, and I do not generally change my opinion after thinking over it. If you will point out to me any subject on which I have changed my opinion I shall be glad to listen to you.

The Elector: Well, I will point it out to you. Will you explain to us any party you adhered to?

—(Laughter.)

Mr H. Wilson: Will Mr Stout explain his rea on for supporting Mr Donald Reid against Mr Macandrew when they stood for the Superintendency?

Mr Stout: I supported Mr Donald Reid for the Superintendency because he was in favor of liberal land laws, and he was supported by those in favor of liberal land laws. Mr Macandrew was at the time supported by the squatters and those not in favor of liberal land laws I would support Mr Reid again under similar circumstances.

Mr Wilson: Was Mr Macandrew in favor of liberal land laws when you sided with him afterwards?

Mr Stout: When did I side with him?

Mr Wilson: When you changed from Donald Reid over to him.

Mr Stout: I never did anything of the sort. I never changed my political side.

Mr Wilson: Will you explain to this meeting why it was that you left your old constituency—Caveraham—and stood for Dunedin, leaving your previous supporters out in the cold?

Mr Stout: I left my constituency at Caversham, after consulting my main supporters there, for the purpose of doing what I could to create public feeling against Abolition, I believe if I had stood for Caversham I would have had no opposition, but I stood for Dunedin in order that the City might have an opportunity of declaring emphatically whether or not it was in favor of the Provincial system.

Mr Wilson: who was standing on a form, was here pulled down, and prevented for a time from regaining his position.

Mr Stout: I would take it as a great favor if you would allow Mr Wilson to put his questions.

A Voice: Are you in favor of imprisonment for debt?

—(Great laughter).

Mr Wilson: Will you tell us the reasons why you stand for Dunedin East? You are a man wo should like to see in Parliament, but why do you come and stand here in [unclear: per] ference to another constituency?

Mr Stout: I am very glad Mr Wih says he would like to see me in Parliament I hope he will vote for me.—(Laughter.) [unclear: a] do not object to Mr Green publishing private telegrams if he thinks proper; but I wish to explain that I acted in the most open and honest manner with him. Before I pat my advertisement in the newspapers stating that I was going to stand for Dunedin East seen a special telegram to Mr Green, so that he might be forewarned. I did nothing behind the scenes. I stand for Dunedin East because there is a supporter of the Atkinson Government standing for Dunedin East, and I shall do my best, so far as in me lies, to keep every supporter of the Atkinson Government out of Parliament.

—(Applause,)

An Elector: Touching the questions the falling-off of the land revenue, is it not a fact that the Grey Government, of which you were a member, increased the price of land, and that thereby there was a falling off of the land revenue?

Mr Stout: No, The best proof of that is this: that the price of the land in canterbury was not raised one farthing, and that is where the main falling-off occurred.—(A Voice: "In Southland.") I say that tin main falling-off was in Canterbury. The I rent from Canterbury used to be L700,000, and it fell down to something like L100,000. The rise of the price of land had nothing to do with it. I can only say t is: I only hope the price of land would hare been so raised as to stop the wholesale sale of land which I was going on.

Mr John Barnes: There has been so much talk about what has passed; Net us know something about the future.—(Interraption and cries of "Sit down.")

Mr Greig: Is it not a fact that the Government of which Mr Stout was a member defrauded Otago of her Land Fund and made it colonial property?

Mr Stout: I am glad that that question was asked, because it is not a fact; and that if some person has told Mr Greig that, must be entirely ignorant of politics. That was done in 1877, before I was connected with the Government, I joined them in March, 1878. So far as Otago was concerned there was a debit balance against it There were a number of charges against the Land Fund for education, hospitals, subsidies, etc.; and, according to the returns, Otago was a loser to a considerable extent The only gainer was Canterbury. What the Government proposed was that 20 percent, of the Land Fund should be set apart for the counties in which it was raised, so that Otago would benefit to the extent of page 17 L50,000a year instead of losing. And who took the 20 per cent, away?—the Atkinson Government.

