PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 661, 24 October 1884, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented. REPORTS.

Several reports of Select Committees were brought up and laid on the table.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. In answer to Mr G. F. Richardson, Mr BALLANCE said instructions had been given to meet the case of those separated from their families, and who, by the order of the late Government in March last, were deiprived of the right to nominate for immigration their relatives left in the Old Country. In answer to Mr Smith, the PREMIER said the Government recognised the necessity for an agricultural school in the North Island, as suggested by Mr Bowron, the inspector of dairies, but they could not see their way at present to carry out the work. In answer to Mr Bradshaw, the PREMIER said the Government were aware of the bad condition of the Supreme Court buildings at Dunedin, bat they could not at present take any steps for the erection of new buildings. BILLS INTRODUCED. The following Bills were introduced : —A Bill to repeal sections 4 to 14, inclusive, of the South Island Native Reserves Act,. 1883 (Mr Taiaroa); a Bill to amend the Printers and Newspapers Regulation Act, IS6S (Sir George Grey. WEST HARBOR BOROUGHS EMPOWERING BILL. This Bill was read a second time, on the motion of Mr MAC AND RE W. It was subsequently agreed to in Committee. THAMES RECREATION RESERVE SAIB BILL. This Bill was read a second time, on the motion of Captain FRAZER, and subsequently agreed to in Committee. WANGANUI HARBOR BOARD RATING BILL. This Bill was considered in Committee, and amended. The three Bills which had been agreed to rn Committee were reported and read a third time and passed, Mr BRYCE entering a protest on behalf of his constituents against the Wanganui Bill. The House rose at 5.30. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30. CORONERS JURIES ABOLITION BILL.

Mr GUINNESS moved the second reading of a Bill to abolish coroners’ juries. . He pointed out the many inconveniences arising out of the system which retained juries, and maintained that the verdicts of juries were of little or no value, inasmuch as jurors were guided by the opinion of the coroner. The PREMIER disapproved of the Bill, maintaining that if jurors were abolished, the whole system should be done away with. He hoped the measure would be withdrawn. Mr PEACOCK did not agree with the Premier in respect to the Bill. He suggested that the law in the colony should be assimilated to that obtaining in Scotland, where these matters were inquired into by a procuratorfiscal. If the duties were undertaken by a thoroughly efficient officer, the result would be very beneficial. Mr DUNCAN suggested that if the Bill were withdrawn, as suggested, the Government should make an endeavor to reduce the number of jurors to, say, four. Mr STEWART considered that the system now in force was totally unfitted to the colony. Dr NEWMAN pointed out that another bad feature in the present system was that persons residing nearest hospitals, especially in large cities, were most frequently called upon to act as jurors. On division, the motion was carried. Ayes, 37: noes, 21.

SCHOOL COMMITTEES ELECTION BILL. On the motion to go into Committee on this Bill, , - Mr ROLLESTON suggested that the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill should withdraw it. (Hear, hear.) He argued that the measure would be taken advantage of by opponents to the present educational system, and that any reform in this direction should be introduced by some responsible person. Mr STEWART supported the Bill, contending that there was a demand for reform in educational legislation. Mr BRYCE said he should vote for no amendment in the education system unless such amendment were proposed by the Government. . The PREMIER opposed the motion. He warned the House to be careful how it accepted any reform from the hon. member for Waimate, who was a strong opponent of the present system. Mr GARRICK denied that the Bill would affect educational administration, and he hoped that the lion, gentleman would not withdraw it. As solicitor for the Canterbury Education Board he had many opportunities of watching the operation of the present system of education; and lie had, from that experience, formed an opinion that the proposals of this Bill would he calculated to create a more perfect and better regulated machinery. Mr MONTGOMERY should oppose the motion. Mr BEETHAM said a case had occurred m his own district which showed the need for reform in the Act. In that instance a most obnoxious person had been elected to a committee, the other members of which had immediately resigned. The greatest difficulty was subsequently experienced in getting a committee appointed. While lie yielded to no one in his approval of the existing Act, he considered amendment was necessary. Mr W. C. SMITH ridiculed the argument that the House should not try to amend the present law. He ascribed the opposition offered to the Bill to the fears of a number of hon. members who were connected with education boards. Mr STEWARD (the member in charge of the Bill) said he had brought the Bill forward at the request of a number of School Committees, and he scouted the idea that the Act was so good that they could not amend the present Act. He would remind the House that this Bill had already been through committee twice, and that 2SS of the School Committees in tlie colony had declared against the cumulative vote. The Premier had warned the House not to accept the Bill at his (Mr Steward’s) hands because he was in favor of making grants to denominational schools. That, he argued, had nothing whatever to do with it. No stronger advocate of the present system would be found than Mr Dick, a member of the late Government, and that gentleman had strongly concurred with this Bill. (The Premier : ‘ ‘ He • was in favor of the Bible in schools.’’) Tha House divided on the motion to go into committee. Ayes, 36; noes, 18. Ayes, 36.—Barron, Beetham, Bevan, Brad-shaigh-Bralshaw, Brown, Buchanan," Cadman, Conolly, Cowan, Dodson (teller), Duncan, Fitzherbert, Garrick, Gillies, Grigg, Guinness, Hursthouse, Joyce, Lake, Lance, Levestain, Macandrew, Maearthur, J. McKenzie, Pearson, Pere, Reese, E. Richardson, G. F. Richardson, Samuel, Seddon, Shephard,

Smith. W. J. Steward (teller), W. D. Stewart, J. W. Thomson. Noes, 18.—Bryce, Hakuene, Hamlin, Hobbs, M. J. S. Mackenzie, Moat (teller), Mont•gomery (teller), Moss, O’Connor, Ormond, Rolleston, Russell, Stout, Te Ao, T. Thompson, Tole, Trimble, Wakefield. Pairs.— For : Taiaroa, Ross, Sutter, O’Callaghan, McMillan, Gore, Wilson, Fraser, Whyte, Coster, Fulton, Walker. Against : Hirst, Mitchelson, Fergus, Atkinson, W. F. Buckland, Hurst, Bruce, Dargaville, J. C. Buckland, Ballance, Peacock, Hatch. In committee, Mr Smith moved, That clause 3, time of retiring from office, be. struck out. The motion was carried on the voices. A long discussion took place on clause 7, which provides that at an election held in accordance with the Act, each elector may exercise as many votes as there are persons to : be elected,- but that no elector shall record more than one vote for each candidate. The Premier charged the member in charge of the Bill with trying to destroy the present system, and moved an amendment striking out the provision that not .more than one vote shall be given to each candidate. The Committee divided on this amendment, the result being that the words proposed to be struck out were retained, by 28 to 4. The Premier then moved that every elector should be allowed to distribute his votes amongst the candidates as he thinks .fit, provided that no elector shall give . more than three votes to each candidate. This, he considered a fair compromise. Mr Seddon advised the member in charge of the Bill to accept this compromise, adding that if it were not accepted an attempt would be made to report progress. On division this amendment was lost—Ayes, 14; noes, 22. The Premier moved that the word "one” (relating to the provision for a single vote for one. candidate) be struck out. The committee divided on the motion to retain the word, the result being— Ayes, 25 ; noes, 11. On clause 8, providing for vacancies, Mr Joyce moved to report progress. This was lost, and the clause was struck out. Subsequently Mr Pearson charged the Premier with blocking the Bill. Mr Stout denied this assertion, adding that if he were disposed to block the Bill it could go no further. Ha could block a Bill as well as any member of the committee. (Hear, hear.) It was moved that clause 10, special elections, be. struck out. On division the clause was retained.. . Some discussion ensued on clause 16, definition of householder, the difficulty being to define the term. An amendment was moved, and carried, defining a householder as one who resides in the district. The Bill, with several further amendments, was agreed to, and subsequently reported. FALSE NOTICE OF BIRTH, MARRIAGE, OR DEATH BILL. This Bill was was considered in Committee, and agreed to, with several amendments. It was reported, and the amendments agreed to. The House, at 0.45 a.m., rose. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented. NOTICES. Mr BRUCE to ask the Government, Whether they will take into consideration the expediency of providing facilities for vaccination in outlying districts. MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE. On the motion of Dr. NEWMAN, it was decided to send a message to the. Legislative Council, asking that leave be given to the Colonial Secretary and the Hon. Colonel Whitmore to attend and give evidence before the Public Petitions Committee in respect, to a petition regarding streets on the reclaimed land.

WELLINGTON COLLEGE RESERVES CONFIRMATION BILL. The Local Bills Committee recommended in reference to this-Bill that it be allowed to proceed, at the same time pointing out that the Standing Orders had not been strictly complied with. The evasion, however, was a slight on Dr NEWMAN moved that the Bill be read a second time on Thursday next. Mr MACARTHUR considered it unfair that the .residents of a. district interested should not have had notice of the measure, and he therefore opposed the motion. The PREMIER pointed out that the residents of Palmerston North had evidently had opportunity of examining the Bill, inasmuch as they had presented a petition to the House against it. Mr STEWARD urged that the House should enforce the Standing Orders. The PREMIER said that the House had overlooked an exactly similar defect in the Christchurch Market Reserves Bill. Mr SHEPHARD (chairman of Committee) pointed out that the defect was purely one of formality, and not of great import. The. Bill had been open for inspection at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, but the dates upon which it liad been deposited were not strictly in accordance with the law. ‘ Mr MACARTHUR said the Bill proposed to grant to the Wellington College lands to which they had no right. Dr NEWMAN, in reply, pointed out that the Bill -was not a new one, having been before the House last session. It had also been submitted to close inspection in the Upper House, wheie it had been passed. He urged the House not to throw the Bill out on a purely technical objection. The question that the Bill be read a second time on Thursday was put and a division called for. The result was as follows Ayes, 46.—Allwright, Atkinson, Ballance, Barron, Beetham, Bradshaigh-Bradshaw, Bruce. Bryce, Buchanan (teller), Dodson, Fitzherbert, Fraser, Fulton, Grey, Grigg, Hamlin, Hursthouse, Johnston, Dake, Dance, Levestam, Locke, M. J. S. Mackenzie, J. McKenzie, McMillan, Menteath, Moat, Montgomery, Newman (teller), Ormond, Peacock, Pearson, Reese, E. Richardson, Rolleston, Russell, Shephard, Stout, Sutter, Taiaroa, T. Thompson, J. W. Thomson, Tole, Trimble, Walker, W. White. Noes, 19. Bevan, W. F. Buckland,Conolly, Cowan, Duncan, Fergus, Hatch, H, Hirst, Hobbs, Larnach, Maearthur (teller),Morris, O’Callaghan (teller), G. F. Richardson, Samuel, Shrimski, W. D. Stewart, J. B. Whyte, Wilson. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. In answer to Dr. Newman, tlie MDNISTER of LANDS said the Government had no power under any Act to reserve Ruapehu, Ngaruahoke, Tongariro, Tokano, Rotoaia, and the Hot Springs in the district as a national Pa Mr JOHNSTON asked the Government, Why the lowest tender for the supply of hospital groceries during tlie current year was not accepted 9 The MINISTER for JUSTICE replied that the Colonial Secretary was now inquiring into the matter, and the question was therefore postponed. In answer to Mr Grigg, the PREIMIER said no special tax had been imposed on binder twine this session. . The Government had only been carrying out the provisions of a previous Act. Mr O’CALLAGHAN, who moved the adjournment of the debate in order that he might speak, said he considered the imposition a most unjust one, especially as the Commissioner of Customs had distinctly promised that

