A REPLY TO THE HON. J. M'KENZIE.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10060, 11 June 1898, Page 8

A REPLY TO THE HON. J. M'KENZIE.

MR CHAHLES LEWIS AT THE THEATRE ROYAL.

Tliera was a large meeting of electors in the Theatre Royal last evening, when Mr Charles Lewis, tho senior member of the House of tk-presentatives for the Christchurch electorate, delivered an address in reply to the Hon. J. M'Kenzie's Riccarton speech of the night before. Mr J. Forrester, Mayor of Sydenham, piesuled, and said Mr Lewis had a short time ;igo delivered addresses in various parts of the constituency, and he was pleased to say those meetings had been of a very orderly character, and he trusted that the present cne would be no exception. (Applause).

Mv Lewis, who was received with very loud applause, said he was aware that in addressing them a second time he was adopting an unusual course, and they were evidently curious, by the large numbers present, to know wii.it it meant. He thought it would be Letter if members met their conatiluenU more often than they did (applause), as it was impossible in a two hours' ~duress at the close of a scsslod to give more than a resume of the events of the session.

JIR M'KESZIE'S ATTACK UPON' MR ROLLESTON

He was not going to apologise for being there that night. lliey were aware lie lud been asked to speak, and he did not take a great deal of asking under the circumstances. (Applause). He was there in consequence of the fact that the Minister for Lands had addressed a meeting in the Riecarton electorate. He (the speaker) quite recognised the right of the Minister for Lands or any other Minister to address the people where he liked, but Mr M'Kenzie said that in consequence of the misrepresentations the Government had been subjected to, it was his determination to meet the people face to face. If so, why did not Mr M'Keiusie address them in that place where he might meet most of them at one time? (Applause). He, howevei, left Christdiurch, which wns always looked upon as a centre of political activity and political thought, and the headquarters of that form of political sentiment of which Mr M'Kenzie was the representative, and took a hall that would not hold one-tenth the number that the Theatre would. The reason why he (Mr Lewis) was now addressing them therefore was because Mr M'Kenzie went" out there to make an attack upon Mr Rolleston. In the first place he would like to say that Mr M'Kenzie told them that when he Srined the determination to hojd the meeting, he was not aware of the state of Mr Kolleston's health, but he was careful not to make enquiries in the proper direction. He (the speaker) was told by one of the papers that his presence there that night was an insult to the Minister for Lands, but that was a reflection not so much upon him as upon those who placed him in that position, and he would leave it to them to say how much the statement was worth. If, however, it was an insult to the Minister for Lands, he did not think it could be considered such an insult to our common manhood as was the presence of Mr M'Kenzie the previous night at Riccarton. (Applause). Heaven forbid, however, that he (the speaker) should be guilty of the inso lent presumption of he 'supposing that it was necessary for him or any other man to defend the name of Rolleston upon a Canterbury platform, still less was he likely to fall into the fatuous error of supposing that that gentleman would find him a fitting representative; but there was something in him that told him he would forever stand disgraced if- he stayed at home in craven silence at a time when tuch an attack, under euch circumstances, was being made upon a gentleman towards wnom he entertained feelings of respect which intimate acquaintance had tended day by day to deepen and intensify. (Loud and continued applause.)