Mr Barnes: Mr Stout, there has been a great deal said about the past; let us hear something about the future. The Harbor Board have a quantity of land over which the railway at present runs. If you are returned will you use your endeavor to get the new station built and the railway line removed?

Mr Stout: I think one thing the Government have acted wrongly in is building that railway bridge at such an enormous cost. What they should have done, if the funds of the Colony did not allow of present arrangements being carried out, was to have shifted the station, to allow of the land being leased; and they should put up an inexpensive station. If the Colony is depressed they ought not to put up expensive buildings. And with regard to the matter Mr Barnes speaks about, they ought to have acted years ago. It was promised that it should be done, and in not doing it they have violated a written pledge. I may say I did all I could when I was in office to get that settled.

In answer to a written question, asking that, if nationalisation were carried out, what provision would be made for the earth-hungry,

Mr Stout said: I suppose they will be satisfied with leasing. I think a great deal of nonsense is talked about earth-hunger. The sole question we have to decide is whether the State or private people shall be the landlord. Why, the best farm lands in Scotland are leased lands, and the farmers are only tenants. I wish I had time to go into this perpetual lease system. I have circulated amongst you a pamphlet on the subject. It is a reprint of a speech I made in the House in 1875, so that you will see it is no new thing with me. Suppose a man has got L1,000 and he wishes to become a farmer, what has he got to do at present? He has got to buy the land, and that means that be has not sufficient capital left to stock his farm. Probably he has got to mortgage his farm, and he has a heavy rent to pay. It would be far better if he had his land perpetually leased, and did not have a mortgage to pay. I believe that one of the greatest curses of the farmer is having to pay interest on the mortgage of his land, for he is thereby very often crippled for all his life.

An Elector: Are you in favor of assisted immigration?

Mr Stout: I am not at the present time, because I think the labor market is over-stocked. My view of immigration is this; that if we could get capital flowing into the Colony then we could have people flowing in. When I was Minister of Immigration I cot men appointed like the Rev. Mr Berry to go into the country districts of England to get farmers to come out. It is a great mistake to bring out mechanics and men accustomed to manufactories. If they cannot get work at their trades you cannot ask them to go farming. If you could get by some means small farmers with capital to come out and settle on the land you would have employment for a great many more mechanics. That is the sort of immigration you should try and encourage. I believe, however, if we had our land laws on a better footing we would need very little assisted immigration; and I think it is absurd at present for the Colony to pay money to bring any more workmen here to beat down wages to 4s 6d a day.

An Elector: Was the total expenditure of the Atkinson Ministry greater per head than that of the Grey Ministry?

Mr Stout: You mean men, women, and children?

The Elector: Yes.

Mr Stout: Yes, per head there was an increase. I will give you the figures again. Their expenditure in 1876 to the end of the year was L6,676,000. Ours was L5,653,000. L1,000,000 less. Their expenditure in 1880 again was L6,248,000. Well, there were more people in the Colony in 1878 than in 1876, and their expenditure was nearly L1,000,000 more.

An Elector: Mr Stout said a little while ago that he would not support any individual who supported the Atkinson Government. How did he in the face of that send a telegram to Mr Green saying if he stood for Waikouaiti he would support him there?

Mr Stout: The gentleman who says that I made a promise to work for Mr Green is stating what is not true. I told him to go to Waikouaiti, and I will tell you why: There was one of the Atkinson supporters—Mr James Green—standing there, and if Mr M. W. Green chose to have a fight with another Atkinson supporter it would not matter to me.

—(Laughter).

An Elector: Are you not going to ally yourself with a large number of those who call the leasing system a fad and bunkum?

Mr Stout: I shall not ally myself with any who, as a party, vote against the leasing system. The Atkinson Government could never in the past have carried the perpetual leasing into effect if it were not for the support given by the other side of the House. Why Major Atkinson himself calls the unearned increment a figment. Who opposed my motion in 1875 but the Atkinson page 18 Government? I say that any man who calls the unearned increment a figment cannot consistently vote for leasing.

An Elector: How about Vogel and Fish?