no such tax should be made. In the discussion which ensued, Mr GRIGG said that farmers would prefer colonially-made twine if it could be supplied at an equal price. Mr J. • THOMSON asked whether there had been any correspondence on the matter between the Government and large manufacturers of twine. Mr O’CONOR commented on the anxiety displayed by the farming members to get this small duty taken off. He pointed out that those hon. gentlemen could expect no help from the mining members, in view of the stand taken by them on a far more important matter—the gold duty abolition. Dr NEWMAN asked the Government, Whether they would issue a proclamation sanctioning division of the Manawatu County. At the suggestion of PREMIER the Question was postponed. In answer to Mr Te Ao, the MINISTER for PUBLIC WORKS said the. Government could not see their way to fence in the railway line from Palmerston to Foxton, in order to prevent accidents. Mr FITZ HERBERT, in asking the Government why some members’ speeches were reported in Hansard in the first person and others in the third, said that soma speeches were reported very badly in the third person, while others got a verbatim report. It appeared that those members who spoke most frequently were reported most fully. The PREMIER replied that the length of reports was regulated by the importance of the subject under discussion.

BILL INTRODUCED. The following Bills were introduced . and read a first time : —Sir George Grey, a Bill to abolish the export duty on gold, by reducing that duty to Is an ounce from and after the 31st March, 1885, and by taking off the remaining duty of Is an ounce from and after the 31st March, 1866 ; Mr W. White, a Bill to amend the Municipal Corporation Act, 1876. SCPPLY. In Committee of Supply, a message was read from the Governor, recommending, the House to make further provision for salaries, &c. A resolution was submitted granting a sum of L2OO 000. This resolution was agreed to, and passed through all its stages. The Imprest Supply Bill for the amount was thereupon introduced. The Bill was read a second time, committed, and read a third time and passed. BAST AND WEST COAST (MIDDLE ISLAND), AND

NELSON RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was further considered in committee. The committee rose at 5.30.

EVENING SITTING. The committee resumed at 7.30, when the further consideration of the East and West Coast and Nelson Railway Bill was continued. On sub-section 2 of clause 9, an amendment was moved to the effect that no auriferous or coal-bearing land should be set aside for the company. On this question Sir George Grey made a vigorous speech against the Bill. He was. ruled out of order, inasmuch as he was discussing the whole principle of the Fill, instead of the clause proposed to be amended. Sir George objected to this ruling, and moved to report progress, in order that the ruling of the Speaker might be taken on the point at issue. Mr Hamlin said he must of course put the question ; but he claimed the right to give a ruling on the matter; and wished it to be understood.that progress could not be reported simply with a view of obtaining the Speaker’s opinion. Mr Fergus censured the action of the Government in proposing, as they did, to add other lines to the Bill at the last moment.. He accused the Government of being plastic and yielding to pressure. Sir George Grey subsequently accused the Government, of subjecting unoffending people to a wrong (alluding to the proposals to bring lines in the north of Auckland under the Bill). He believed it had been. a matter of lobbying and unfair personal application to the Government. The Premier said the lines the hon. member was referring to -did not come under the section they were now discussing. (Clause 9 provides for right of Crown to select area, the calculation of value of land, manner in which land is to be selected, and other matters appertaining to the land. The section under consideration provides for the land to be set aside.) Mr Bryce thought that the Premier was right, and that the proposal in reference to the construction of theKawakawaWhangare and Oxford-Rotorua lines .was that they might be made under the Railways Construction Act. The Premier said that was so, with the addition that the constructors of those lines might avail themselves of. the borrowing powers conferred under this Bill. Mr Hobbs said in the north of Auckland the people were famishing for railways ; yet here were Auckland members opposing what was intended to benefit their own district. He agreed that this work should be done by the Government, but he contended that the members of the House would not raise an agitation to compel the Government to carry on these works. A number of gentlemen had been very quiet over the District .Railways Bill, because they were interested in it; but to-night they came out in a fit of virtuous indignation about a proposal to construct most necessary lines. He explained that he had brought the matter of these lines under the notice of the Minister for Public Works, who had promised to include them. The motion to report progress was lost. The amendment in reference to auriferous land was also lost. On subsection 3, Mr Seddon moved, That all the words after the word “upon” in the second line of subsections . of clause 9 be struck out, with a view of inserting the following words : —“The valuation of such land not to be less than as assessed by the Property Tax Commissioners under the provisions of the Property Assessment Act, 187.9, for the purposes of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act, 1882.” This amendment was lost on the voices. An amendment was then moved to the effect that no land should be sold for less than 10s per acre. Mr Seddon hoped the committee would not pass this amendment, pointing out that he knew that a large portion of the land was not worth the amount suggested. To put it at not less than 5s an acre would be a fair valuation. Mr Rolleston thought that if it were proposed to value land at 10s the better course would be to insert a clause expressly providing that land a lon rr the line shall be deemed to be valued at 10s and no less. Mr Macandrew did not think any land in New Zealand was worth less than 10s an acre when a railway was made through it Mr Hursthouse replied that there were thousands of acres in his district which could be bought for less than that amount. Mr Macandrew : That’s not in New Zealand. Mr Hursthouse replied that it was in New Zealand, although it might not be in Otago, winch in the mind of the hon. member for Port Chalmers, was New Zealand it was in Nelson, where the finest climate and the hnest people in the colony were to be found. The Premier here said he had altered the amendment to read that “ no land shall be deemea to be of less value than 10s per acre. Mr O’Callaghan strongly opposed the amendment, and said he should move to report progress if it were proceeded with. Immediately afterwards, however, he said he should no move to report progress. Mr Seddon moved the substitution of “ 5s ” for “ 10s.’ On division the greater amount was retained. Ayes 51; noes, 18, The following proviso wa3

m o ved to subsection 4: —“ Company to pay value of improvements to persons holding land as tenant or licensee of the Crown —Provided. that nothing herein contained shall affect any rights or interests acquired under any miners rights or business licenses granted under the authority of the Gold Fields Act, 1566, or the Mines Act, 1577, or any regulation made under or in conformity with the said Acts.” lhis was agreed to. In subsection 5, which provides that the company shall be entitled to coal found on their grant without paying any ties, Mr Barron moved an amendment to the effect that the subsection should be subject to section 10 of the principal Act, thus making it provide that the company shall pay. royalties on coal found on their grant. A division on this amendment resulted as follows Ayes, 21 • noes, 45. The amendment was therefore lost. On subsection 7, value of lands to be granted not to exceed 50 per cent of cost of railway, it was moved that “30” be substituted for “50” per cent. The Premier opposed the amendment. Dr Newman thought that 50 per cent, was a large amount, in view of the speeches delivered in the House rating the value of the land very highly. Mr Holmes, as one of those who had sung the praises of the land through which the line was to pass, said he had only spoken of land on one side of the line. He did not think any company would be got to construct the line if the 50 per cent, were not given. Fifty per cent., as the land was to be valued at 10s per acre, really meant 40 per cent, on the cost of construction. Mr Bryce said the last speaker had previously said that the line would pay better than any line on the South Island with one exception, and better than any m the North Island. If that were so, they ought not to give this company any land at all, certainly not more than 30 per cent. Mr Holmes replied that he had based his calculations on a report drawn up by Mr O’Conor. Mr Grigg considered that the amount of land to be given should depend on itsquality. He held, on that basis, that 25 per cent, given to the WellingtonManawatu Company meant more than 50 per cent, to the line now proposed. Dr. Newman pointed out that, by one means and another, the colony was giving this company very large concessions, and consequently the shares. ought to go up to a very high price. On division the word 50 was retained: Ayes, 39. AUwright, Ballance, Bevan, Bradshaw, Brown, Bruce, Cadman, Coster, Cowan, Dargaville, Fitzherbert, Fraser, Garrick, Grigg, Guinness, Hobbs, Holmes, Lance, Larnach, Levestam, Macandrew, Macarthur, J. McKenzie, McMillan, Menteath, Montgomery, Morris, O’Callaghan, O’Connor, Pearson, Reese, E. Richardson, Shephard, Steward, Stout, Sutter, Tole, Walker, White. Noes, 3ffi— Atkinson, Barron, Beetham, Buchanan, Duncan, Fergus, -Fulton, Gillies, Grey, Hatch, Hirst, Hursthouse, Johnston, Lake, M. J. S. Mackenzie, Mitchelson, Moat, Moss, Newman, Ormond, Peacock, G-. -fe. Richardson, Rolleston, Ross, Russell, feamuel, Stewart, T. Thompson, J. W. Thomson Wakefield, Wilson. Mr Barron moved to add to the 9th clause a proviso to the effect that for the purposes of this section the estimated cost of such aline of railway shall notexceedan average of L6OOO a mile. This was lost on the voices. Mr Gr. F. Richardson moved a further proviso, that each block granted must extend for a distance of not less than five miles from the line of railway where Crown lands are available. On division the . amendment was lost. On clause 18, in case of purchase by Governor, what moneys to be paid to the company,. Mr Moss protested against this Bill being .allowed to pass, contending that the results of it would, be the same as those of the district railways. He argued that the House had not been placed in possession of any inf ormation in regard to the Bill. Mr Holmes said if the hon. member had been in the House during the debate, he would have been chock full of information. Mr JVJxiss thereupon asked whether it was true that the railway passed through a vast area of magnificent bush. No reply was offered. The Premier moved to add the PutiruruRotorua line of railway to clause 19, authority to construct junction railway.with same privileges. Agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to with a few amendments. The Committee then went back to clause 4, which deals with the authority to construct railway, &c., the Premier intimating that on that clause the vote might be decided. He suggested, however, that the matter be left to the Governor in Council. Mr J. G. Wilson urged that the route should be settled, and moved the insertion of the words “by the Arthur’s Pass route.” Mr Reese supported this suggestion. Mr Menteath argued that the the other route was preferable. The Minister for Public Works, who was understood to favor the Arthur’s Pass route, expressed a hope that the House would not. by a hasty conclusion entail probable difficulty in the conduct of the works. Mr Gillies also he ed that the House would leave the matter over. Mr Coster thought the best judges of the route to be adopted should be the company which undertook the work. Mr Seddon said the House, and not the Government, would be to blame if a wrong route were adopted, and therefore he held that they ought that night to declare in favor of the Arthur’s Pass. Capt. Russell considered that the House ought to fix the route, because he felt sure that they would one day be called upon to take the line over. The amendment of Mr Wilson was carried on the voices. -Lhe Premier moved a new clause to the effect that the railway to connect the East and West Coast Railway with Nelson should not cost more than a million. Agreed to. , The Bill as amended was reported, and the House rose at 1.45.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30. PETITIONS. A number of petitions were presented. WELLINGTON HARBOR BOARD LOANS CONSOLIDA-

TION AND EMPOWERING BILL. The amendments made to this Bill in the Legislative Council were agreed to, on the motion of Mr JOHNSTON.