THE ALLEGED REASON FOR THE ATTACK,

The reason of Mr M'Kenzie's appearance at Riccarton was some remarks Mr Rolleston had made in the same building a fewweeks previously regarding Bushy Park. The statement that Mr M'Kenzie took such exception to, and which he described as a "deliberate political lie," was as follows: — "Ho did not say that Bushy Park should not have been sold to Mr M'Kenzie's sons at the full price. One would, however, at least presume that the price was to be paid, but as a matter of fact not a sixpence had been paid up. Would not anybody be trusted to see regarding property that they were dealing with that they took some means of testing the market in "tZia matter, to be sure that they got the best terms that could be got? The question was, however, one for Mr M'Kenzie and his constituents. The Bushy Park estate was promised again and again to be cut up so that the people in the neighbourhood of Palmerston South should have a chance of settling upon it. That was the question between Mr M'Kenzie and his consittuents. Singularly enough, he did not appear before Ms constituents at Palmerston when ho went down to Balclutha. He (the speaker) was content to leave tihe decision in the hands of the people of Palmerston. Hβ hai made no charge of corruption, but he thought it was a blunder worse than a crime." The facts were that a lease of the property was effected, and Mr M'Kenzie's sons were not called upon to pay any money for three years, and then flhey havo to pay £1000 out of some £20,000. Those figures wei - e obtained from a speech, in the House by Mr Fraser, a member of the Assets Board, and in a private conversation recantlv Mr Fraser corroborated them, and they "had also been corroborated by Ministers themselves. If it ■was true that the deed was a. lease, and that no money would be paid for three years, and then only £1000, how could the statement that no money had been paid over be a lie? He had no personal animus against any of the M'Kenzie's. The Minister had stated before that they were allowed to take possession after paying £2700 for stock and implements. Bushy Park was, however, a piece of land; it was not a flock of sheep, nor a team of horses, nor a plough, and the price of the stock, &c, was what they would have had to pay had they been put up to auction in the usual way. (Applause). H*j would leave it to them to say whether any money had been paid up for the estate or not. What he had said was, he declared, according to fact, but if tne statement that the deed was a lease was not true he would resign his seat, and not ftand again. (Loud applause.) MR M'KESZIE'S DISLIKE OP CRITICISM. Coming to general matters Mi Lewis said that Mr M'Kenzie complained of criticism at the hands oE what he termed the hireling Opposition Press. Mr M'Kenzie said that if the criticism was not stopped he would hire a theatre in town, and turn the handle upon tiheni, and if so, he (the speaker) Mould like to be there to see what the operation was. (Laughter.) The Premier had also threatened at Blenheim to make disclosures that would overwhelm the Opposition party. He (Mr Lewis) was one of the Whips of that party, and he was authorised to demand that the Premier or the Minister for should take the theatre in Christchurch. They must make good their statements, but they would not do so. He was going to telegraph to the Premier, who was going to speak at Akaroa. and ask him to do what he had threatened, and relieve them from the agonising suspense it was causing them. (Laughter and applause). Talk was cheap, however, but theatres come high. The next question was the newspapers. He had never heard Mr M'Kenzie make a speech on general topics when he did not make similar remarks about them. Although he said he did not care what the j newspapers said about him, he complained I about them for fifteen minutes by the clock. He had also introduced into Parliament a Limitation of Libel Bill, which contained provisions more drastic than those of any similar measure in the British Empire. If Mr M'Kenzie had had his way there would have a similar state of things to what prevailed in Russia. Germany, and the South African Republic, where editors were often sent to goaL The speaker theu told a story of an American who got into trouble in Germany through remarking that the Emperor was a fool, and unsuccessfully tried to get out by saying that he was referring to the Emperor of Russia. If Mr M'Kenzie had had nis way and one happtned to say the Minister was a fool, it would be of no avail to say it was the Minister of Public Works whowas referred to. (Laughter). Their newspapers waa one of the ba>t salegua/ds they had.

