PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1172, 17 August 1894, Page 29

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, August 8. In the absence of the Speaker, the Hon Captain Baillie took the chair at 2.30 p.m. THE ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER. The Hon Sir Patrick Buckley said he would but be echoing the sentiment of every member of the Council in expressing the deep sympathy all would like to convey to the Hon Mr Miller, but a more suitable opportunity would be given members to express that sympathy on the return of the Speaker. STATE BANK AND CURRENCY. In moving for the appointment of a committee to consider the advantages or otherwise of a State bank of issue, a bi-metallic currency, and a State inconvertible paper currency, the Hon Mr Rigg said that such a committee would have the effect of effacing the widespread ignorance on these subjects. He then proceeded to give at great length the history of our present gold currency. The present currency rested on no economic basis, and the element of chance in it was the cause of financial disturbances. The Hon Sir G. Whitmore hoped the Colonial Treasurer would not assist the hon gentleman to appoint this Committee as he had attained his object in getting his speech in Hansard. It would take the whole of the remainder of the session in order to deal with this question, and the work would be useless unless the Council was acting in conjunction with other countries. The Hons Kelly, Montgomery and Scotland opposed the motion. The Hon Mr Stevens said he would support the motion if the committee was appointed to enquire into the advantages or otherwise of a State bank of issue, but he thought it would be of no practical use to undertake to discuss bimetallism. The effect of*the committee would be to enlighten those newspaper writers who wrote so glibly on this question, The mover briefly replied. The motion was lost on division : for the motion, 7 ; against, 15. DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS BILL. The Hon Sir P. Buckley moved the second reading of this Bill, and explained that the necessity of the Bill arose from the fact that great inconvenience was caused to the postal authorities owing to many places in the Colony having similar names. After a brief debate, the Bill passed it* second reading. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL. The Hon P. Buckley, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that it was. a consolidation Bill and had been approved of by the charitable institutions throughout the Colony.

The second reading was passed without discussion. The Council adjourned until Thursday. Thursday, August 9. The Deputy-Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence was granted to the Hons MacGregor and L. Walker. TRAMWAYS BILL. The Hon -Mr Montgomery in moving the second reading of this Bill, briefly explained its provisions, and said that as the Bill dealt with many technicalities he would ask, on its second reading being agreed to, that it should be referred to a select committee. The Hon Mr Richardson pointed out that clauses 2 and 14 of the Bill were of a retrospective character, and would interfere with concessions made to already existing tramways. The Hon Dr Grace drew attention to a mistake in the drafting of clause 44 of the schedule making the promoters (who are the local body from whom the tramways are leased) liable for accidents. He thought that it should be made plain that the lessees were meant. The Hon Mr Bonar thought that the new departure in the Bill regarding the vote of ratepayers on the proposal of construction of a tramway in a district was not a good innovation, and lie thought that the vote should be an affirmative, not a negative one. The Hon Mr Montgomery said that these objections would be fully dealt with by the select committee. The second reading was passed. A select committee was appointed to deal with this Bill. DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS BILL. In committee on this Bill Sir P. A. Buckley moved a new clause to the effect that were professedly Maori names are misspelled the Governor may by proclamation correct such names. The Bill was then reported with amendment. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL. In committee on this Bill, The Hon Mr Stevens objected to clauses 22 and 24, which were postponed. The other clauses of the Bill were passed. Progress was reported, and leave was granted to sit again to-morrow. INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL. On the motion to go into committee in order to re-commit several clauses in this Bill, The Hon Mr Jenicinson said he was sorry that the Government had decided not to pay persons serving on the Board. He was also sorry that they intended opposing his amendment bringing all persons other than Civil servants under the provisions of the Bill. The Hon Sir P. Buckley pointed out that it would never do to bring the police and defence forces under the provisions of this Bill, as they might object on being ordered i nto active service and ask that the matter should be dealt with by the Conciliation Court.

The motion was agreed to. The motion to recommit clause 90, m order to allow the Hon Mr Jenkinson to move an amendment bringing Government servants other than Civil servants under the operations of the Bill, was lost on the voices. In committee several verbal alterations weie]agreed to.