BILL INTRODUCED. A Bill to amend the Civil List Act was introduced in committee, and read a first time, on the motion of the PREMIER. EAST AND WEST COAST (MIDDLE ISLAND) AND

NELSON RAILWAY BILL. The PREMIER moved the adoption of the amendments made in this Bill. . Mr ROLLESTON said he wished to insert a clause similar to the last clause of the District Railways Leasing and Purchasing Bill, viz., that no further railways than those authorised should be made under the same conditions. He moved the re-committal of the Bui for that purpose. The PREMIER said that it was unnecessary to have the Bill re-committed for that purpose. .The provision could -be inserted in another measure, which would be before the House in a few days. Mr BARRON hoped that if the Bill was. recommitted the committee would again consider that portion of the measure giving 50 per cent, in land on the cost of construction. A division had been taken on the amendment to substitute “ 30 per cent,” the result being, after a close division, the words on the Bill were retained. He was given to understand that

many hon. members had voted for the words in the Bill under.the impression that 30 would necessarily be inserted. Mr HOLMES gave notice that, if the LU were re-committed, he should move That the proviso to the effect that no land shall be deemed to be of less value than 10s pei acre be eX Mr tTV RICHARDSON pointed out that great difficulty would be experienced by the Government in providing the necessary amount of lan'd—in fact it would be impossible to find that land anywhere near the line. He proceeded to state that if the company took the maximum limit in good lands of fifteen miles on each side of the line, then there would be 192,000 acres of fatr bush land™ the West Coast side, at 20s-£192,000,230,4UU acras barren mountain land at 10s, L 115,200 , 49,‘JSO acres, also barren mountain land, none of it within a mile of the railway, at 10s, L 24 640 • 76,800 acres of fair pastoral high land, at 12s ’6d, L 48.000 ; making a total of 548,480 acres of, at present value, L 379,840. But under the present terms of the Act, the company are not compelled to 8 , maximum limit with regard to the different kinds of land, and assuming that they exercise their maximum right with regard land that they take the high pastoral land at five miles back and their barren mountain land one mile back, they must get as follows -!92,000 acrls barren' 3&CZ&& SSpOO 'crefof ft Government can provide near the jimi, always taking the present value, of L. 530,400. Mr SEDDON said it must be evident to the Government that if they once got the Bill in Committee, they, would have a difficulty in getting it out again. . , ~ -r,.,, Mr MENTEATH said that when the Bill was last before the House, the attendance. of members was very small, and on that occasion two very important amendments had . been thrust into the Bill —the fixing of the. minimum valuation at 10s per acre and the fixing ot the route. He should move, if the Bill were recommitted, that the words, The Arthurs Pass route ” in section 4, be struck out. He contended that the remarks of two hon.. members who had been on a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter were not in accordance with the views that commission had expressed. He strongly supported the recommittal of the Bill. , , , ~ Mr MACANDREW suggested that the House should pass the Bill at once, and allow the onus to rest on the Government.. Mr BRYCE, although disapproving of the Bill, thought it had been fairly discussed, and therefore he counselled his friends to withdraw their opposition to it. , , , . , Mr ROLLESTON then asked and obtained leave to withdraw the amendment. Sir GEORGE GREY considered that grave doubts had been raised by hon. members, and, therefore he would move that the Bill be recommitted. „ ~ Captain RUSSELL said that if the Bill were recommitted, he should like to see the words 10s, alluded to by Mr Holmes, struck out, and 20s substituted. This amendment would be that the words. “ without regard to any prospective value ” in clause 9 be struck out, and the words “with due regard” substituted. ... , Mr HOLMES replying to the last speaker, said as it was provided that the. land should, be estimated at its market value, it would be impossible to do so without regard to its prospective value. . The House divided on the motion that the Committee amendments be agreed to. Ayes, 49.—Alhvright, Atkinson, Ballance, Bradshaw, Bruce, Bryce, J. C. Buckland, Cowan, Dargaville, Duncan, Fraser, Gillies, Grigg, Guinness, Hamlin, Hobbs, Holmes, Johnston, Lake, Lance, Larnach, Levestam, Locke, Macandrew, Macarthur, J. McKenzie, McMillan, Montgomery, Newman, O’Conor, Ormond, Pearson, Pyke, E. Richardson, Ross, Russell, Samuel, Seddon, Shephard, Steward, Stewart, Stout, Sutter, T. Thompson, Thomson, Tole, Walker, White, Whyte. Noes, 15. —33arron, Brown, Buchanan, Grey, Hatch, Joyce, IMenteath, Moat, Moss, Peacock. G. F. Richardson, Rolleston, Te Ao, Trimble,’ Wakefield. . Pairs. —For : Reese, Morris, O Callaghan, Guinness, Fitzherbert, Garrick, Gore. Against: Mitchelson, M. F. Buckland, Fulton, Hirst, Wilson, Dodson, W. J. Hurst. On the question that the Bill be read a third time — . , , ~ , Mr WAKEFIELD pointed out that an important change had been made in committee without attention being drawn to it. lhat was, that the character of the railway had been changed from a trunk line to a disconnected piece of railway. This had been brought about by the fixing of the Arthur’s Pass route, which prevented the line from being a trunk railway from Nelson to the West Coast and Canterbury. He suggested that it would be a . very great error if the Brunnerton-Reefton section—about forty-two miles —were left out of the line, as it was now by the determination ot the route. Mr Wakefield pointed out in conclusion, that although he had been blamed for drawing attention to certain alleged defects in the Bill, those points had in nearly every case been met by amendments in committee. The MINISTER for PUBLIC WORKS, whose ascents barely exceeded a whisper, was understood to say that provision would be made for the line. Continuing, Mr Richardson appeared to indicate that precautions would be taken against any defect in the trunk third reading was agreed to. The Bill was then passed, Sir George Grey recording his dissent at each stage. GREYMOUTH HARBOR BOAffiD BILL. On the motion of the PREMIER, the amendments made to this Bill in committee were agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. WESTPORT HARBOR BOARD BILL. The PREMIER moved that the. amendments made to this Bill in committee be agreed to. Motion carried, and Bill read a third time and passed. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION BILL. This Bill was further considered in Committee. On clause 5, constitution of board, Mr Montgomery argued that the whole board should be nominated by the Government, and therefore opposed the clause. Dr Newman moved a clause providing that three persons shall be nominated by. the Government from time to time. He pointed out that by this provision there would be six persons on the board, Sir George Grey opposed the whole clause. Mr Moss would. like to know who was going to be t J'®, cha i(' n ? an . ? , board? The Premier: The Colonial Treasurer. ” Mr Moss : “ The Colonial Ireasurer ! I should like to know what time the Colonial Treasurer has to attend to such duties. Continuing, Mr-Moss ridiculed the idea that any Minister of the Crown could attend to the duties of permanent chairman of a board like this. The next thing would be that they would have a huge railway board,, with the Minister for Public Works as chairman. He should not be surprised at anything done this session, for the Government had apparently mesmerised the House—cast a glamor over it. ! He, however, as one who had not been mes-

merised, entered a protest against this measure, as casting duties on Cabinet Ministers which they were incapable of fulfilling. Major Atkinson supported the clause, arguing that it was very desirable that the Colonial Treasurer should be at the head of the board. He denied that the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to obtain command of the. funds, as had been stated. ' The motion to strike out sub-section 2 was lost. The words, “the Auditor and Controller-General ” were struck out on the motion of the Premier. On division, the clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 7, qualification of voters, the Premier moved the insertion of the following words : “ Every holder of a policy of full age, and insured under such policy for not less LIOO, and which has been in existence for six months.” Agreed to. Mr Seddon opposed the clause, censuring ' the Government for bringing down an important amendment such as that moved by the Premier without due notice. He should move a proviso excluding measures from the operation of the clause. Subsequently he moved that progress be reported. At this juncture, it being 5.30, the House rose. EVENING SITTING. On resuming at 7.30, the motion to report progress was carried. Progress was. accordingly reported and leave obtained to sit again. The House then rose. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. * , PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence was given to Mr Dodson for one week, on urgent private affairs. QUESTIONS. Mr STOUT, in answer to Mr Ross, said the question of introducing a tentative measure into one or more of the industrial schools was a very serious one. However, the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. Mr RICHARDSON, in answer to Mr Cowan, said that there were many serious objections against the issue of railway return tickets on other days than Sunday.. Mr TOLE, in reply to Mr Bruce, said that the Government had taken steps to provide vaccination facilities in outlying districts. Mr RICHARDSON, in reply to Mr Bruce, relative to the conveyance of mails between Masterton and Woodville, and between Palmerston and Mataura, said that the contractor’s time had been extended for another year by the late Government, and the action of their predecessors had been endorsed by the present Government. Mr TOLE, in answer to Mr Johnston, said that the late Colonial Secretary was responsible for the matter of the lowest tenders for groceries for the hospitals not having been accepted. ' The PREMIER, in reply to Mr O’Callaghan, who asked whether they would bring in a Bill this session to abolish duty on binding twine, used by farmers in working binding machines, said that the Government did not see their way to bring in such a Bill this session. However, the Government would not stretch the law to the inconvenience of farmers. The PREMIER, in answer to Mr Hobbs, said that if the members of the Legislature required permission for the Hinemoa to make an excursion trip in January next with a view to members visiting the East and West Coast of the North Island, the Government would offer no objection, providing that hon. members paid their own expenses while on board. The PREMIER, in reply to Mr Wakefield, said that the long service men of the Armed Constabulary would, as speedily as possible, be drafted into the Civil Police Force of the colony. , The PREMIER, in reply to Mr Macandrew, who asked if the Government would consider the advisability of giving a bonus for the production of the first twenty or thirty tons of fish tinned within the colony, said that he recognised the importance of the matter. He remarked, however, that the Auckland fishermen at the present time produced a very good article without any bonus being asked for. However, the Government would take the subject into consideration. The PREMIER, replying to Mr Holmes, with regard to whether the Government intended taking steps to with the Government of Victoria for a reciprocity of the Customs treaty so as to admit the local productions of either colony free of duty, said that he hoped that the question would be arranged between the Governments interested. He trusted, however, that the question of federation would not be involved by the question.

