PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 1890, 10 January 1867, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Wednesday, Jan. 9. The Speaker took the chair at twenty minutes past five o'clock. The following members were present Messrs Aynsley, Barff, Beswick, Bright, B. Buchanan, H. Buchanan, Cassius, Davis, Hargreayes, Hawkes, floos, Hornbrook, Jollie, Maskell, Montgomery, Ormsby, Potts Rhodes, Sheath, Stericker, Stewart, Thomson Wa,eckerle, Walker, Whall, White, J. S. WiL liamß/Wynn Williams, Wilson, and Wylde. ASSENT TO DILLS. The Speaker announced that he had received a message from his Honor the Superintendent, intimating that he had assented, on behalf of the Governor, to the following bills 1. The Stanmore Road Bridge Bill, 1867. 2. The Cass Pension Bill, 1867. 3. The Fire Ordinance Amendment Bill, 1867. LYTTELTON SCREW-PILE JETTY. Mr Hargreaves brought up the report of the select committee on the Lyttelton Screwpile Jetty, also a copy of the evidence. With these Mr Hargreaves laid on the table a model of a screw pile. The report was read, and ordered to be printed. LYTTELTON SEA-WALL. Mr Hargreaves moved that the House resolve itself into committee to consider the report of the select committee ou the Lyttelton sea-wall. His object in doing so was to give effect to a resolution which he would submit to the committee. The motion having been seconded, was put and carried, on which the House went into committee to consider the report. Mr Harore+ves said that, before going further,he would ask that the evidence taken before the select committee should be read, It was important that hon. members should ,be in a position to form a correct and impartial judgment on the whole subject, and for that reason it was deairab'e that they should hear the evidence. The question was one of vast magnitude, involving great interests, and he believid that a majority of the House had not read anything more than extracts from the evidence. The select committee had not arrived at any definite resolution, and it behoved the House to ascertain where the faults which had undoubtedly been made with regard to the sea-wall lay. If the contractor was at fault, it would be the duty of the House to say so; if, on the other hand, the engineer was at fault, it would be equally the duty of the House to declare its opinion. The evidence was rather voluminous, it was true, but he believed it would enlighten many hon. members to hear it read. (Hear, hear.) The searwall, which it was at first intended should be in a straight line, was now very far from being so. So much was it the other way, that it had not inappropriately been called a sea serpent. (Laughter.) He would move that the evidence be read. The motion was seconded. Mr Stewart asked whether it was intended to read the whole of the evidence. If 60, he would remind hon. members that it .was very voluminous, and that it would lead to a serious detention of public business. (Oh!. Oh !) He would ask the hon, gentleman to withdraw his motion, and in doing so would put it to hon. members whether the mere reading over of a lengthy piece of evidence would enable them to form a oorrect opinion on the subject. Mr Wylde did not see the necessity of taking up the time of the Council in reading the evidence. It was the duty of every hon. member to make himself acquainted with the papers laid on the table, and in the case of the sea-wall the evidence had been on the table for several days. t Mr Hargreaves said he would not press his motion for the reading of the evidence, as the feeling of the House was evidently against it. In order to raise a discussion, he would simply move the following resolution: —" That the committee having before it the evidence and report of the select committee on the sea-wall contract is of opinion that the 1 design of the work is unsuitable for the site, and that proper borings should have been taken by the Provincial Engineer previous to. tenders for the work being invited, The committee is also of opinion that before any further works are undertaken by the Government to secure the present structure, competent engineering advice should be obtained, ifor the ascertaining proper boring for the work,". i The resolution was seconded. Mr Beswick said.the Government was entirely opposed to the resolution. The report of the select'committee, so far as any one wbb able to judge, was based on the evidence of the contractor |more than the evidence of the engineer. The latter had advised the Government that a claim might be made out against the contractor for not conducting his work according to specification. If the committee adopted the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Lyttelton, they would evidently be taking the side of the ' contractor against the engineer. He would just remind them that in another great work another course had been adopted, and the House had shewn a disposition to take the side of an engineer against the contractor. Mr Sheath asked' the hon. the Secretary for Public Works to name the case he alluded to. i Mr Beswick said ii was quite obvious that , he alluded to the Great Southern Railway, i It was the duty of the Government to stand i by its servants until they were clearly proved I to be wrong j and it was no less the duty of ; the House to show every determination to s protect the public servants. ) Mr Moore thought that the hon. member s for Lyttelton ought to have given notice of i motion in this case. For his own part, he : was taken by surprise, and he would confess ■ that although he had endeavoured to make > himself acquainted with the evidence, he I had been unable to do so. He had hoped the I hon. gentleman would postpone the further > consideration of the subject. i Mr Montgomery was disappointed at not • hearing the hon. gentleman state the grounds I on which he based the resolution. As the i evidence was not read, the hon. gentleman I ought to have given an analysis of it, stating ; his exact reasons for bringing forward so comI prehensive and sweeping a resolution He • .[or one, would not support the resolution till i he was more fully informed.