(Applause). Reference was made by the I speaker to the fact that of two Ministerial j journals, the "Lvttelton Times" and the 'New Zealand limes." the former had recently been referred to in terms of the utmost contempt by Mr M'Kenzie, while the latter bad also come in for rough handling the previous nicht. He had said there was not one Liberal paper in Otago, but there were those run by Mr Carncross, M.H.R., at the Taieri, and" Mr Jones, who had been called to the Uppei House, at Oamaru There would be no perfect paper in New Zealand until Mr M'Kenzie became editor. One of the most painful things he (the speaker) had heard in the House—and he was not forgetting the speech made by Mr Ward—was when the Speaker, who had called Mr M'Kenzie to order for some remarks he had made, next day came in and made an apology in language of such supreme humiliation that it was not allowed to appear in "Hansard." THK PREMIER's TRIP HOME. The next subject was the question of the Premier's expenses. He (the speaker) had not said a word about that before when he spoke in the same hall, although he had in the House compared the £1750 paid to him with the £3000 paid for fifty or sixty volunteers who were used to equal luxury to him. He would tell them something now. The Opposition suggested to the Premiei that the House should place £1000 on the estimates, but the Opposition ascertained in the lobbies that if such a motion were proposed there would be no chance of carrying it through. There were a lot of new members in tlie House at that time who did not know much about the Premier, but the members who had spoken loudest since the House had risen were among those who would not tie the Premier down during the session. If he wished the thing put right so that the electors could believe him the Premier could easily give the information and clear up the matter by publishing a return setting out tbe items. SYNDICATES. The Minister touched on the question of syndicates. He had spoken regarding his own actions. He (the speaker) was going to tell them something about it. A company was formed in London, and it was stated that one of the objects was to secure concessions for colonial Governments. The Minister for Lands was made a director or adviser, and any concession that was made must come from the Department of Agriculture over which the Minister was head, and connected with that company were men who had placed on record in the colony that it was a wise thing to have a Minister in their arms, and they secured the services of another Minister in another capacity, and they would pay him as long as he was useful to them. If he had been Mr M'Kenzie pure and simple he would never have got the position in that company. However, another chance would probably be given him to explain his position. THOSE ADDITIONS TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE. The Parliamentary buildings was the next question that the Minister referred to. He told them that the plans for a £40,000 building had been before a committee of the House, and had been approved by that committee. It was true that some plans had been placed before a Library Committee. In " Hansard" they would find what the Chairman of the Committee had had to say on the subject. Dr. Grace, Chairman of the Library Committee, had said that with tho sanction of the Minister for Public Works the architect was requested to appear on Monday and state specifically what the portion of the building intended for a library would cost; and also to submit for consideration a simpler plan of elevation. The architect at the time made a calculation—in fact it was the calculation upon which his project was based—and he said £7000 would erect and complete that library; and, certainly in relation to space and convenience, that library would have been ample. The architect had said that £7000 would build the library. Mr Richardson had said the Hon. Dr. Grace was perfectly right in saying that the architect was very positive that the ornamental part with the wonderful tower attached to the plan was not required in the construction of the library proper, and that without this it could probably be constructed within the amount now on the estimates. He thought it would be best to leave the whole matter to the Committee. The amount on the estimates was therefore £7000. He read an extract from the Financial Statement showing that £7000 was put aside for the purpose, and that it was to complete the building before the next session. The Minister for Lands had told them that the £7000 was only for the first three months. He wanted them to believe that during the first three months they could only spend £7000, but that they could spend the balance of £30,000 or £40,000 during the next three months. The Premier had told a much better one than that when he laid the foundation stone in Wellington. (Laughter.) There the Premier and Minister for Public Works had said that they had found when pulling down part of the building for the purpose of erecting a new library that the foundations were in such a rotten condition that the whole had to come down. The Premier's statement was prebably a correct one, that they had started and then found the building so rotten that the whole had to come down. But if the Minister of Lands went about the country continually making statements which his colleagues contradicted he would have to " handle" some of his colleagues. THE ATTACK ON JUSTICE CONOLLY. The Minister had made, too, one of the deplorable attacks which he so frequently made on the Judges. He said that if a Supreme Court Judge forgot himself as long as he was a Minister of the Crown he claimed the right to admonish the Judge. Judges were human being- like the rest of mankind, and liable to be guilty of misconduct, but in such a case only one constitutional course should be adopted. When a Judge had been guilty of misconduct he should be removed from his position, and no Minister had any right to impute misconduct to a Judge unless he accompanied that by bringing down a motion to remove him from his office. When Mr M'Kenzie prated about his oath of allegiance to the Queen he had two' alternatives. Either he had made the statements without foundation, or he had broken that oath which he said he took in not removing from the Bench a Judge guilty of misconduct. There was no middle course. If he was guilty he must be removed. If he was not guilty it was a scandalous thing that any Minister shoidd go about the colony to shake the confidence of the people in the Judicial Bench. (Applause.) Mr M'Kenzie had also told them in the House—not outside of course—he was the man above all others who had distinguished himself in the House by making charges which he would never make outside where he was subject to the same laws as the newspapers which he was so fond of going for—he had told them that one man should be in gaol, and that a Judge was a Tory on the Beuch and could be bought for.money. When the Oppostion asked him to remove that charge he had shuffled, and would not, and it was not .until months afterwards that the Government sent a letter saying that the charges were groundless. There was no expression of regret that such charges had been made nor pleasure at their refutation. It was a lasting disgrace that any Minister of the Crown should go about the country making statements such as the Minister of Lands was continually making. (Applause.) Not only was he always casting reflections on the Judges, but he assumed the right to reverse their decisions. He was a man of considerable ability, and he (the speaker) would be prepared to take his decision on some questions, but when a man had been engaged on the study of the law for fifty years and had been on the Bench for twenty-five years, and brought a long and trained intelligence to bear on the intricate points of law, it was preposterous that the Ministry ehould ask the right to proceed on the assumption that they could rescind his decisions. (Applause.) THE HOROWHENUA COSTS. When the Supreme Court gave a decision foi costs against the Government the Minister had flatly refused to par them. The Public Trustee had been ordered to pay costs to the amount of some £600. Those costs had never been paid, and it was a question if they ever would ba If he (the speaker) and the Chairman were to have a lawsuit, and either of them were cast in cost 3, they would be compelled to pay them to the last penny they owed. The Government, however, had flatly refused. (Applause). When Mi Bolleston spoke at Riccarton some weeks ago. he said that the Minister of Lands had altered the constitution of the Advances to Settlers Board by making it more of a political machine than it had been" before. He stated that in the first instance the Solicitor-General had sat on the Board, and that the Minister of Lands had turned