FIRST READING. The Animals Protection Act Amendment Bill was read a first time.

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION The House went into Committee upon this Bill, the debate being resumed. Clause 7 was passed without amendment. On clause 20, Mr Montgomery moved that the subsection relating to the.nondisqualifying of a member of Parliament receiving LIOO per annum for his services as a director be struck out. He considered that a member of Parliament could not attend to his duties in the General Assembly and act at the same time as a director of the association. Subsequently the amendment was withdrawn with a view to substituting the word “any,” proposed by Mr Montgomery, in the place of the word “ no.” Mr Seddon considered that the amendment would have the effect of dragging down members of the House in the eyes of the country and of the Press. The amendment meant depriving members of Parliament from earning LIOO per annum as directors of the association. For his own part, he did not think much of a man who did not value his services at more than L2OO per year. He proposed as a further amendment that the words “ not more than LIOO ” be inserted. Mr Cowan was under the impression that L2 2s was sufficient for the services of directors. The Premier did net _ think LIOO per annum was - at all exorbitant, and if members of Parliament were elected to the offices of directors, surely they should not be disqualified from serving simply because they were members of Parliament. Mr Montgomery considered that the Central Board of Directors should be paid far higher than LIOO per annum, say, L2OO per annum each, whilst the chairman should receive LIOOO per annum. Mr Secldon’s amendment was negatived, as also was Mr Montgomery’s amendment to strike out the word “no” with a view to substitute the word “ any” in the first line of the subsection, the division on the latter question being —Ayes, 39 ; noes, 21. Sir George Grey moved as a proviso to be added to clause 20 that no member of either branch of the Legislature shall be nominated by the Governor as a paid member of the Board of Directors in breach of the Qualification Act. A division was taken, resulting as follows : —Ayes, 27 ; noes, 27. The chairman gave his casting vote for the noes, thus negativing the proviso. On clause 22, Mr Moss hoped that the Colonial Treasurer would not be placed as the chairman ex officio of the board. If this clause was permitted to remain in the Bill it would have the effect of degrading the colony and the office of Colonial Treasurer. It would be far better to permit the board to elect its own chairman. The Premier could not see the objection of the hon. member

to the clause. He would point out that the Colonial Treasurer had always occupied the position of the head of the department. _ _He tru ted hon. members who occupied positions of directors in other and private companies would throw over all interested motives and do their best in the interests of the country.

The House adjourned at the usual dinner hour.

EVENING SITTING.

The Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m. ;! E.The debate on clause 22 was continued by • Sir George Grey, who considered it infinitely preferable to appoint a chairman, otherwise than the Colonial Treasurer, to the position of ; Chairman of the Board of Directors. The ■ Premier thought that it would be as well to leave the Colonial Treasurer in the position of ? chairman, inasmuch as really he was the responsible head of the department. Mr Grigg’ was of opinion that the Colonial Treasurer • should not be called upon to occupy the position of chairman of a trading institution: Sir G. Grey did not think that a Minister of the - Crown should be compelled to perform the duty of chairman of the association, and to be liable to be out-voted by his colleagues on the board. The proper position of the Colonial Treasurer - was quite outside the board, and it was monstrous that any gentleman should be degraded ■' as was sought to be done. Mr Moss pointed out that the Colonial Treasurer might be • called upon to preside at a meeting where an. investment, of which he entirely disagreed,. might be passed by the board, and for ■ this reason he considered that it was highly undesirable that the Colonial Treasurer ex officio • should be chairman of the Board. Sir George ■ Grey pointed out that the whole responsibility of the Association would be thrown upon the • Colonial Treasurer, and therefore it was not right that he should be placed in a position in which he might be called upon to exercise acts • of favoritism. Let the Colonial Treasurer sit altogether outside the board, and let every act of the board be submitted to him, and if this were done he would be enabled to act independently and unembarrassed. The Premier pointed out that the responsibility of ’ the Colonial Treasurer would not be increased by the appointment of the board, but would' rather be decreased by the appointment of the board. Mr Peacock considered that the' Colonial Treasurer was the proper person to occupy the position of chairman of the board, as he would have a proper control of the business of the association. Mr Levestam pointed out that the other members of the board would he mere creatures of the Government, and for all practical purposes they might be left out altogether from occupying seats at the board. Mr Walker expressed the opinion that the board as it was proposed to be constituted was a step in the right direction, as the Colonial Treasurer was essentially a part. of the board. Mr Hobbs failed to see why so much opposition was displayed towards the proposition. It would be far better and fairer to bring down a direct vote of want of confidence in the Goverment, than to cavil with the composition of the board. Mr Rolleston thought that as the Colonial Treasurer was to be a member of the board, it did not matter much whether he was chairman of the board or not. He had grave misgivings as to the board being appointed, but the time, had passed when objection might be made with any advantage. Mr Macandrew, to his mind, thought that the Governor himself should be the chairman of the board, and if this could not be accomplished, the board should appoint their own chairman. Dr. Newman pointed out that as the chairman of this gigantic company would have a great deal of work to do, some gentleman other than the Colonial Treasurer should be the chairman of the board. Sir George Grey remarked that the Premier persisted in the clause and the Bill because he knew that he had a majority at his back —a majorityin this House, but not in another place. (Laughter.) It was unfair to ask a Colonial Treasurer to risk his’character, as risk it he would by holding the position of chairman. Let him sit outside the board, and give his decision as to the money which would be manipulated. Ihe Premier said that the measure was mentioned in the Governor’s Speech, and therefore it had taken no hon. member by surprise- If the Colonial Treasurer were to act irresponsibly, and without the sanction of the board,, it would be to veto all acts of the board. If the hon. member who had preceded him had said that be objected to Government life assurance altogether, he could understand his objections, but his speeches that evening had been- full of inconsistencies. Major Atkinson was-desiro„us or conferring the highest dignity upon the board which could possibly be conferred upon it,, and for that reason he thought that the chairman of the board should be the Coloma-i 'Pi-easurer. He did not look upon- tne-associa-tion purelv as a large trading association.. TheBill provided for a deputy chairman in the absence of the chairman. He would: point outthat at the present time the- Colonial Treasurer was the member of tlie 1 üblic Trust Board which laid out large sums of money 1 , and he had never yet . heard of any public scandal in connection with that trust.. Personally, he should like to see.the- Governor chairman of the board, and failing that, hethought that one of Her Majesty’s advisers should occupy the position. The clause was 1 - agreed to on the voices. On clause 24, an amendment was agreed to, making the rive instead of three directors. Clauses 25 1 to _9-‘ were agreed to without amendment. On. clause--30, anamendment was made by striking out the subsection dealing with giving the right to officers under the repealed Acts on retiring: to all remuneration under those Acts, the Premier substituting another subsection defining: the matter more definitely, which. was agreed to. On clauses 33, &c., dealing with the constitution of local boards, Major Atkmsors considered that it would be advisable if these boards were nominative instead of electiveHe moved an amendment to that effect. It® amendment was lost. Mr Thompson moved the insertion of a new subsection, giving all policy holders of the age of 21 years tlie power to vote for the election of local directors, lhe amendment was carried on the voices, and the clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 35, dealing with the foreign agencies, Air Levestam moved that the words United Kingdom ” be struck out.. Mr Barron hoped that the four clauses dealing with the foreign agencies would be struck out. Major Atkinson would vote against the clauses, although he would do so with great regret. He did not think that the time had arrived for doing business in other countries. The amendment was lost, and the clause was passed as printed. The Bill with amendments was reported and the amendments were ordered to be considered on the following day PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AGENCY COMPANI S BILL. This Bill was received from. the Legislative Council with amendments, which were agreed to. OTAGO HARBOR BOARD BILL. A message was received from tlie Legislative Council announcing that the Council had passed the Bill with amendments. The amendments, as proposed by the Council, were agreed to. PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The House went into committee upon this Bill. On clause 4, ’ dealing with plantations, a proviso, proposed by the Minister for Public Works, was inserted, and the clause as amended

was agreed to. A number of verbal and unimportant amendments in several clauses were agreed to. Clause IS, relating to the licensing of unused roads by the local authorities, was, after a warm discussion, struck out. Clauses 21 and 22 were struck out, and the Bill was .reported with amendments. The House adjourned at 2.15.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m, LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Reave of absence was given to Mr G-ore for fourteen days, to Captain Morris for seven •days, and to Mr Hirst (Riverton) on account of illness.