Major Hornbrook cordially agreed with s the resolution, and especially with the latter c part of it. He would suggest to the Govern- t ment, whether it would not b'o stdviaable to ask the advice of Mr JKinnaird, Kennard, or < Kennedy, who, he belidvedj was now in Wei- . < lington, and was in every way competent to ii give sound, practical advice.! i ■ 1 Mr Wyldb hoped tliat the hon. gentleman ] would inform the House who it was that he i meant, and assign some reason why the ad- i vice of Mr Kinnaird, Kennard, or Kennedy i should be sought for. Who was this gentle- i man? What had he done? Why should the Government send for him, and what: i could he do ? . ' Major Hornbrook explained that the gentleman he alluded to, and whose name lie; had forgotten, had been recommended to his: notice by a friend in Wellington, on whose judgment he placed great reliance. He believed the gentleman was sent out from England to report on some harbour works at Wellington, which the firm he belonged to had undertaken. He had every confidence in the gentleman's ability and usefulness. Mr .Wilde said it was very evident that the hon. member knew nothing of what he i was talking about. He did not even know the name of the gentleman he had recommended so strongly to the Goyernment, and he could tell nothing whatever as to his antecedents. He must protest against the time of the House being taken up with rubbish like this. Major Hornbrook believed that he knew quite as much about the subject as the hon. member for Kaiapoi. The gentleman's name might be Brown, Jones, or Robinson. He felt certain of one thing, namely, that the Government could not do better than ask his advice. Mr Stewart said it;was indeed a valuable suggestion, one which any Government ought to regard with the utmost deference when a gentleman whose name might be Brown, Jones, or Robinson, and whose attainments were not known, but only confidently asserted, was recommended to decide on an important work, involving great interests. (Laughter.) The Government must be grateful for such a suggestion. As to the question before the committee, he was of opinion that the report of the select committee, on which the resolution was avowedly founded, did not go fully enough into the matter at issue to enable hon. members to come to a fair and reasonable decision. The argument of his hon. colleague, the Secretary for Public Works, as to sup- ( porting one engineer and condemning ano- , ther, was, in his opinion, unanswerable. The Government would always support an officer

as long as they considered themselves justified in doing so; they would certainly not throw overboard any public servant till it was clearly proved that he was unfit for the position he held. Mr Thomson Baid he thought the committee was bound to give credit to the report on which the resolution was based. This being the case, he would support the resolution. Mr Hargreaves replied. He would point out to the committee that the Provincial Engineer had admitted freely in his evidence that the contractor had done his work according to specification. Mr Dobson had further said that he considered the work a "disgrace to all concerned." The hon. gentleman then went on to comment on the report. His simple reason for moving the resolution was that a very large sum of public money—some £2s,ooo—had been spent, or rather thrown away,, on a work which even the engineer admitted was a disgrace to all concerned. It was for the committee to say what engineer should be consulted as to the further carrying on of the work. He, for one, objected to the same engineer being again consulted. Mr Stewart hoped the hon. gentleman would consent to withdraw his resolution. The committee was not in a position to decide, he might say off-hand, on a question which involved so many considerations. The hon. member for Sefton (Mr Moore) had confessed that he knew hardly anything of the question, and he (Mr Stewart) had no doubt but that a majority of the committee was in the same position. The resolution was a strong one, reflecting on the Provincial Engineer tind the former Government, and he did not think it would be wise on the part of the committee to pass such a resolution with only a partial knowledge of all the circumstances. MrMASKELLwas somewhat astonished to hear the Provincial Secretary say that a certain argument made use of by his hon. colleague the Secretary for Public Works was unanswerable. Mr Stewart : But I did not say it was unanswerable by the hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) MrMASKELL resumed: The argument appeared to him most childish, and unworthy of a gentleman who had a seat on the Government benches. As to the resolution, he would give it his