PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1569, 22 December 1865, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Thursday, DEO. 21. The Speaker took the chair shortly after five o'clock. ' Members present — Messrs. Alingtori, Aynsley, Barff, Buckley, Clark, Cowlishaw, Dixon, Duncan, Gosling, Hall, Hargreaves, llawkes, Huyhurst, Hornbrook, Jollie, Maude, Peacock, Prosaer, Howe, Shannd, Stewart, Stoddart, Tfcncred, Templer, Westenra, White, Wilkin, Williams, . ilson, C., Wilson, W. PETITION. Mr. Hawkrb presented a petition from certain stock owners, stock dealers, and miners of Hokftika, praying for certain improvements in the Hurunui route. < , PAPERS. Mr. Hall laid on the table report of the Provincial Engineer, relative to surveys at the gorge of the W&imakariri; and report of the Provincial Geologist, relative to the disposal of waste lands on the West Coast, with two maps relating to the same. COMMITTEES. Mr. Hawkes brought up the report of the Goldfleld Discovery Reward Committee; it recommended Albert to the consideration of the Council, as his prospecting led to the opening of the goldfleld. Mr. Jollie brought up the report of Public House Bill Committee, with the bill as amended by it. ' Extension of time was granted to the following committees to bring up their reports: —Road Board Ordinance Little River Tramway Bill, and Rates, Wharves, and Tolls Committee. THE SUPERINTENDENT'S SALARY Mr. Cbaobobt Wilson claimed the indulgence of the Council in moving the resolution standing in his name, and hoped it would be discussed in an unbiassed spirit for the good of the province. In the face of a depressed money market, Great expenditure on public works, an empty excheqntr and a general depression, he hoped the Council would endeavour to reduce the expenses of the Government. Misrepresentations had been made as to his motives in bringing forward this resolution ; he felt compelled, therefore, to allude to the three candidates now in the field for the Superintendency. If any man said he had brought it forward against Mr. Moorhouse, he would emphatically deny it; it was moreover notja Government question. It was known that two members of the Government were once beaten on a similar resolution, and he could call on them, therefore, consistently to vote for it. It might be said that it was brought forward in collusion with " Mr. Lance's playfellows that also he would deny. He hoped no member would vote for it with any party feeling. Each of the candidates for the Superintendency was looking forward to success. (The Upeaker here called Mr. Wilson to order.) It was hot a matter of indifference who. was Superintendent* b»t at the same time iatwna rtnp n« some persons thought, aMjite - hir power was checked by the Council. This was an opportune time for bringing forward'the resolution, for after the election had taken place, it would evidently be levelled at one man. The salary of the Superintendent was first fixed at £400; it was afterwards raised to £800 and an attempt was subsequetly made to raise it to £2,000, but it was only raised to £1,500. The general opinion of the large mass of the people of the province was that it was too much. By the constitution it was originally intended that Superintendents should be nominated with a salary of £500; but Mr. Gladstone spoke against the clause. Should Canterbury, which boasted of its intelligence and refinement beyond other provinces, be bound to pay so large a sum as £1,500, because there was no man public spirited enough to come forward for a less sum, when the Premier of New Zealand only received £1,000? In conclusion he moved, " That in the opinion of this Council it is expedient that the Superintendent's Salary Ordinance, 1863, should be repealed, and that the Provincial Secretary be instructed to bring' in a bill effecting that object, and limiting the emoluments of all future Superintendent's of this province to £1,000 sterling per annum. Mr. Hayiiurst seconded the resolution; thinking, however, that it did not go far enough, and that other salaries besides the Superintendents should be reduced. Mr. Clark rose to oppose the resolution. He called attention to the report of a committee on the subject in former years, in which Mr. FitzGerald gave evidence to the effect that £1,000 was not sufficient for the Superintendent's salary, as he had so many calls on his private purse. Such a resolution as the one before the Council should be suggested by any Superintendent, who found that he was earning too much. Mr. Hall, after stating that he would not approach this question in a party spirit, said that about two years ago, the Government proposed a reduction of the Superintendent's salary to £1000 a-yeur. It was thought then that such a sum only should he paid to the Superintendent as would enable him to cover his extra expenses in maintaining the dignity of the office, and not such as would induce political adventurers to come forward. He held the same opinion still, and as the resolution had been brought forward, he should votejforit. In no other province whs the Superintendent receiving more than £800 a-year, and there was no reason why the Superintendent of Canterbury should receive not only more than any other Superintendent, but also more than the Prime Minister of the colony. Mr. Tuhplek said he questioned the advisability of the introduction of this measure, as he thought the best way to economise the resources of the country would be to reduce the salaries of the lower officials, not that of the head man. lie should oppose the resolution. Mr. W. Wilson could not allow this resolution to be dmposedot with silence on his part, I'lie Superintendent should have at least £ 1500 a-year, to maintain his position ill a proper manner, and for that reason lie nhould oppose the resolution lie then commented on the evils which had arisen in oth< r provinces from paying too am ill a sum to ihe .