QUESTIONS. The PREMIER, in answer to Mr Smith, ■who inquired if a sum would be placed upon the Supplementary Estimates so as to give a small increase to the salaries of country telegraphists and postmasters whose hours of duty had been increased by the lately issued regula•lations, by which these offices are kept °P® n from 7 p.m. to S p.m., said that there would be a small sum allowed in some cases, but where two or more officers were employed in an office no allowance would be mad®. . The MINISTER for PUBLIC WORKS, in reply to Mr J. B. Whyte, said that there was a, rule in the Railway Department by which officials should not be employed over a certain age on the Government railways. So far as "laborers were concerned no such rule applied, ■the department being anxious to engage the youngest and most able men. The PREMIER, in reply to Mr Duncan, ■who desired to ascertain if the Government would place a sum on the Estimates to recoup The Kurow deferred payment settlers the amount levied as a railway tax for the DunTroon Railway, replied that no doubt the 'settlers referred io had suffered hardship, but he thought the Colonial Treasurer’s motion tabled for Eriday next would give the settlers •relief. „ The MINISTER for JUSTICE, replying to Mr Rolleston, who asked whether there were any memoranda showing reasons which influenced the late Colonial Secretary in accepting the tender for the supply of hospital groceries in Wellington for the current year, read some memoranda on the subject, being correspondence which passed between the medical officer in charge (Dr. McKellar) and Mr Dick. The lowest tenderer had never supplied the hospital before that time, and therefore he (Minister for Justice) did not see why for that reason his tender should not have been accepted. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE ASSOCIATION BILL. The PREMIER said that he had studied the amendments proposed in the Bill, and. he moved that they be agreed to. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. PUBLIC WORKS AMENDMENT BILL. The MINISTER for PUBLIC WORKS 'moved that the amendments be agreed to. The Bill was read a third time and passed. DESTITUTE PERSONS AMENDMENT BILL. The MINISTER for JUSTICE moved the second reading of this Bill, which provided that where an information was laid against a husband for deserting his wife, the consent of the wife must be first obtained. The motion was agreed to, and the committal was made an order of the day for Friday next. WEST COAST SETTLEMENTS RESERVES AMENDMENT BILL. The NATIVE MINISTER moved the ■second reading of this Bill, which was agreed to.; the committal being made an order of the day for Friday next. . DRAINAGE OE MINES BILL. The House went into Committee upon this Bill, which was reported with amendments. The Bill was read a third time and passed. WAIKATO CONFISCATED LANDS BILL. The House went into Committee on this Bill, which was reported with an amendment. 'The Bill was read a third time and passed. SUPREME COURT REGISTRAR (TARANAKI) EMPOWERING BILL. This Bill was committed, and reported with ; an amendment. The Bill was read a third rtime and passed. LIFE ASSURANCE POLICIES BILL. The PREMIER moved the second reading of this Bill, which, he remarked, dealt with -other companies besides the Government company. The Bill provided for the protection of policies to a still further extent than was provided for in the present Act. This provision tended to still further encourage thrift. He did not think that there was any need to enlarge further upon the Bill, which hon. members were no doubt fully acquainted with. Mr D. STUART referred to the 32nd clause, relating to the protection of policies. He thought that people insuring their lives should not be left in the slightest doubt .as to the provision they were making for their widows and ■children. . The secoud reading was agreed to, and its •committal was made an order of the day for Friday next. WESTLAND EDUCATION DISTRICT BILL. The PREMIER moved the second reading of this Bill, which was agreed to. After discussion, the motion was agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be committed for Friday next. FIRST READING. The Cruelty to Animals Bill, received from the Legislative Council, was read a first time, and its second reading was made an order for the next day of sitting. POLICE OFFENCES BILL. This Bill was further considered in committee. On clause 13, prohibiting Sunday trading, and providing penalties for the same, an amendment was proposed to strike out the words “or any play or pastime.” Mr Seddon objected to the clause, which prevented people from xilaying cricket on a Sunday. The clause was so ridiculous and stringent that he trusted it would not be permitted to.pass. A gardener could not, after a shower of rain, plant cabbages on the Sabbath, neither could a miner, after a long drought, look after his drains on a Sunday. He hoped that the clause would be expunged. Mr McKenzie viewed the rest of the Sabbath as the birthright of every man, but he objected that persons who were engaged in sedentary employment should be debarred from enjoying themselves on a Sunday. Different persons had different modes of resting themselves on a Sunday, and it would be arbitrary to deprive such of resting themselves as they thought fit on the first day of the week. He oDjected to the clause altogether. The Premier hoped the House would not divide on the clause, but would proceed with the Bill, so that it might pass this session. Major Steward, as a further amendment, moved that after the words “works at his trade or calling ” the following words be inserted, “for wages, pay, or any pecuniary remuneration.” Mr Samuel would like to inquire if the profession of a.clerygman would debar him from drawing his stipend. Mr Levestam would go further, and prohibit Parliament from sitting on Sundays. He remembered occasions on which that House had sat on the Sabbath. The committee adjourned at 5.30. EVENING SITTING. The Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m., when progress was reported, leave be ng given to sit presently. >

NORTH ISLAND TRUNK RAILWAY. The report of the committee on this scheme was taken into consideration. The MINISTER for PUBLIC WORKS on rising, said before he sat down he intended to move that the central route be adopted, subject to deviations in detail during construction. The hon. gentleman, who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that in the year 1832, and since that time, details had been obtained as to the three trunk routes, which had led the committee to frame their report. One point which the committee had to keep in view was to recommend as direct a line as possible. Another question the committee had to consider was the best route by which the settlement of the country might be attained. He believed that the House would agree with the committee that the recommendation of the committee to adopt the central line had been arrived at justly, and in accordance with the evidence taken by the committee. The Napier route the committee considered did not possess the essential points which were required for a trunk line. (Sir George Grey: “We can’t hear.”) 'the Stratford line, however, did possess several elements which should be taken into consideration when fixing upon a central trunk line. He therefore believed that the central line was really the best line for Parliament to adopt. The Stratford route presented. a series of difficulties from an engineering point of view ; the gradients were comparatively heavy, being at different points 1 in 30, 1 in 40, and 1 in 45, besides which, the curves were very abrupt and sharp. The rate of speed from Stratford for a very long distance could not be more than 12 miles per hour, and the cost would be L 979,000. Taking the central route, there was no doubt that the lire starting from Mai ton could be materially shortened, while it would be found that the curves would be much less than by the Stratford route. Should the House agree to the central route, there was no reason why communication between Auckland and Wellington should not be established within a period of three years. The. cost of this route, judging from the data furnished to the committee, would be a little short of L 1,300,000. Should the central route be adopted, there was ample evidence to show that there was any quantity of forests along the line from which the timber required in its construction could be obtained at a comparatively small cost. In addition to this, the evidence afforded to the committee showed that the Government either possessed, or could acquire, lands on either side of the central line. For the reasons he had adduced he desired to express his conviction that the central route would prove the best and most practical line of the three lines which had been mentioned. Mr MONTGOMERY, as one of the committee, could say that the committee had gone into the question with the single idea of doing whatwas bestfor thecountry. From Martonfor several miles the country was fairly settled, while beyond this distance there was good land for settlement. From thence Mr Marshall stated that the country was good, but the evidence on this point was somewhat conflicting. Mr Smith agreed with Mr Marshall, who said that the land was good though somewhat broken, but it would cost L 4 per acre to clear. He desired, however, to call the attention of the House to the evidence of Captain Northcroft and Mr Cousins, who said that for seventy miles beyond Mokau the land was poor, and but for its timber was of little use for settlement. Mr Cousins said that the timber was good, but it should be recollected that the timber would have to be brought to. Wellington, a distance of 2SO miles. Coming to the Stratford line, Major Pallis stated that for forty miles from Stratford the land was magnificent, but beyond the land was poor and broken. The wescern routewould cost nearly L 1,000,000, while the central line would cost L 1,300.000. He had to take into consideration which would be the best line for the country. The passenger traffic between Auckland and Wellington -would be very small, and therefore they should consider the question of the people en route who would feed the line. On the western route they had a large area of rich land which was settled, and for which the settlers had paid a large sum. It should be borne in mind that the Taranaki line had always been agreed upon. The district was a rich one, and had been settled on the understanding that a railway should be constructed. He did not consider the question of whether either line would benefit Auckland or Wellington, but lie had in his mind which line would benefit the country, and for this reason he favored the Stratford line. But altogether apart from this, he should like to see the country, so far as the land beyond Mokau was concerned, afforded railway accommodation. Dr. NEWMAN accepted the proposition that the great centres of imputation should be brought into connection. With regard to the Stratford line, he would point out that at the present time the West Coast, or the Taranaki province, was well supplied either with railways or good ports, and as a well provided district. so far as communication and carrying accommodation was concerned, it would compare favorably with any district in either the North or Middle Island. The central route was incomparably the better of the two, for not only was it thoroughly well timbered, but the land was with some comparatively speaking trifling exceptions, exceedingly fertile, the exception being some twenty miles of pumice country, and even this, unless it was very close, was good land. He would point out that the evidence before the committee showed that 1,500,000 acres of land would be opened if the central route was adopted. Some of the land on the Stratford line was wretchedly poor, while the inhabitants of the whole of the Taranaki province amounted only to 16,700 souls. He desired to point out that the central route was actually thirty-four miles less than by the Stratford line, and the time occupied in the journey between Auckland and Wellington would he five hours shorter by the central line than by the Stratford line. The best test that the central route was the better of the two was evidenced by the fact that the natives up the Wanganui grew tobacco, which was a convincing proof that the land was exceedingly fertile. But altogether apart from this, the central line, if adopted, would do away with the native difficulty, and thereby a saving would be effected of L 70,000 per annum in doing away with the Armed Constabulary. Eor all these reasons he hoped the House would adopt the central route.

Mr F. C. BUCKLAND accused the hon. member for Thorndon of being ignorant of what he professed to understand, or else he had purposely mislead the House in his assertion. He should support the Stratford line, as he believed it would prove of the greatest advantage to the colony. It was not a “ battle of the routes,” but a battle as to where the Taranaki trade should go. He certainly considered that the Stratford line had not received the consideration it deserved ; the sympathy of the majority of the committee had all been in favor of Marton. He believed that if an impartial opinion were obtained if would be in avor of the Stratford route. To adopt the central line they would go round the native difficulty, as the Maoris were generally to be found on the sea coast. He also believed that more coal would be obtained on the Stratford line, and that a more fertile tract of country would be developed if the House decided upou