support. It was very clear from the evidence taken before the select committee—the evidence of the Provincial Engineer andthecontractor—that the former was very much to blame. It was also clear that before any more money was spent there ought to be a distinct understanding as to who was to superintend further works. The Government had shewn an evident desire to burke the question, and had been endeavouring to treat the Council like so many children. Mr Beswick replied to the hon. member for Sefton. It was quite possible that his (Mr Beswick's) arguments, as addressed to the hon. gentleman individually, might appear childißh. (Laughter) To the committee they had borne quite another character. He , was quite prepared to hear that the hon. ; gentleman was incapable of comprehending his (Mr Beswick's) arguments. (Laughter.) The Government had certainly no wish to burke inquiry on that or any other subject. They were always willing to afford the fullest information in their power, and to do their utmost for the protection of the public interests. Mr Maskell : Has the hon. Secretary for , Public Works read the evidence taken before the select committee ? f Mr Beswick : Not every word of it; but the greater part of it. (Laughter.) Mr Wtlde said he had refrained from taking any part in the debate from motives which might suggest themselves to the committee. From the turn matters were evidently taking, and from the attitude assumed by the Government he could no longer re- | main silent. It was well-known to the committee that he had asked his name to be with drawn from the list forming the select committee on the Lyttelton sea-wall, and screwpile jetty. It had been decided, however, by the House that his name should remain, and after that decision he had honestly set himself to_ work to obtain evidence on which to assist in framing a report. With regard to the screw-pile jetty, it was equally well-known that he had taken even a more decided course. He had objected to any report being made, and had endeavoured to pass a resolution in the House, directing all the evidence which had been taken on the subject, to be sealed up and delivered over to the custody of the Clerk of the House. His reasons for that course he need not again recapitulate. In this instance, also, he was over-ruled,and hehad again conscientiously set himself to complete the evidence, and to frame a report which had that night been laid on the table. Having been thus forced, as it were, to put himself in the way of obtaining evidence, and to give expression to his opinions in a report, there was no reason why he should maintain silence any longer. He would call the attention of the House to one portion of the Provincial Engineer's evidence, in which he said that " the contractor was in no way to blame, the ; failure was entirely due to the design." If the Provincial Engineer had advised the Govern- ! ment that they had a claim against the contractor for not carrying on the work accord- ' ,n 8T t° the specifications, he was bound to say that such an opinion was a direct contradiction of the evidence. He had no hesitation in saying that the fault lay distinctly with the engineer. Although he had thus expressed himself, he could not vote in support of the resolution, because it was couched in terms with which he could not agree, and because the latter part of it had no meaning. _ He thought the mover would act wisely in withdrawing it. Mr B. Buchanan thought it was premature to discuss the sea-wall, or to pass any resolution on it. There was the question of the

rew-pile jetty to be disposed of, and in this jo he thought the engineer would be found be in the wrong. The hon. gentleman _ was going on to s'cusß the acrew-pile jetty, when he w aß ,lled to order by the Chairman, who minded him that the question before ie committee did not relate to the screw, le jetty, but to the sea-wall. After Ime further attempts to be heard on the lestion of the screw-pile jetty, the hon. gen. eman was again called to order, and sat )wn. 