him off, and put himself on as chairman. Mr M'Kenzie had commented on these statements, and said that Mr RoUeston had told them that the Solicitor-General had had a seat on the Advances to Settlers Board, but would they be surprised to learn that the Solicitor-General never had a seat on the Board. The audience knew nothing about it, or it -would have surprised them. In the Government Advances to Settlers Act, 1894, Clause 15 provided that there should be a Board, and Clause 16 provided, among others, that the Solicitor-General should have a seat on the Board. He (the speaker) was not going to indulge in the language the Minister thought fit to employ. Probably he had forgotten this, but he should take the trouble to look up the Acts which his Government had passed before he made statements on the strength of those Acts. (Applause). Then he had said that he could not liave turned the Solicitor-General off, in as much as he had no seat, but he (Mr Lewis) would prove that he had a seat. Clause 2 of the amending bill reduced the members from seven to five, and among the members turned off was the SolicitorGeneral. Instead of the Superintendent being chairman the Colonial Treasurer became the ex officio chairman, and in his absence the Minister of Lands or any other Minister. Of course, Mr M"Kenzie only put himself on as chairman in the absence of the Colonial Treasurer, but that the constitution of the Board was altered, in a way to give the Minister more political power, was proved beyond contradiction by the Acts to which reference had been made. (Applause). In respect of the Government claim under the advances to settlers, he was not one to dispute the fact that in small loans no doubt people could borrow from the Advances to Settlers Board much better than from the ordinary lender, because the costs of deeds were smaller,. &c, and the ordinary individual did not care to put money out in little sums, but he denied that the action of the Government had reduced the rates of interest, and quoted a statement made prior to 1893 in the House by the late Mr Sandford—and this Act came into operation in 1895 —"The insurance officers in drawing up their, tables for the future had estimated a return of not more than 4£ per cent, on their money." This should be enough to disprove the contention that the lowering of money to 4£ per cent, had been brought about by the Advances to Settlers Act. (Applause). FREEHOLD TENTTRE. In respect to freehold tenure, we were told by Mr M'Kenzie that it would result again in the aggregation of large estates. We had had big estates in Canterbury which were acquired when land was in its native state, and when the Government would almost give it away. (A Voice—"When money was nearly four' times its present worth.") We had had the freehold tenure in Canterbury since Canterbury was started, and where could be found one large estate ■which had been made up ot small ones? Such a thing had not obtained in the past, and was not likely to take place in the future. (A Voice—"Hororata," another "Gridironing.") He would tell them something about that later on. The estates had been growing smaller and-not larger, and the cause of it was this—The natural tendency was, where places were only partly settled, for the estates to be large, 'and when the population increased for the estates to be cut up and become smaller. (Applause, and a Voice—"Quite right.") Then the blame for the fact that land had been gridironed should be attached to those who made the laws under which such a thing could be possible. And under whose regulations was gridironing possible? It was the greatest liberal .that New Zealand had ever seen—and he spoke of him with all respect —it was Sir George Grey. But who was it who brought in the regulations which put a stop to gridironing in Canterbury? (A Voice—"Dr. Tunibull.") It was nothing of the kind. The regulations were sent down by messago to the Provincial Council by that arch Tory William Rolleston. (Very loud applause.) Further than that, Mr Rolleston had never been opposed to the principle of the Land for Settlements Bill, and Captain Russell had repeatedly asked the Government to put the compulsory clauses into operation in respect to the land of Mr Percy Russell, who was no relation of the Captain's. The reason for opposing it last session was that it placed the sum of £500,000 in the hands of the Minister to spend as lie liked without the control of Parliament at all. That was surely opposed to.any principle that should obtain in a Democratic country. (Applause). If the Minister of Lands could spend half a million uncontrolled, why not leti aU Ministers db the same? Why bother about estimates?