• the Stratford route, and the revenue of the | country would be benefited thereby. Mr FERGUS had voted as he had done on the committee from pure conviction. So far as a mere question of what the trunk line iiould cost, and also the distance traversed, he considered that the Stratford line should be adopted, and also if the interests of the people of Hawera, Taranaki, and Auckland were to be separately considered, then of course the Stratford route should be adopted. But these were not the questions to be considered. The subject was undoubtedly a national one, and should be looked upon from this standpoint. It had been given in evidence that the bridges on the central route would cost only L 25 000. Evidence had not been so conclusive as to the cost of bridges on the other line, but he believed that the outlay would be very much more. Then, again, a very large tract of oood country would be opened up by the central line The evidence adduced had shown that the native difficulty would be done away with by either route. Taking all things into consideration, he should vote for the central line, as he believed that a much larger area of fertile country would be opened up by the Marton line than by the other and he said this as he felt assured that if the other line were adopted there would ere long be a bowl of indignation from both north and south and from one end of the colony to the other, including the Auckland and the Wellington merchants and citizens. Mr PEACOCK thought that the quantity of bad land on either route was about equal. The hon. gentleman drew a comparison between the engineering difficulties of the two routes, and pointed out that the chief dirnculties of the Stratford line had been overcome nlrp-idv bv the portion of the line which had already been constructed. He thought that the construction of a line should be decided on a broad commercial basis-which line would the soonest pay a dividend. He should vote for the Stratford. , Sir GEORGE GREY rose to propose an amendment—viz., to strike _ out the word “central” with a view to insert the word “ Stratford.” Wellington had been favored by the extension of enormous concessions in regard to the Manawatu Railway, which some people designated asa “big job,’’and Wellington would also be brought into communication with Napier, and thus two great streams of commerce would be poured into Wellington. He did not object to this, nor did he envy Wellington her good future ; but lie did object that Taranaki should be cut off from communication with Auckland, and he did object that Auckland should be isolated to the advantage of Wellington. The settlers of New Plymouth had by Parliament been promised a line to Auckland, and therefore they should not be defrauded of their rights. In other countries it was a common thing that a railway line should be constructed which would pay, and the Auckland people believed that the Stratford line would pay ; and, therefore on the grounds he had mentioned, he thought that the Stratford line should be constructed. It hid been stated that the amount required for the construction of the central line would cost L 1,500,000, but he believed that it would cost far more than this. Then, a"ain, he firmly believed that a far larger area of good country would be opened up if the Stratford line were decided upon. He considered that the Stratford route would cost L 400,000 less than the Marton line, and this amount might be utilised in other directions, and if a cross line were built with this money they would have a network of railways throughout the North Island, and Wellington, Auckland, Taranaki, and Napier would each of them have a full shaie of the commerce of the country. Major ATKINSON rose to speak under several disadvantages—disadvantages arising from his connection with New Plymouth, and also from his disagreement with the report of the committee. However, he desired to say that he had so far as in him lay put aside those views, and desired to look upon the subject merely from the standpoint of a colonist. He certainly admitted that a strong argument had been advanced in favor of the central route. He would not decry either route, as lie believed that both were good ones, and both before long would have to be made. The land* on either line was equally good, and the difference in the cost of both routes was not very great, though certainly the balance was in favor of the Stratford, and this being so, he asked why, in the present state of the finances of the colony, should they spend some L 300,000 more than was warranted merely to benefit a future generation. They had themselves to look to first. Then again, he would ask where were the people to be found who would support the central line. They would have plenty of people doubtless on the central line presently, but at present they bad no settlers on that line, whereas now, at the present time, they had some 30,000 or 40,000 people who were settled on the Stratford route—people who had borne the heat and burden of the day, and who were for that reason entitled to consideration. Then, in addition, it should be recollected that there was quite as much good land to be opened out by the Stratford line as there was to be opened up on the central line. He would ask the House where did they expect to get those passengers from on the central line for a very long time to come ; certainly they could not expect to attract commercial travellers. (Laughter.) It was acknowledged that the line constructed up to New Plymouth was not a particularly paying one, and for that reason the State desired to obtain more passengers in order that it should pay, but would this be accomplished by constructing the central route ? Much had been said of sharp curves and steep gradients, but it should be remembered that these sharp curves and steep gradients were already in existence, and therefore that objection did not stand good. The House and the country were anxious that the public expenditure should not be more than was possible, and therefore he would ask how the Government would be justified in expending a sum of L 300.000 more on a line when that amount could be saved by adopting the Stratford route. Certainly the people of New Plymouth had a right to expect that they should be afforded communication with Auckland, which was their natural market—natural because they could deal with Auckland on much more favorable terms than they could with Wellington, and also because the New Plymouth people had been promised a railway, and the third reason why the Stratford line should be constructed was because a targe number of people would be cut off if the other route was adopted. He had troubled the House at some length, but lie had done so purely on broad colonial lines. The PREMIER said that the Government had never sanctioned a line to Auckland via Stratford, but what Parliament had sanctioned was a trunk line to Auckland. And so with the Government, who, in the Governor’s Speech, had said that they would recommend that a trunk line should be surveyed, without mentioning any particular route. He would ask tiie lion, member for Egmont why, if he thought the Stratford the best, liis Government had decided to survey the central line. Personally he (the Premier) had no feeling in the choice of the routes, for he knew neither of them, but he maintained that the route to be adopted should be the one which was the shortest, the

easiest @f construction, and the one which connected the channels of population and the opening up of the land. It had been proved by the evidence that the central route was both the easiest of construction and possessed the fewest steep curves and the less steep gradients, for it was admitted that after the line left Stratford the difficulties as it proceeded into the interior were greater than ' they were on that portion of the line which was already constructed. When they came to the question of country settled he frankly confessed that Stratford possessed the advantage over the central route. The district of Taranaki had had more aid extended to it by railways, aid -to its harbors, &c., than any ether district of its size and population in the colony, and therefore it did not come with good grace from Taranaki to insist that they should have the main trunk line through their province. Much had been said of the extra sum of L30Q.000 in the construction of the central line, but he would point out that there would be a saving of tliirty-four miles by adopting the central line, and this would, as a matter of course, make the haulage much less. And, again, they should consider that they were making a line for future generations. For these reasons he thought that no one in his sane mind would vote for the Stratford line as against the central route. _ Mr HOBBS pointed out that if the central line was adopted, it would be a direct breach of faith, as the Taranaki line was surveyed and constructed as the main trunk line. It sounded very well to hear that the trunk line should go through the middle of the island, but he would ask what would the people on the West Coast say if their promises were not acceded to. Wellington was very well provided for by the East and West Coast, and it was selfish of them to insist upon the central route. He warned the House that the claims of Taranaki and Auckland would not be ignored by the people of New Zealand. Mr HIJESTHOUSE traversed the speech of the hon. member for Thorndon. He (Mr Hursthouse) did not see why the colony should be called upon to construct a line of railway exclusively for tourists, which argument was a great factor in the hon memberfor Thorndon’s speech as against the Stratford route. With regard to the assertion that a good timber trade would be opened up in miri, he would say that miri was no good for either building or for wharf construction purposes, and therefore the notion that a targe trade would grow up with the seaboard was absolutely fallacious. The market for the up-country districts was neither Hawera nor New Plymouth—it was London, and therefore the question as to which town or district should be specially benefited by the rival routes should not weigh with the House, but should be regarded from a broad colonial point of view. He considered that both of the projected lines were premature at present, and neither of them should be constructed just now, and he founded this opinion upon the fact that the Government had taken no steps to acquire the land which was in the hands of the natives. The principal lands on either line was dense bush and scrub, and he ventured to prophecy that if Parliament authorised the construction of either of these routes, or of the Middle Island line, or of the Nelson and the West Coast line, within two years’ time they would he sorry for it. Looking at the two lines, however, he favored the central route, as lie looked upon it as a question of public policy, and the mere matter of an extra expenditure of L 300,000 was neither here nor there, He firmly believed that if the Marton line were adopted the commercial interests of Taranaki would not be so detrimetrically affected as they now supposed, for the people of Hawera and Taranaki would ere long find that it would be to their advantage not to confine their output to Auckland, but to go into a more extensive market, viz., that of the world.

Mr JOYCE thought that the House should accept the report of the Committee of the House. It was an engineering maxim that a direct line should he adopted, even if they had to box-e through two or three tunnels. He did not think that the Taranaki people would suffer or gain much, whether they got a railway or not. They soon would have a magnificent breakwater, and about their port there was a splendid harbor —viz., Kawhia, which was a better harbor than Port Chalmers, from which frozen meat would, before a very distant day, be shipped Home. Mr J. U. BUCKLAND and Mr BRUCE intimated that they would give a lukewarm support to the central line. Mr SMITH pointed out that the House had completely ignored the Napier line. Mr BROWN, seeing that the report had virtually ignored the Napier route, would vote for the central line. Mr SAMUEL moved the adjournment of the debate. Captain RUSSELL seconded the motion, but suggested that the debate should be adjourned to that day six months. He felt assured that directly the New Plymouth breakwater was finished the trade with Auckland would be gone, for as a matter of fact they had little but fungus to export. , On the question for the adjournment of tne debate to Friday next, at 2.30, Captain RUSSELL moved, as an amendment, that the debate be adjourned to that day six months. , , Mr GRIGG opposed both lines, as the colony in its present condition could not afford the expenditure. Mr MOSS did not care which line was adopted, so far as he as an Auckland member was concerned. It did not matter whether Auckland was placed in communication with Taranaki or Napier, for, as a matter of fact, that city would like to be connected with both places. Auckland was a large manufacturing city, and therefore depending as they did upon trade, commerce, and manufactures, they could not afford to produce breadstuff's, meat, &c., and consequently it was no wonder that tlie people of the east and west desired to be placed in communication with Auckland. The central route would not benefit Auckland, and therefore he should like to see the Stratford line constructed. . A division was taken upon the question that the debate be adjourned to Friday at 2.30, resulting as follows : —Ayes, 51; noes, q. . The debate was adjourned to 2.00 on finday next. . The House adjourned at 1 o clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16. The Speaker read prayers at half-past 2. STRANGERS IN THE HOUSE !

The Hon. Mr NURSE rose to give notice to ask the Government, “By what right ” The COLONIAL SECRETARY at once called attention to the presence of strangers, expressing his regret that he should be compelled to adopt such a course. Strangers, including reporters, were immediately requested to retire, and the doors were kept locked till ten minutes past 3, when the Council was found to be in Committee on the PERPETUAL TRUSTEES, ESTATE, AND AGENCY COMPANY BILL. This Bill was further considered in Committee.