'MrSheath proposed anamendment, to the feet that the further consideration of the ■port be deferred till the screw-pile jetty be Iso brought under discussion. It would be etter, in his opinion, to (liscuss both together, j they were so dosely related. The hon, lember for Lytteltqn (Mr Hargreavqs) had ridthfft the'sea-wdll had been madd a seasrpent, and he wished to know who was to lame. (Laughter.) Who prepared the eaign ? . , . Mr Stewart : The Provincial Engineer. Mr Sheath : And the Government will upport officers right or wrong ? Mr Stewart : 'i he Government will suplort officers till it is clearly proved that they ire in the wrong. Mr Sheath : Do Government consider he design a proper one? Is it such a deiign as any contractor could work from and iroduce a stable work ? Mr Stewart: That is more than I dare lay. The present Government had nothing ;o do with the design. (Oh dearl oh, oh, jom Mr Maskell.) Mr Stewart must claim ;he protection of the Chairman from the insulting manner of that hon gentleman. He would repeat that'the present Government iad nothing whatever to do with the design; Mr Sheath resumed. He thought it was Nearly the duty of the committee to come to some decision. He had seen a drawing which was put in evidence before the select committee. That drawing represented a section Df the work, and showed that some of the piles had been driven past the mud, some had hardly entered it, and some were half-way through it. Mr. Stewabt: That drawing was produced on the part of the contractor, and laid on the table in order to bias the minds of hon. members. (Oh, oh.) He would appeal to the hon. member for Mount Cook to say whether the drawing had not biassed his mind. Mr Sheath said it had. He wished to know, however, whether the Government considered the drawing correct. Mr Stewakt : Anything might be correct j even a statement made by the hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) Mr Wilde must protest against the way in which the hon. member for Mount Cook proposed to treat a select committee of the House.

Mr Sheath explained. He had no desire to cast any reflection on the committee, or to lower the dignity of the House. Mr Wylde was glad to hear it. The House was bound to support any committee which it appointed, and the argument brought forward by the hon. member was entirely fallacious. He was sorry to notice the tone adopted by the Government with regard to public officers. No doubt it was propirto support them, but if it could be clearly shewn that they were wrong the public service ought not to suffer. The drawing spoken of by the hon. Provincial Secretary as biassing the mind of the hon. member for Mount Cook, was produced in evidence, but with the concurrence of the Provincial Engineer. The engineer had admitted at once that he was wrong. He had in effect said," I have made a mistakeand the work is a disgrace." Mr Whall said it appeared to him that the resolution simply advised the Government not to Bpend more money on expensive experiments. He would support it. Mr Stewart desired to say a few words with regard to the plan or drawing which had been so frequently referred to. It did not bear on the face of it the endorsement of the Provincial Engineer, nor was there anything to shew that it had been sanctioned by him. It was certain that it did not appear as part of the' contractor's evidence, and it was equally certain that it had biassed the minds of some.hon. members. Mr HAWKES said it appeared to him there was only one course to adopt, namely, to accept the resolution. The Government ought to do this in all fairness and justice to the committee; in all fairness and justice to themselves; and in all fairness and justice to the Provincial Engineer. Mr Wtnn Williams said he saw no use in appointing a select committee, if its work was to be nullified. He had intended to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mount Cook, but he would now vote for the resolution, as it was vsry clear from the evidence that the Provincial Engineer was guilty of gross carelessness or gross ignorance. After some further discussion and explanation as to whether the Provincial Engineer intended the piles to be driven to the hard bottom, Mr Hargreaves said he would ask the hon. member for Mount Cook to withdraw his amendment. He would also ask the committee to allow him to amend the latter part of his resolution, by striking out the words, " for the purpose of ascertaining the proper borings for the work." Mr Maskell suggested the insertion of the words, " other than that of the Provincial Engineer," after the word " advice." Mr Hargreaves could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. It was too personal. The report of the select committee was quite sufficient to show what value was placed on the advice of the Provincial Engineer. He had been led to ask for the select committee on this subject because the case was one which came daily under his notice, and because he was fully acquainted with the circumstances. He had acted without advice from any one, from no feelings of enmity towards the Provincial Engineer, and from no intention of personal favour towards the contractor. The committee ought to give weight to the report, ought to say whether the engineer or contractor was to blame, and ought certainly to do this before the next motion on the order paper wa9 gone on with, which, hon. members would see, related to