FOMOHAKA.

The Minister for Lands had said that Pomohaka had given a return of 4>Jr per cent., which was very joyful news. Now, Pomohaka, with an area of 7462 acres, cost over £23,000, 4£ per cent, on which was £1035. On March 31st, 1897, the area let was 5300 acres, and the rent during the year was £481. Leaving the 2162 acres which, according to the Minister, brought in a rental of £550, the receipts in the three years ending March 31st, 1897, had totalled £1313. No one would be more delighted than he to find that the estate was returning 4£ per cent., and he would await the next lands report with considerable interest to see where that 4i per cent, came in; to see what the M'Kenzie estimate of 4£ per cent, was, because that was the rate of interest that had to be paid on Bushy Park. Again some of the rent we were getting for Pomohaka came from money which had been lent to the settlers out of money which had been borrowed by the colony. The Minister had complained that his policy generally had been described as a ghastly .failure. He (Mr Lewis) did not use that sort of language, and he gave the Minister all credit for what he had done, and that had been of his best, for any Minister for the sake of his reputation would always do his best. (A Voice—" Pander to his attendants.") Now Mr M'Kenzie, unlike other Ministers of Lands had had an uninterrupted tenure of office of six years up to March 1897, during which time he had passed eleven or twelve land laws, and if he did not get what he wanted he re-enacted it by regulations, and under all the circumstances it would not have been surprising if his efforts had eclipsed entirely those of his predecessors. But was that so? and in this connection he would quote a few figures taken straight bodily cut of the report of the Chief Surveyor, Mr P. Smith, who every year placed his return on the table of the House. Mr M'Kenzie had generalised; he had not given details of each year, nor the figures for the last year. He told how many settlers went on the land, but he did not say where they were now. Three years before the present Government did anything, the number of selectors or purchasers was— 1888-89, 2529; 1889-90, 2653; 1890-91, 2420; and the number of Crown tenants on the books for the same periods was—lßßß--89, not given; 1889-90, 12,164; 1890-91, 11,995. After that the figures were: — Selectors ox purchasers—lß9l~92, 2519 ; 1892-93, 3071; 1893-94. 287b; 1894-95, 2865; and 1896-97, 2173. The number of Crown tenants on the books for the same periods respectively were—l2,73s, 14,261, 15,018, 15,326, 15,683, 15,527. In the year 1896-7 it would be seen that the smallest number had been placed on the land, and in that year there were 493 forfeitures and 432 surrenders; in lound figures a total of 900. In 1395-6 the forfeitures were 674 and the surrenders 427, or over 1100, so that out of 1500 tenants on the books one in every fifteen represented a forfeiture or a surrender, from which it would appear that there was something rotten in the state ot Denmark. (Applause). Ihe Minister laid great stress on jrhat had resulted from certain tenures, and there again he did not go into details, and he had the audacity to say that in putting these people on'the land they had saved them from the poorhouse. He (Mr Lewis) would quote figures. Under the improved farm settlements the advances to March, 1897, amounted to £36,092. and the improvements were valued at £49,690. There were 45 selectors during the year and 115 forfeitures. Under the special settlements there were 142 selectors and 133 forfeitures and 55 surrenders, and under the village homestead settlements 123 selectors and 88 forfeitures; or, in all, 310 selectors went on the land at one end and 391 went off it at the other. (Laughter). Which of these, he asked, were nearer the poorhouse ? The reason for this was that the Minister wanted to do too much himself, instead of entrusting the work to properly qualified local men on the Land Boards. So the members of the Land Boards were not allowed to exercise their experience and their discretion the Boards become the farce the Premier said they would be, at auy r*te in many of the districts of the North Island. Mr Hogg had described the work