•Miperintendent. Mr. i'uossiiu said he considered that this resolution should not have been broimht forward, as a committee of the * Council hud already expressed u>i opinion that the Superintendent's salary should beat least £15uua year. It was necessary for him to have a liberal allowance in order that lie have the means of travelling to the West Coast ami to other parts of the province, lie thought it would he difficult to dud a man to come forward unless he was paid well, and he would therefore oppose the resolution. Mr. William* opposed the resolution, and thought the mover mu-t have brought it forwar i owing to an idea that every one wan-as well off as himself. He had heard no argument in favour of the resolution ; on the other hand, lie considered that the Superintendent should have such a sum as should enable him to keep up his station! Mr. Tanohicd said that he had been rather surprised to hear Mr. vV. Wilson say that the Superintendent should bj well paid in order that he might be kept honest; he did

not think £1500 would make anv difference , on that score. For the sake of being consistent with his previous views he would support the resolution. Mr. Duncan expressed his regret that this matter had been introduced, for he thought the next Council would be more entitled to deal with it. The Superintendent had informed the Council, in his opening address, that the finances of the province were in a satisfactory condition, and the resolution could not therefore be supported on the score of an empty exchequer. In u former speech of the Superintendent it was otated that a bill to reduce his salary to £1000 would be introduced, but it was not done, or, at least, the records did not state it; the Council should, therefore, look on that promise as meaning nothing, and release two of the members of the Government from voting for this resolution for the sake of consistency. It was scarcely necessary to bring forward the voluminous evidence in favour of giving the Superintendent £1500 a year, and he should content himself with saying that he should oppose the resolution. Mr. Hall rose to explain that it would be in the recollection of the Council that the subject was brought before it, and he did not know how it was that there was no entry of it on the records. After a few words in explanation from Mr. Tancbbd and Mr. Doncan, Mr. Maude rose to speak against the resolution, but was quite inaudible in the gallery. Mr. Aynslky and Mr. Peacock spoke against the resolution. Mr. Cowlishaw thought that this question was not being discussed on its merits, but was being made the occasion of various attacks and counter-attacks. When it was considered that the highest salary of any other Superintendent was only £800, that was a very strong argument against Hiring £1500 a year to the Superintendent of a Province which was inferior to one or two of the others in population and revenue and resources. On the whole, he thought it undesirable that the Superintendent should receive more than £1000 a year. Mr. Hawkes said that no argument had been brought forward in favour of the resolution by tbe mover, who had, moreover, on a previous occasion expressed an opinion that the matter should never be re-opened. He should vote against the resolution. Major White regretted that this resolution had been brought forward, as he considered it a most objectionable one. He thought the Superintendent's salary should, if anything, be increased; but he was willing to let the matter rest, and he would oppose the resolution. Mr. C. Wilson in replying said that his speech had been said to contain no arguments; he had certainly heard none against the resolution, but he would take notice of some remarks which had been made. He begged emphatically to reiterate that this question had not been brought forward in any party spirit. It had been said that lotf salaries had led to dishonesty in a neighbouring province, but the converse was also true, that high salaries would not make people honest. After noticing one or two remarks which had fallen from members, Mr. C. Wilson concluded by thanking the Council for the attention it had given to the subject. On the question being put, the Council divided, when the numbers were :— Ayes (4) — Cowlishaw, Hall, Tancred, Wilson, C. (teller.) Noes (25) — Alington, Aynsley, Barff, Buckley, Clark (teller), Dixon, Duncan, Gosling, Hargreaves, Hawkes, Hayhurst, Horn brook, Maude, Peacock, Prosser, Rowe, Shand, Stewart, StoJdart, Templer,Westenra, White, Wilkin, Williams, Wilson, W. The motion was therefore lost by a majority of 21.