Several amendments were made, and the Bill was reported, the third reading being made an order of the day for a future sitting. TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, AND AGENCY COMPANY BILL. The Hon. Mr McLEAN moved that the report of the Committee regarding the amendments made in this Bill be agreed to. The debate was adjourned. FOREIGN COMPANIES BILL. On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRETARY, the amendments made in Committee in this Bill were agreed to. SLAUGHTERHOUSES AMENDMENT BILL. Tliis Bill was committed, and underwent a slight amendment. The third reading was made an order of the day for next day. WELLINGTON HARBOR BOARD LOANS CONSOLIDATION AND EMPOWERING BILL. This Bill was committed without discussion. In clause 6, Hon. Dr POLLEN moved the additional following proviso : —“ Provided always that ail money to be so paid to the said corporation shall be applied to the reduction of the municipal debt, and not otherwise, as provided by clause 2 of the Wellington Queen’s Wharf and Store Sales Act, ISSL”' The COLONIAL SECRETARY pointed out that such a provision was already in the statute of ISSI, and there was no necessity to repeat it. The amendment was agreed to on the Hon. Dr POLLEN moved that clause 10 be struck out. The clause authorised the board to construct a graving dock. The Committee divided, resulting in the clause being retained, by 18 to 12. The Bill was reported with amendments, and the third reading was made an order for the following day. The Council adjourned at 5 o’clock till 7.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. The Council resumed at 7.30. OTAGO HARBOR BOARD LOANS CONSOLIDATION BILL. The Hon. Mr McLEAN, in a short speech, moved the second reading of this Bill. The Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE criticised the Bill adversely, and while not prepared at that moment to say that he would vote against the motion it was certainly his intention to move various important amendments in committee. The Hon. Mr LAHMANN, as a member of the committee by whom the Bill had been considered, expressed a hope that the Council would agree to its second reading. The Hon. Mr REYNOLDS contended that the Council would be doing an act of injustice to the people of Dunedin if they did not agree to the motion. The Hon. Mr ROBINSON thought the Bill required very material alteration in committee. The Hon. Mr OLIVER spoke warmly in support of the measure. After further debate, the motion was agreed to on the voices. DUNEDIN LEASING POWERS BILL. The Hon. Mr OLIVER moved the second reading of this Bill. Agreed to. . OTAGO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BOARD OF PROPERTY BILL. This Bill was considered in committee, and reported without amendment. RELIGIOUS AND OTHER TRUST BOARDS INCORPORATION BILL. This Bill was, on the motion of the Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE, read a third time and passed. CODLIN MOTH BILL. The Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE introduced the Codlin Moth Bill, which was read a first time. The Council rose at 9.35. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On the motion of the Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE, leave of absence was granted to the Hon. Mr Peacock, on the ground of domestic affliction. PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AND AGENCY COMPANY BILL. The Hon. Mr MILLER moved the third reading of this Bill. The Hon. Captain FRASER protested against the introduction of a clause of a general character into a Bill of this kind. The Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE moved the adjournment of the debate. The debate was adjourned till Tuesday. LICE IN SHEEP. In reply to the Hon. Mr Wigley, who asked if the Government would take steps to prevent the spread of lice in sheep in South Canterbury, the COLONIAL SECRETARY said it was his intention to introduce a Bill with that object next week. AWANUI MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Replying to the Hon. Sir George Whitmore, the COLONIAL SECRETARY. said the question of providing for quarterly instead of half-yearly sittings of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Awanui, East Coast, was one of expense, and if the expense was not very great, the change would be favorably entertained. EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES COMPANIES. The Hon. Mr WILSON introduced a Bill to declare the liabilities of shareholders in companies carrying on business as executors and trustees and for other purposes, and the Bill was read a first time. AMENDMENTS TO BILLS. The Hon. Mr BARNICOAT moved that the Committee on standing orders be requested to consider tlie expediency of requiring that all amendments to Bills appear on the notice paper before being proposed in committee of the whole Council. After debate, the motion was withdrawn. WEST HARBOR LOAN BILL. This Bill was read a first time, and referred to the Local Bills Committee C. THAMES RECREATION RESERVES SALES BILE. This Bill was received from the House, of Representatives. and read a first time, being referred to the Local Bills Committee A. WANGANUI HARBOR BOARD BILL. The first reading of this Bill was agreed to, and the Bill was referred to the Local Buis Committee B, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. The Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE moved the second reading of the Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill. He said a measure of a somewhat similar character was before the other branch of the Legislature, but owing to the late period of the session, it was thought that the Bill would have a better chance of getting through this year if introduced into the Council, and sent on to the Lower House. Bill read a second time. SLAUGHTERHOUSES AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. WELLINGTON HARBOR BOARD BILL. On the motion of the COLONIAL SECRETARY the Wellington Harbor Board Loans Consolidation and Empowering Bill was read a third time without discussion and passed. 1 OTAGO HARBOR BOARD BILL. The Hon. Mr McLEAN moved the committal of the Otago Harbor Board Loans Consolidation Bill, which was agreed to, and the whole of the clauses were passed, after which tlie Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE moved, that progress be reported, with a view to the insertion of a new clause providing for the levying

of a rate. After considerable discussion the Bill was reported with amendments. OTAGO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BOARD OF PROPERTY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. workmen's wages bill. . The Council went into committee on this Bill. Progress was reported at clause z. IMPREST SUPPLY BILL, NO. 4. The Standing Orders being suspended, this Bill was passed through all its stages. SVBBATH EXCURSIONS FOR LEGISLATORS. The Hon. the Sneaker laid on the table a communication received from the Premier, relative to a pjrotest on the part of certain Christchurch ministers of religion against members going Sabbathexcursions. The Hon. Dr GRACE moved the adjournment of the Council to comment on the unnrecedented course adopted by the ministers in question. He pointed out that_ the usual course was to approach Parliament by petition, and he pointed out the danger of a P Tl““Hon U ‘ I Sh-“GEOKGE WHITMORE “Th, d M? WATERHOUSE did not think that it was the Parliament that deserved to be lectured, but the Legislature had no reason whatever to complain of the action ot th Tlm f Horn' Dr POLLEN thought the Government ought to have received their corrections quietly without including the Legisla ture in the censure. , The COLONIAL SECRETARY defended the Government in the action which had been ta The Hon. the SPEAKER did pot think any harm had been done to the dignity of the Council, though the matter was an innovation. The matter then dropped. The Council adjourned at 5 p.m. till the usual hour on Monday. MONDAY, OCTOBER 20. The Speaker took his seat at 2.30 p.m. NEW BILLS. The following Bills were read a first time : An Act to Amend the Animals Protection ct, ISBO, Hon. Colonial Secretary ;an Act to provide for the Eradication of Lice in Sheep, The second reading of the Hills were made orders of the day for the following day of sitting. SHEEP AND RABBIT ACTS. Hon. Mr G. R. JOHNSON moved, That the report of the Committee on the Sheep and Rabbit Acts, together with the evidence taken by it, he printed. Agreed to. DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. The Hon. COLONIAL SECRETARY in moving the second reading of the Bill, remarked that it had come to his knowledge that several gentlemen cf the Council, who in former years had supported a Bill of a similar character in that Chamber, had intimated their intention of opposing the present

Bill. Hon. members had supported similar Bills in former sessions, and therefore he was surprised that any objection should be made to the present Bill, which really was framed to lighten the burden of the taxpayer. The object of the Bill, in addition to this, was to acquire the lease of certain private lines, and how it was that any opposition should be displayed by hon. members at the present time who had supported the previous Bill, he failed to see. However, as he most probably would have to answer the objections of hon, members, he should reserve further remarks to a future period. „ , Hon. Sir G. WHITMORE regretted that he would be compelled to vote against the motion for the second reading of the Bill. In 1879 the country was nauseated by the proposition of a number of railway lines being introduced into Parliament, and when the Legislalature decided that these lines should not be constructed by the State, the promoters decided to construct them themselves. He, as a member of the Government of 1879, had opposed the Bill, and he intended to oppose the present Bill on the same grounds as he opposed the Bill introduced five years since. Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE moved that the Bill be read that day six months. He took this course principally because it was virtually a money Bill, and as it was not in the power of the Council to amend a money Bill, it being imperative upon the Upper House either to accept the Bill as a whole or to reject it as a whole, he had determined to adopt the only course which lay in his power, viz., to propose the amendment he had proposed. He objected to the proposal that all the railways scheduled in the Bill should be treated alike, irrespective as to whether thev paid their working expenses or not, not the slightest regard being made as to whether the lines paid_ or not. Was the Ashburton line, which paid 3J per cent, interest on the capital, to be placed on precisely the same footing as, for instance, the Ayaimate Railway, which did not pay its working expenses ? The idea was absurd, and_ altogether opposed to common sense, and, this being so, he thought that the Council had no option but to reject the Bill, which to all intents and purposes was a money Bill. The hon. gentleman, at considerable length, gave his reasons for tabling his motion against the second reading, not the least of these being that some of the companies mentioned in the Bill had exceeded in the construction of their lines more than their original capital. He did not think that it was fair to place all these railway lines on the same footing, and as the Council could not amend the Bill, he asked hon. members to pause ere they passed it. Hon. Mr OLIVER opposed the Bill, and urged that the proper way was to deal with each railway on its individual merits. The hon. gentleman also objected to the mode of purchase, as proposed in the Bill. The hon. gentleman drew a comparison as to the cost of the several lines mentioned in the Bill, his inference being that some of the lines were not worth anything, hut had been merely constructed in order to enhance the value of private estates —in fact, some of these lines were nothing, in his opinion, more than land jobbers’ railways. He thought that before the Bill was proceeded with further the directors of these railways should set a price upon their respective pronerties, and if it were shown to the Legislature that the State was purchasing a good property, or, at any rate, a property which eventually would be to the advantage of the country to purchase, he, for, ° ne ) would vote for the acquisition of it by the Government. But he objected to any_ threats of bribery or cajolery being held out in order that a vote in favor of the Bill might be obtained. Eor himself, no such threat, so far as he was concerned as being an interested party in any other private Bill before the Council, -would have any effect. Hon. ‘Mr LAHMANN : Name, name. Captain ERASER trusted that the Hon. Mr Oliver would give the Council the name ot the company referred to. Hon. Mr MILLER would relieve the Hon. Mr Oliver by stating that he believed the company referred to as likely to block the way was the Westport Coal Company. Ho objected strongly to any hon. members of the Council being subjected to any such thraldom and coercion. Hon. Mr REYNOLDS, having listened with astonishment to the charges of bribery which had been brought against the Government, moved the adjournment of the debate.