the estimates for railway and harbour works. He would conclude by asking to be be allowed to put his resolution in its amended form. The committee agreed to the amendment in the resolution, which was then tormally moved as amended. Mr Sheath's amendmeut was withdrawn. Mr Tancred desired to say a few words before the amended resolution was put to the vote. All honour was due to the select committee for the pains they had taken, and for the very useful work they had done. Notwithstanding all that had been said he would be very sorry to see a committee of that House take upon itself to decide on the merits of a professional question. The resolution that the evidence was before the committee. No doubt it was; but be would speak for himself, and say that he had not read that evidence. Even if he had he would not consider himself competent to give a judgment either for or against parties interested. He had listened carefully to all the speeches, and it appeared to him that the principal speakers had each taken a distinct and separate vie* of the evidence, and had drawn totally different inferences from it. The hon. member for Mount Cook had taken a line peculiarly his own. (Laughter). In conclusion, he thought it would' be much wiser for the committee to take no action on the report beyond acknowledging the value of it. Mr Brown was astonished to hear the hon. Speaker say that it would not be wise or prudent to judge between the contractor and the engineer. Mr Tancred explained. He had said it would be unwise to decide on a professional question. Mr Brown proceeded. It amounted to much tho same thing. It appeared to him that no course was open but to affirm the resolution, and to obtain further professional advice before entering on more expenditure. Mr Tancred said he quite agreed with the hon. gentleman that it was advisable to have further professional advice. But the resolution said more than that, and, therefore it was that he objected to it. The resolution was then put, and declared to be carried on the voices.

*' A division was called for, which resulted 88 Ayes, 22,: —Ayiißley, : Bright, .Brown, Buchanan, Hi, Buchanan, 8., Dans, Hargreaves, Hawkes, Hornbrook, Maskell, Montgomery, Ormsby, Potts, Rhodes, Sheath, gtericker, Thomson, Waeckerle, Walker, Whall,W. Williams, Wylde. v, ' Noes, 4Stewart, Beswick, Tancred, and Cassias, Jollie, and Moore, did not T °At this stage the House adjourned for: twenty minutes. The House re-assembled at 8 p.m. railway asd harbour works estimates. Mr BESWicKj in moving that; the House go i n to committee on these estimates, stated that the estimated receipts were i—.Twofifths of the land revenue, as per general account, £86,000 ; lease of Ferrymead and Christchurch railway, £6000.; Timaru landing service,; £2OOO •, proceeds of. sale of £SO 000 worth of debentures under Lyttelton and' Christchurch Railway Loan Ordinance, £45 000; proceeds of sale of £200,000 worth of debentures ; uhder Canterbury Loan Ordi-:. Dance, 1862, £IBO,OOO ; balance 'in favour of railway and harbour works account on June; 30 1866, of £44,123 6s sd, making a total of j£363 , 123 6s sd. The. expenditure was estimated at £268,684 5s 10d, which would, leave; B glance o f. £94,439 os. 7d. He concluded; by moviug that the House go into committee; motion was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into committee. : . Under the head, of permanent charges on loans £26,293 10s was voted. ■. .. On the sum of £43,326 13s 3d being asked for the Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway, Mr WALKER.asked if there had not,been:a time fixed for the completion of the railway under a penalty, and. whether, if that period had been exceeded, the delay had been condoned ? ■■■■.■■■ ■ MrßESwicK replied in the affirmative. In answer to Mr Brown, ■ Mr Beswick replied that Mr Dobson was the consulting engineer of the railway. He was under an engagement with the Government to undertake the office. Mr Brown suggested that the vote should be reduced by the amount of Mr Dobson's salary. Mr Beswick remarked that this could not be done as half , the financial year had expired. ' ' Mr Atxsley thought that the committee: were bound to support their former decision, with regard to the arrangement made with the consulting engineer. ' Mr Wtlde remarked that Mr Dobson had been very well paid for his services.. It appeared to him (Mr Wylde) that Mr Dobson was also drawing- an income from the province from other sources. He (Mr Wylde), objected to Mr Dobson being paid for acting as arbitrator in any disputes which might arise between the Government ahcl con-, tractors. He hoped that an independent arbitrator would be chosen on all future occasions of a similar nature. .