Mr Stout: I know Sir Julius Vogel has told us that he looks upon perpetual leasing as beneficial to the Colony, but as a very bad thing for the individual who leases. But if you are only going to vote for the Atkinson Government because they supported leasing, you cannot do so, because the majority of the Atkinson supporters do not support leasing. There was not a single Government supporter who voted for the motion of Sir George Grey, nor a single Dunedin member.

Mr Lawrence: Do you consider it consistent to come to contest this seat with Mr Green when it is open to you to oppose Mr Fish, who calls the leasing system bunkum, and will vote in the interests of the liquor traffic?

Mr Stout: I say that so long as Mr Fish agrees to vote with the Opposition, I cannot, as a consistent party man, oppose him; and I say this: if Mr Green had pledged himself to vote for the Opposition, I should not have opposed him.—(Cries of "Oh," hissing, and applause.) I go further than that, gentlemen, and say this: sooner than oppose one of the Opposition I would have stood out altogether—(applause)—and kept in private life.

An Elector: Are we to understand, then, that Mr Stout goes in solely for men and not for measures?

Mr Stout: You are to understand nothing of the sort. I go in for party, and I say anyone who knows anything about politics knows that no parliamentary government can be carried on without party. If you choose to send in a man who calls himself Independent one session, Opposition the next session, and Government the next, he will earn the contempt of both sides.

An Elector: Could you take L210 for three weeks' work and still have a conscience?—(Loud laughter, and cries of "Answer the question.")

Mr Stout: I can only say this, gentlemen: I have always voted for the payment of members; but I must say that if I had been in Parliament, considering the depressed state of this Colony, I would not have taken L210.

—(Applause.)

Mr Lawrence: Mr Stout knows that the majority of this constituency wish that the Bible should be introduced into the schools.

—(Interruption).

Mr Stout: I am perfectly straight on that question. I shall vote against any attempt to make our Act denominational.—(Cheers.)

Mr Worthington: If you are returned will you make an effort to abolish plural voting?

Mr Stout: Yes. I am against plural voting. I may say that I was in the House when the Electoral Bill was passing in 1878. I thought we should be able to get carried a motion limiting a man to three votes—i.e., a man should not vote in more than three electoral districts. Mr Saunders introduced it, and I warmly supported it; but it was defeated. And if you look up the debate on the Municipal Corporations Act you will find that Mr Ballance tried to reduce the number of votes to three in a ward. I supported him, but he also was defeated.

An Elector: Are you in favor of raising money by the "greenback" system?—(Laughter.)

Mr Stout: I do not believe any Colony can ever become rich by issuing promissory notes, and the only individual who I hare ever read of who thought he could do so and pay his debts was Micawber.

—(Load laughter.)

Mr Johnston: Do you represent the Bank of New Zealand?

Mr Stout: I do not. That gentleman should not make any insinuations which art untrue. I am neither a customer nor solicitor to the bank. I have been oftener against the bank than for it as a lawyer.

The Elector explained that he made ha remark on account of Mr Stout's answer to the previous question.

Mr Stout: I accept your apology.

An Elector: Are you in favor of allowing the City Council to take a portion of the Town Belt for a graveyard?

Mr Stout: I am not. I do not require any vote of the people about that. I am opposed to it. The Town Belt is the poor man's garden, and if you allow it to be takes for any purpose, you are doing an injury to yourselves. I go further, and say this: This Town Council have done good work in the making of streets and other things, but I believe they ought to set about making the Town Belt the same as the gardens of Sydney and Melbourne—proper places of resort for all people, so as to give us health.

Mr Barnes rose amid tumultuous applause and said: You said you would like the City Council to begin to ornament the Town Belt

Mr Stout: I did not say "ornament"

Mr Barnes: Would you tell me where the revenue is to come from?