in his district as rascally; Mr Pirani for daring to exercise a little independence and discretion had been shunted off his Board, and Mr Field and Mr Stevens in the House had protested that the Land Boards were not allowed to exercise sufficient power.

THE CAUSES OF FAILURE IX LAND SETTLEMENT. The great fault of the Minister for Lands was that he paid too mnch attention to figures. He endeavoured to put men on the land, but after that had little regard for their efforts when there. He also had a tendency to cut up land into too small areas to afford men a reasonable prospect of making a success. (Applause). That might spring from a desire to make the land go as far as possible, but it was better to have one man in the way of making a livelihood than two who were likely to fail. When he (Mr Lewis) spoke there at the beginning of the year, he said he thought the sections in the Albury settlement were too small to make a living on, and that they would have to knock two i,nto one, and now after the settlement had been running a year twenty-four of those settlers had been given notice that if they did not comply with the requirements of the act they would be turned out. In the Wharenui Hamlet the sections were too small. Twenty-six sections, each of some two acres, had been offered in a district that was full of workin? men, and they were thus in a position in which they could not be successful. (Applause.) For the same sum of money sections of four or five acres out in the country could have been obtained, where the men were wanted and would not have come into competition with those in the congested districts; where the}' would have been independent to some extent of the labour market, and would not be compelled to take work at sweating prices. (Loud applause.) But it was no use arguing with the Minister for Lands. The Premier in the Financial Statement had said Wharenui was a failure, but when he (the speaker) had pointed out why this had occurred the Minister for Lands described him as one who had tried to damn the settlement. The test of the wisdom exercised in making a settlement of that kind was tli3 number of applications for sections, and at Wharenui they got only seven applicants for twenty-six sections. Mr Weetman, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, reported that the Wharenui sections were too small and too far from work, while Braco settlers complained they were too far away from work; bit notwithstanding this, the Minister for Lands proceeded to buy come more land at Heathcote Valley, where for twenty-four sections there were only eight applicant*. The sections were too small, and this was the reason why the land settlement policy of the Government was not so great as it might have been. He admitted that the administration of matters relating to the dairy industry had been a success, but they must have factories before they appointed inspectors. When the Government was in opposition they struck £1 off the vote for an inspector to stimulate the dairy industry, on the ground that it was a piece of needless expenditure. THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. The Minister had a good deal to say about the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which he described as a very tine measure, and he (ihe speaker) endorsed the leading principles in the Act, but he pointed out that when a member of the Atkinson party introduced a Bill to provide for arbitration and conciliation, in industrial pursuits it 'was strongly opposed by Sir George Grey and Mr Ballance,. and especially in regard to the compulsory olauses. There were some points in the Act that required amendment, but when he said they wished to amend it, the Minister for Lands said they wanted go destroy ifc. He (the speaker) conside ed however that the provisions of the Act should be made to apply to the Government departments. When the Railway Classification Act was before the House last session he (Mr Lewis) consulted with Mr T. E Taylor and the latter drafted a clause to the effect that the men in the different branches of their trade should come under the operation of the Act. The Minister for Lands, who said this was a splendid Act, was not in the House when the clause was put to the vote, but tho other five Ministers voted against it, and among those who voted for it were to be found those unspeakable Tories, Rollcston and Lewis. (Loud applause.)