The vote was pawed. , The sura of £92,968 os9d was asked for the Great Southern-Eailway.. Mr Maskell moved as an amendment that the consideration of this iteni should be postponed until the result of the enquiry moved for by the bon. member for Port Victoria (Major Hornbrook) with regard to this railhad been brought before the House, ■. Mr Beswice opposed the postponement. The Government was under a contract, and that .ebntract must be carried out. In answerto MtStericker, Mr SiEwiKT said that the sum asked for, included the expenses of carrying the railway across the Selwyn, the bridging of that river, and'Bomenecessarybuildmg3. , ; On the amendment being put, .■: /Major Horxbroox remarked, that if the Government would give a distinct pledge that the Great Southern Railway should be carried out according to the contract, and to the satisfaction of Mr Doyne, every one would be satisfied. .vy MrßESwics stated that, for the future, he would see that the works on this railway were .properlycarried put;, He only wished to guard himself against being held responsible for the acts of his predecessors. In answer to Mr Wyna Williams, Mr Beswick said he believed that the contractors considered that there was a balance due to them for the works as far as Kolleston, but be could not state the amount. ' Major Horxbrook said it was admitted that the railway was in an unfinished state; all that the. committee asked was that; it might be put into a finished condition, Mr Stewart , remarked that the Govern- 1 ment would see thatjthe contract was carried ' out in its integrity. No amount would be ' paid without the sanction of the Engineer. . 1 . Mr Maskell, under these circumstances begged leave to withdraw his amendment, 1 This was granted, and the vote was passed. . ' The sum of £12,100 was granted for the : :l Great Northern Railway. Under the head of Harbour Works, the sum of £43,996 Is lOd was voted: Progress was reported, with leave to sit : again, and the House resumed. GREAT SOUTHERN RAILWAY, Major HoRNBEOOK obtained leave to with- >' draw the motion standing; iin . his ';iiame:with:' reference to this|railway, in consequence of the assurance given by the Government. HOKITIKA BEBEP.VES. The report of the committee upon these reserves was brought up by Mr Bright, and read, and ordered to be printed. MTTELTON BEA WALL. In the absence of Mr Hargreaves, Mr Davis obtained lea?e to withdraw themotion with reference to this subject. NORWICH QUAY, LITTELTON. ■■■' In this instance, also, Mr. Davis, in the absence of Mr Hargreaves, obtained leave to withdraw the motion standing in the name of the latter. ■ WESTLAKJD HOSPITALS BILL. Onthe motion: of MrBARiT, it was re-, solved that this bill should be. reprinted as amended before the third reading. ; . LAGOON . TOWN BOAD, WESTLAXD, j , :Mr Hoos moved" That a respectful address j be presented to his Honor the Superintendent requesting him : to place on the supplementary estimates a sufficient : sum;fpr : ' the construction .of a : road from Lagoon Town to the point of tlie Hokitika river." .'. Mr Barf'f briefly seconded the resolution. : Mr Stewart said he must reluctantly oppose the motion. A large sum had been voted for the requirements of the West Coast/ and surely the work in question might be canied on out .of the sum so granted. He would, however, state that the district should receive the attention of. the Government, • Mr; Hoos, under the circumstances; would beg leave to withdraw his motion. leave was granted. ■ ... totaba hospital.