Mr Stout: I admit that you have a difficulty about that.—(Laughter.) I was about to tell you how you could have it done, and it would not cost us anything. My plan is this: We should utilise the prisoners for the purpose.

page 19

Mr Barnes: Do you not think it would be better, as was done by the City Council fourteen or fifteen years ago, to select different pieces of the Town Belt and lease them to people living in the neighborhood to improve? Are you aware that the City Council leased so much, and the tenants had to lay it down in English grass, and whenever the City Council wanted gates and roads made the tenants had to make them at their own expense? It was calculated to bring in L700 a-year for fourteen years, and that money was to be devoted solely to repairing and improving the rest of the Town Belt.

Mr Stout: I have a lively recollection of Mr Barnes, Sir Dillon Bell, Mr Charles White, and others appearing on the platform of the Princess's Theatre to discuss this very question. I cannot recollect how many years ago that was. I do not wish to see any recreation reserve mopped up for anything. I say this: it does not matter to me or others who have a big piece of ground and who have a garden. I have seen this City grow—(Mr Barnes: Not so much as I have)—and a great many people cannot live in houses that have gardens. Therefore you ought to have, as in Melbourne, beautiful public gardens to go to. I say the Town Belt is a noble heritage. It forms the lungs of the City, and I nope the people will never allow it to be infringed on by any City Council, I admit at once that there is a difficulty about funds, but in Auckland they have beautified their reserves, There is Albert Park—why, they made it a delight to see. I found the same in Sydney and Melbourne; and, although our City Council have not means to do the whole of the Belt, they should do it bit by bit. The prisoners, instead of being sent to the Central Gaol at Wellington, would be better employed in improving our gardens.

—(Applause.)

An Elector: Will you support the Bill for joining the leaseholds of the New Zealand Wood ware Company in Princes street?

Mr Stout: Do you mean the City Council leases?

The Elector: Yes; that's what I refer to.

Mr Stout: I do not know what the terms of the Bill are, and I will not express any opinion upon the terms of any Bill till I have seen it. If it will benefit the City Counoil, I do not think that any harm will result to anybody; but I will not pledge myself to support any Bill till I have read it.

An Elector: If the Waimea Plains Railway question is brought forward, will you be in favor of the Government taking the railway over?

Mr Stout: Not to take it over. What I should be in favor of would be this: I should not object to this—the Government at present pay 2 per cent., and the district has to pay 5 per cent. The Government cannot get rid of their liability to pay 2 per cent. Government may do this—they may arrange to borrow the money. It would only cost the Colony 4 per cent., and put a tax on the district of 2 per cent., paying their own interest. That would be fair, ana harm nobody. I think the Colony could do it, and it would benefit those who have to submit to very grievous taxation.

An Elector: Will you support the separation of the Islands?

Mr Stout: Of course they are separated by Cook Strait.—(Loud laughter). However, I know what the gentleman means. I do not think that Separation is possible, but what I wish to see carried out is something like what is provided by the Constitutional Reform Association, and which will give us all the benefits of Separation—viz., real local I self-government, local revenues, and local expenditure.

An Elector: Are you going to follow Mr Montgomery, Sir George Grey, or Sir Julius Vogel?

Mr Stout: I am not aware that the present leader of the Opposition is Mr Montgomery. What happened in 1877 was this: when the Opposition were successful they met and elected their leader. If the Opposition be successful when Parliament meets the Liberal party will meet and elect a leader, and whatever leader they elect I shall follow, because I believe in being loyal to a party.

—(Cheers).

An Elector: Will you kindly inform us who sold the Piako Swamp block of 80,000 acres, at 5s per acre?

Mr Stout: That was sold by the Atkinson-Whitaker-Vogel Government, and I opposed it as best I could. I consider that it was a disgraceful sale, and in violation of the law.

An Elector: Can Mr Stout say whether the Opposition are prepared to support land leasing or not?

Mr Stout: I have pointed out that the majority of the Opposition are in favor of land leasing. There is no doubt about it.

An Elector: I would ask Mr Stout this question—if a Bill is brought before the House for the City being made into one electorate instead of being divided into four as at present, will ho support that Bill?

Mr Stout: Most certainly. I consider it a disgrace to have divided the City in this way. The only thing, if we thought that four members are too many, we could easily do this: make the North-east Valley Borough, and perhaps Maori Hill, one electorate, and let the City return three members.