He took this course, as he considered that the matter should not he allowed to proceed further until it had been fullv investigated. Hon. Captain ERASER seconded the motion. Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE trusted that the debate would be proceeded with. Hon. Mr ROBINSON, considering that the Hon. Mr Reynolds had misunderstood the remarks of the Hon. Mr Oliver, and believing that it would be far better that the debate should be continued while the matter was warm, trusted the debate would not be adjourned. A ffpr Hon. Mr CAMPBELL remarked that, feeling that he was an interested member of the Council in one of the lines mentioned, and being desirous to make a reply to the Hon. Mr Waterhouse and to the Hon. Mr Oliver, he trusted that the motion for the adjournment would be agreed to. . __ The Hon. COLONIAL SECRETARY hoped that in all fairness to the Government, and as a personal favor to himself, the motion for an adj ournment of the debate would be agreed to. The SPEAKER, in ruling the point of the Hon. Mr Waterhouse with respect to the Bill being a money Bill, said that he had no hesitation in stating that the Bill was a money Bill. The side-notes showed this to be so, and, in addition, payments had been made from the consolidated revenue to some of the companies mentioned in the Bill. The motion for the adjournment of the debate resulted as follows : —Ayes, 13 ; noes, 18. Hon. Mr McLEAN continued the debate, and in doing so remarked that in his opinion the Waimea line would, ere long, have to he taken over by the Government, and the same remark applied to the Rotorua line to the Hot Springs, both of which railways would prove sources of profit to the State. He should have liked to have seen each company set down the value of their individual line with a view to arbitration, based on the value of each line. He should oppose the Bill. Hon. Mr CHAMBERLIN also expressed his intention to oppose the Bill. Hon. Dr POLLEN intimated his intention of supporting the Bill. His reason for adopting this course was on account of his having always entertained the impression that •the Government must eventually come in and purchase all these fragmentary lines. Hon. Mr ACLAND objected to the fifth clause as being decidedly the most objectionable of any in the Bill, and as the Council would be unable to alter it in detail, it being a money Bill, he should oppose the second reading. , Hon. Mr CAMPBELL spoke in support of the Bill. The Council adjourned for dinner. EVENING SITTING. On the Council resuming, THE EAST AND WEST COAST RAILWAY BILL was received from the House of Representatives, and was read a first time. THE DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. The debate on this Bill was resumed by the Hon. COLONIAL SECRETARY, who desired to make an explanation. Since the adjournment, he had consulted both with the Premier and also with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, both of whom had given it as their opinion that the Bill was not a money Bill, nor was it so treated in that light in the House of Representatives. The Government was quite prepared to make certain alterations in the Bill when it went into Committee. , , . Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE expressed his astonishment at the statement just made by the Hon. the Colonial Secretary. It appeared to him that if ever there was a money Bill, it was the Bill under discussion. Hon. Mr MANTELL thought that if the Speaker of the Council desired to obtain confirmation of his ruling, he might consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. So far as he could see the Council had no other alternative but to accept the ruling of the Speaker. Hon. Mr REYNOLDS thought there was some misconception. The Colonial Secretary did not impugn the Speaker’s ruling, but he had merely pointed out the manner in which the Bill had been treated in another place. Hon. Mr OLIVER moved the adjournment of the Council, with a view to enable the debate to be continued in order. Hon. Dr GRACE considered that the Council should be guided by the ruling of their Speaker, and by him alone. . . , , Hon. Dr POLLEN was of the opinion that the question as to whether the Bill was a money Bill or not did not really affect the question as to whether the Bill should be read a second time or not. Hon. Sir G. WHITMORE said that the Speaker was their sole authority, and for that reason he considered that the Council should proceed to business.

Hon. Mr REYNOLDS would support the motion for the adjournment, as he considered it well that time should be given to consider the point raised. . Hon. Mr OLIVER asked leave to withdraw his motion for the adjournment of the Council. Hon. the SPEAKER remarked that he had studied the question well since _ the afternoon adjournment, and he would again reiterate his former expressed opinion that the Bill was a money Bill. _ The question for the adjournment was put, with the following result —Ayes, 11; noes, 21. The debate on the original question for the second reading, to which Hon. Mr tabled an amendment that the Bill be read that day six months, was resumed by Hon. Mr CAMPBELL, who spoke in favor of the Duntroon Railway and of the Bill in general, and, in doing so, remarked that the lines included in the Bill had been constructed far more economically than the Government lines had been constructed. Hon. Sir W. WHITMORE having been attacked, regretted that he found it to be liis duty to defend himself. He had never lobbied, nor had he asked for a vote outside the House. The only thing he had done before that morning was to ask two hon. members to pair. He and his friends had that morning held a meeting as to how they should vote, and the result was the amendment brought down by the Hon. Mr Waterhouse. It was, therefore, exceedingly unfair that he should have been personally accused as he had been of lobbying this Bill. Hon. Mr RICHMOND thought that the condition of the colony at the present time did not warrant the State in acquiring the lines scheduled in the Bill. He doubted. very much whether the ratepayers would be relieved if the Government took over the lines. He should vote against the Bill.

Hon. Mr HART considered that the position of the companies referred to in the Bill had been altogether lost sight of. At the time the lines referred to had been commenced there was a perfect railway mania afloat, ana the companies had, in order to meet the cry for feeding lines, constructed these railways on _ the promise of the Government and the Legislature that the shareholders should be guaranteed 7 per cent, on their capital, and all the companies asked for now was assistance in a dilemma. The country and the Legislature was pledged, and their honor was at stake, and lor this reason lie should vote for the Bui. Hon. Dr. GRACE traversed the argument of the Hon. Mr Hart, which, he considered, was a fallacious one. The fact was that the country was totally ignorant that the colony was called upon to pay L 600,000 to joint stock railway companies. For what reason, he asked, was there a second Chamber but to protect the interests of the public. _ He should oppose the second reading of the Bill. Hon. the COLONIAL SECRETARY replied, and in doing so referred to the statement of the Hon. Sir G. WHITMORE that he regretted having to oppose the Government on the present occasion. He (the Colonial Secretary) wished that the hon. and gallant member would transfer his support elsewhere. He had. been thoroughly inconsistent in his objections to the Bill, as was evidenced by his speeches as reported in Hansard on former occasions. he (Colonial Secretary) could say, that he had not heard one single argument which could induce him to say that the Bill was not needed. The question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question, was then put with the following result :—Ayes J, noes 21. , , , , . The question that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted, was put and carried on the voices, the result being that the Bill was th On W ?h°e U motion of the Hon. Mr WATERHO USE, the vote of the Hon. Mr Campbell was disallowed. . _ . ~ The Council adjourned at 9.50 to the next day.

TUESDAY. OCTOBER 21. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. Several petitions were presented. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. _ A message was received from His Excellency the Governor, intimating that leave of absence had been granted during the present session to the Hon. Matthew Holmes.

THIRD READING. The Perpetual Trustees, Estate, and Agency Company of New Zealand (Limited) Bill, was read a third time and passed.

QUESTIONS. Hon. Mr WILSON asked the Hon. Colonial Secretary, Whether the attention of the Government has sheen called to an account of a ‘cockfight that recently took place near Greymouth, at which cock fight a police officer is alleged to have been present ; and whether the Government have taken, or propose taking, any proceedings against the parties implicated ? Horn Mr BUCKLEY replied that the Government had received no intimation of the Hon. Captain FRASER asked the Hon. Colonial Secretary, When the return of the correspondence between the Prime Minister of this colony and any other Irime Minister, relative to confederation, ordered on the 24tn September last, will be laid upon the table . Hon. Mr BUCKLEY replied that the correspondence was being printed, and would be laid on the table. (MOTION. Resolved, on the motion of the Hon. Captain FRASER, That the second reading of the Kowai Domain Board Bill be set down for Wednesday next. EMPLOYMENT OP FEMALES ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was considered in Committee. A new clause was moved by Hon. Mr Oliver, “ That no person shall employ any female, vountr person, or child in any factory at an y time between the hours of 6 in the evening and 8 in the morning, or for more than eight hours in any one day.” Hon. Dr Pollen vigorously opposed the clause, and moved that the chairman report progress without asking leave to sit again. He was quite convinced that there was no necessity whatever for the Bill. Hon. Mr Oliver (in charge of the Bill) said he should divide the committee on the question. On division the motion to report progress was carried —Ayes, 15 ; noes, 14. GISBORNE HARBOR BILL. Sir G. S. WHITMORE moved the second reading of the Gisborne Harbor Bill. intimated that certain amendments would be necessary in Committee. Hon. Captain FRASER having asked that the amendments should be placed before the Committee, , ~ Hon. Dr said that when the Bill was before the Local Bills Committee it had been found that certain amendments in the machinery of the measure were necessary, These amendments referred principally to the poll to be taken. _ , , -r,.,, Hon R. JOHNSTON supported the Bill, expressing his intention to move certain amendments in Committee. The Bill was then read a second time. OTAGO HARBOR BOARD LOANS CONSOLIDATION BILL. , , This Bill was read a third time and passed. TAURANGA SCHOOL SITE BILL. On the motion of the Hon. Sir G. fc>. WHITMORE, this Bill was read a second CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, ISSO, AMENDMENT BILL. In Committee, this Bill was agreed to, with amendments, and reported. WORKMEN’S WAGES BILL. This Bill was further considered in Committee, and reported with amendments. The Council rose at 4.45. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22. The Council met at 2.30. MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR, A notification was received from His Excellency that he had assented to the Bills finally passed by the Legislative Council. TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, AND AGENCY COMPANY ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL A motion for the recommittal of this BiU was agreed to. The Bill was thereupon recommitted, and agreed to with the addition of a new clause. It was then reported, and the third reading made an order for the following day. MOTIONS. The Hon. Mr CHAMBERLIN moved, That, in the opinion of this Council, it is desirable that the colony of New Zealand should recognise by suitable means the heroism of those who have distinguished themselves by saving the lives of our fellow-colonists. Ike hon. gentleman alluded to the recent railway accident at Auckland, and the heroic conduct of the railway officers on that occasion, and, as a case in point, he suggested that medals should be awarded for such actions, having on ane side the word “ heroism,’’ and round l i

words “ England expects every man to do his duty.” Motion agreed to. T apv On the motion of the Hon. G. R. JOHNSTON, it was resolved, That the reporn of uie Sheep and Rabbit Committee be agreed to. It was resolved, on the motion of Uoild Mr OLIVER, That the further consideration in Committee of the Employment of Eemaies Act, ISSI, Amendment Bill be made an order of the day for Thursday next. SECOND KEADINSS. The Hon. Mr WATERHOUSE moved the second reading of the Codlin Moth Bill. The Hon. Captain FRASER suggested. thaL an embargo should be placed on Nelson fruit, which, he believed, was infected. The Kowai Domain Board Empowering Bill, the Thames Recreation Reserve Sale Bid, the Animals Protection Bill, and the Sheep Act, IS7B, Amendment Bill, were also read a second time. EAST AND WEST COAST (MIDDLE ISLAND) AND NELSON RAILWAY AND RAILWAYS CONSTRUC-

TION BILL. , , The second reading of this Bill was postponed till the following day, the Hon. COLONIA-cj SECRETARY intimating that it had been represented to him that several hon. members had not had time to make themselves acquainted with the Bill. THIRD READING. The Cruelty to Animals Act, ISBO, Amendment Bill was read a third time. GISBORNE HARBOR BILL. In Committee on this Bill, Hon. G. R. Johnston suggested that the words ‘‘not exceeding” should be substituted for “of,” relating to the amount to be borrowed yearly, in clause 3. Agreed to. A number of further amendments recommended by the Local xfiiis Committee were agreed to. It was reported, and the third reading made an order for Pnday. TAURANGA SCHOOL SITE BI'.L. This Bill was agreed to in Committee, with amendments, reported, and the third reacting set down for the next day. The Council then (4.10) adjourned.