Mr Hoos moved " That a respectful addres be presented to his Honor the Superintendent requesting him to place on the Supplemen- ; tary Estimates the sum »f £SOO, as a grant to the To tar a District Hospital." Mr Babfp seconded the motion,;' and in doing so Bpoke in high terms of the energy shbwnby the inhabitants,offthe district fn'; originating the hospital, its usefulness, 1 and the excellence of its management. . Mr Stewart stated, that before granting any aid to the. hospital, the Government would like.to have some furtherinformation on the subject. However, as there was a sum of money for hospital, purposes, the Government would see that the Totara hospital should have its fair share if the details of its management were satisfactory. ■: Mr lloos obtained leave to withdraw his . motion, after the . assurance.. given by Mr Stewart. ;u. LTXIELTOX SCREW-riLE JETTT. Mr Sheath obtained leave to withdraw the motion standing. in his name;with reference to this subject. . . VOLUNTEER DRILL GROUSD. : > Colonel White moved "That the limits of the grant as a drill ground for the use of the Christehurch "■■■ companies of ■s Canterbury Volunteers be defined at once, with the view, of enabling the General Committee of VolunMrStewart stated. tliat there was some misunderstanding with respect to the erection 0 'he gymnasium, which had taken up a jiortionipf tlie land :gi;ankdto; ! theYolunteers,:

This placed both parties in; an embarrassing position. He would recommend Colonel White to withdraw his motion on an assurance being given by the Government that they would investigate the matter, and endeavour, to satisfy both the parties interested. Some arrangement might be made by which their conflicting claims might be reconciled. ■ v -\., ■ ..: The; question was put and carried. IAND : IN THE.TOWNSHIP OF HOKITIKA. . I Mr Stewart, in the absence of Mr Beswick moved—« That this Council recommend that his Honor the Superintendent declare by ■proclamation ifr'the^-ProVWdal^Governmait Gazette that all the towQahip of Hokitika, which at .the ' time of the, withdrawal thereof from the West Coast goldfields for the purpose of sale, was lawfully occupied, and upon which buildings had been 'erected of the va'ue of not less ;■ than £25, shall be offered for sale to the person or persons in lawful occupation of land at a fixed price j and that. his Honor do fix the price at which such land sliall be so offered for sale at £1 sterling perfoot frontage for all land within the block bounded on the east by FitzGerald street and Fitzherbert street, and on the north by Hampden . street, where the depth does not exceed one chain, and £1 10s : per foot frontage for.all': land, in such block, .the 'depth of ■ which shall; exceed one: chain. That the upset price of : all lands within the township of Ilokitika which, at the: time of the withdrawal of such lands from the West Coast goldfields, shall not have been lawfully occupied; andihave upon it : buildings of the value of not less than £25, shall be sold at' the upset price: of £4B per acre." Mr Cassius spoke at some length on the motion; suggesting some alterations in the price of the land as proposed by! the Government. He concluded by moving an amendment to that effect. . , ;

Mr Hawkes must oppose the alterations: suggested by Mr. Cassius. The, question had been fairly discussed at some length by the committee appointed during a recent session of the House. [Mr Hawkes read some extracts from the report of the committee.] He could not see that the circumstances of the case had altered in the slightest degree. The resolutions had been framed in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of Iloki- .< tika, jvho were well' satisfied wi tli them. £4B was a very trifling sum to pay for a section of land in the best business sites of Hokitika. He believed that if lion, members could be made acquainted with the almost fabulous prices paid for land in Hokitika, they would be convinced that the ■ price proposed by the. Government waß : a very fair one,.. .! . Mr Beswick. remarked that the question had qeen fairly, debated, and had been referred to a select committee, on which were the then two members for Westland. The price of the land had ttieri been fixed,- and it appeared to have given satisfaction to the inhabitants of (Westland. .. Since then, the Government had seen no reason to alter the prices named by the select committee. Taking all the circumstances into consideration,; the Government could see no reason for altering the price of the,'sections. . ; Mr Barff stated that himself and Mr Frosser, who were then on the select committee, appointed to enquire into the subject, were in favour of a lower price being paid for. the sections, and that they only gave way when they saw that the sense of the majority of the committee was against them. Mr Whall was in-favour of the reduction in the price of land at Hokitika. He hoped to see even-handed justice dealt out to every one. ~ Mr Stewart could not perceive how the attempt of the Government to. carry put tlie recommendations of the Select Committee could be construed; into any attempt to perpetrate any injustice towards the inhabitants of Ilokitika, or of exercisiug any undue pressure oh the part of the Government. -''Vviv'" Mr W. Wilson gave some explanation as. to the sum fixed by the Select Committee as the price; of the sections.; The amendment of Mr Cassius wjth regard :to the price of the land was put and lost. . The original motion was put and carried. PUBLIC-HOUSE ORDINANCE. Mr Stewart, in the absence of Mr Duncan, moved the third reading of this ■ Ordinance, ." ; The bill was read a third time, and passed. WESTLAND FCBLIC-HOCSE BILL 1866.