THE MtNISTEEf AND THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

One question was the attitude which the Minister invariably .adopted in reference to banking matters. He had recently been making statements in the south in reference to the account which a certain firm had in the Bank of New Zealand. He had declared the firm to be insolvent, and stated that it had an overdraft ot a certain amount. That firm had not gone through the Court, its affairs had not been so placed before the public that it could become a matter of public comment. Until a firm had gone through the Court and had its affairs made public through the usual channels, no one had any right to make known the relations that may have existed between that firm and any particular bank. Ministers were in a position, owing to their connection with the Bank of New Zealand, to obtain information; often they could not help knowing things to which the great bulk of the people had no access. It was to be regretted that Mr M'Kenzie had made such information public. If the Ministry were going to pry into the private accounts which a firm had with the Bank of New Zealand, there was only one thing that could happen, the Bank would go down beyond all.question, and the colony would lose a sum of from two to five millions, because the Minister for Lands could not restrain a propensity to gratify his personal spleen. It was impossible to apeak with attention to detail on many of the questions, and he had not. had time to touch on some, at all. He would say in conclusion that while earlier in the recess they had had their chance to heckle him in the usual way, yet iF there were any points' upon which they had failed to understand him, he would be happy to answer any questions. (Loud applause.) No questions were asked. THANKS AND CONFIDENCE.

Mr George T. Booth eaid it was not many months since he had the honour to propose a vote of thanks and confidence to Mr Lewis on th£ occasion of his first political address in that same place. He said then that he believed that if Mr Lewis was elected he would prove a credit to the constituency, that he believed he would keep his hands clean and his political weapons free from the tarnish of dishonour. (Applause.) He believed they would agree with him that Mr Lewis had fulfilled that promise. (Loud applause.) He Had done more. He had done more than his best friends probably expected. Ho had taken a high place amongst his fellows in the House, and his speech that night was evidence enough that he could prove himself no mean antagonist, although only a youngster in politics, even to a sturdy veteran like the Minister of Lands. (Applause.) He felt moreover that Mr Lewis had their sympathy in bis hurried defence against the attacks of a bitter political opponent for a gentleman who was physically unfit at the moment to appear in his own defence. Feeling this, and also feeling sure that they had no reason to regret the confidence they had reposed in Mr Lewis, he could connt on their hearty support to the resolution which he would propose as follows :—" That this meeting expresses its appreciation of Mr Lewis's prompt and vigorous defence of the Hon. W. Rolleston and its continued confidence in him as a representative of the city."

Mr W. Wood seconded the motion. Mr Lewis deserved hearty thanks for the manner in which he had defended Mr Rolleaton that evening. The motion was put and carried, with only four hands held up against it. On its being declared carried there was prolonged cheering for Mr Lewis.

Mr Lewis, in thanking the meeting, expressed Jus gratification at the high appreciation in which Mr Rolleston was evidently held. He was only sorry that he was not present to mark the manner in which they had greeted his name.

After a vote of thanks to the Chairman, the meeting terminated with groans for the Minister for Lands.