, On the motion of Mr Stewart this bill ■was read a third time and passed. : .; ENGLISH AGENT'S BILL, 1866. Mr;S.TEWAET moved 'for leave to, introduce . . a bill under this title. Mr Selfe had re- : signed the agency, and Mr Crosbie Ward hid: been appointed to the. office,: Itwaaun- ■- necessary for him (Mr Stewart) to make any . comment upon Mr Ward's qualifications for : the office. It was a matter of congratulation to the House that the services of so able a gentlemen had been secured. : The bill was read the first timeani ordered to be printed. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On the motion of Mr Stewart leave of absence for one week was granted to the Hon. John Hall, ... IMMIGRATION. Mr Stewart moved that the House, go into Committee to consider, ihe resolutions on Immigration.., .. ~ The motion was agreed to, and the House went into Committee. 1 Mr .Stjewaht moved the adoption of the first resolution, substituting the word " England" for " London " in the second line. In doingsoheremarkedthattheimmigrantß,a3 a whole, had been of a high class. That the selection of. immigrants should be in .the hands of the Immigration Agent stationed in England, but that the shipping arrangement should be placed in the hands of the Park-street Commissioners. Mr Wilson wished to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Immigration Office in Canterbury. He could not agree with the Provincial. Secretary ■in thinking the immigrants ■of a;' very- high class.Some very questionable characters had : : found their way to the colony, and this imight 4 have been avoided if, Mr Marshman had exercised due care. ... ". ■ , . Mr Stewart defended Mr Marshmari.: No. man was infallible, and Mr Marshman had made comparatively few:.mistakes.. As to ■the; Immigration.-Office,;in ..Canterbury, that ; would be a matter for the Civil Service Com- ; mission to deal with. ! /; Mr Aynslet was glad to find that the 1 alteration had been made, in the resolution. 1 It would be a great advantage if the agent | was instructed to travel about. L Rhodes ; and :Mr Hargreaves concurred.in the arrangement by which the agent ' should travel through the 1 various countries for the selection of emigrants. Mr Davis agreed with the remarks'which had fallen from the' hon. member for Christj. cliurch (Hr Wilaon). Some of the immigrants had been of the very worst deacrip-

The resolution, as amended; wasicarried;; . The second resolution was proposed as follows" That single women : between fifteen and thirty years of age should have free passages, and in the ease of grown up families the parents and sons should be allowed assistance to the .extent. of, one-half the passage money, the remaining half "ito be secured by bills giren by themselves or by their friends in the province." v ' ; ". Mr Sterxcker proposed that the word " thirty-five Should substituted "thirty." ■,.. Tlie amendment waß ultimately withdrawn; Mr Atssmsy proposed that the words, "the remaining hall: to be,secured by bills given by themselves or by their friends in. the i,province," be struck out, and the following woi|(]s substituted—"if the other half is paid before embarkation, or if preferred, to the extent of one-third, the other two-thirds being secured.by bills given by. friends in this province " _ The third resolution was proposed as follows ; ' That the introduction of single men is unnecessary w present." : : Mr Atnsley proposed the introduction of the words, " exeept as part of families," after the word "men." The amendment was agreed to. The fourth resolution, as follows, was agreed to„ . The resolutions, as amended, were passed : and reported to the House, vhich resumed,

'■'■Vy; roads' ordinance. Mr Beswick moved that the "Roads Ordinance Amendment Ordinance Bill, .1867," be read a second time. /, " t The motion was agreed to, and. the House, went into committee on the Bill. . 1 Several taerely, verbal amendments were made, and the amended bill was reported to the House, which resumed. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of|absence was granted.to Mr. Grey for a week. ; . ■ ROAD BOARD COLLECTORS. ■ Mr Rhodes obtained leave to withdraw the motion standing in his name on this subject. HOKITIKA CORPORATION BILL. .The further consideration of this bill in committee was postponed. Notices of motion were given, and the House adjourned until 5 p.m. on Thursday. .