The Hon Mr Montgomery moved an amendment to clause 49a to the effect that the presiding Judge shall not be asked to make declaration to be secret with regard to evidence given before the Court. This was agreed to. The Hon Mr Jenkinson moved an amendment to clause 86, to include payment of fees to members of the Board. He said he had conferred with the promoter of the Bill, and he had agreed that it was a necessary amendment. The Hon Mr Shrimski opposed the amendment, and called for a division, which resulted: —For, 17; against, 10. The amendment was thus carried. The Bill was reported, and the Council then adjourned. Friday, August 10. The Deputy-Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. LEAVE TO INTRODUCE A BILL. Leave was granted to the Hon Sir P. Buckley to introduce the Adulteration Prevention Acts Amendment Bill, 1694. BILLS PASSED. Ths following Bills were read a third time and passed : —lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and Designation of Districts Bill. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL. In committee on this Bill, The Hon Sir P. Bucklev moved an amendment to clause 22, providing that when a husband has been convicted of an aggravated assault on his wife, the custody of the children of the marriage under the age of fourteen shall be given to the wife. The Hon Mr Stevens said that when the man had been convicted of such an offence he thought that all the children should be given into the custody of the wife. The elder children may be in the position of contributing to the support of the family, and it would be placing the woman under a disadvantage by depriving her of their help. In his opinion the woman should be given the custody of all the children, subject to the discretion of th« Court. The Hon Sir P. Buckley accepted this amendment, and proposed as a further amendment that the custody of the children should only be for the term of the subsistence of the order made against cohabitation. This was agreed to. The Hon Sir P. Buckley moved an amendment to clause 24, to the effect that an order made for the maintenance of any destitute person is to rank in priority next after any mortgage or other charge on the land or property made previous to the issue of the order. This was agreed to, and the Bill was reported. CONSPIRACY LAW AMENDMENT. The report of the Committee on this Bill that it should be allowed to proceed as amended was agreed to. The Council then adjourned until Tuesday. Tuesday, August 14. The Acting-Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. CONSPIRACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL. In Committee on this Bill, The Hon Sir P. Buckley moved that a new clause, providing that employees connected with the supplying of gas, electric light or water, shall give fourteen days’ notice of their intention to leave off work,

and imposing a fine of not exceeding ten pounds or one months’ imprisonment for a breach of the section. This was agreed to, and tho Bill passed through committee. ADULTERATION PREVENTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion that the above Bill be read a second time the Hon Sir P. Buckley said that since the passing of the Act of 1891 it had been found desirable that no distinction should be made between ordinary bread and French or fancy bread. The present Bill provided that if the weight is short the deficient weight is to be made up either at the shop or at the cart. The Hon Mr Bowen wished to know if there was any reason for bread being made two pounds weight. The Hon Sir P. Buckley said that it was customary for bakers to say when their bread is short weight that it is meant for a one pound loaf. The Hon Mr Pharazyn said that the effect of the previous Act had been that bread had been made of inferior quality. The Hon Mr Oliver thought that the restriction as to weight would interfere with the making of brown bread, which was usually made in one pound loaves. He had noticed a great difference in the wholesomeness of the bread baked since the passing of the previous Act, and he thought this Bill would have the effect of relieving the baker from the difficulty which the previous Act placed on him. The second reading was passed. destitute persons bill. This Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Council then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, August 8. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. LOCAL BILLS. The Borough of Oamaru Leasing Bill (Mr Duncan), and the Invercargill Corporation Empowering Bill (Mr J. W. Kelly), were read a first time. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr La wry resumed the financial debate, and criticised the remarks of Captain Russell regarding the Bank of New Zealand, saying that they should have been uttered when the Bank Bill was before the House. He spoke then on both sides, so that if what was done by the Government proved a success, he could say that he had not offered any opposition, while if it turned out a failure, he could say, I told you so. The whole Colony had approved of the action taken by the Colonial Treasurer regarding the Bank. Mr Lawry further condemned the action of the Opposition Party. Mr Buchanan resented the personal attacks which Mr Lawry so frequently made on members on the other side of the House. Mr Buchanan maintained that the financial debate had entirely exposed the pretensions of the Government to be a nonborrowing Government, for it had been clearly shown that they had added to the debt of the Colony. As to the cheap money scheme, he would wait until he saw the Bill; but he contended that the scheme would mean borrowing. Mr Buchanan adversely criticised the policy of the Government regarding the Civil Service, the Railway Commissioners, and other matters. Major Steward said that tho fears first expressed concerning this Budget were very much exaggerated. Though there

was borrowing, it was very much smaller than had been represented. The money obtained for financial aid to settlers would not be borrowed. The scheme would be simply a use of the machinery of the State to enable settlers to obtain money more advantageously. The only money borrowed, in the sense that the interest of the Colony was to be paid for it, was half a million. He wanted to know, however, how this money would be used. Mr G. Hutchison pointed out that the public works fund was not in a very satisfactory condition. It was a curious thing that in no part of the Budget was there a word mentioned about borrowing, although it was proposed to raise money for loans to farmers, land for settlement, and other purposes. He maintained that the money was really being borrowed. He did not blame the Treasurer for borrowing for reproductive works. For instance, there was the Lands for Settlement Bill. He heartily approved the principle of that Bill. The work of colonisation must go on, and there was no other way of carrying it on except by going to the London market. The Treasurer should bo candid enough, however, to say that he was going there. He did not agree with the A 250,000 being transferred from the housekeeping account. He hardly thought the various proposals in the Budget were serious. Regarding the Bank of New Zealand, the best thing that could have been done was done at the time; but he maintained that his application fora committee should have been granted. He warned the Government that if they made a mistake in the selection of the President of the Bank they would earn the condemnation of the people of the Colony. But he believed that they would make a judicious selection. As to the consols scheme, the money taken up would almost certainly be transmitted from England ; and the scheme practically meant that the Treasurer intended to borrow in the Colony money remitted from England. What advantage was there in raising the money in an expensive way in the Colony when it might be raised much more cheaply in London ? If the cheap money for farmers could not bo borrowed in London under 95 or 94, it would be impossible to lend it out at 5 per cent, without foregoing what he thought a most essential part of the proposal—the assurance fund. He had a proposal to make. It was that a sum equivalent to what the Colonial Treasurer mentioned in his Budget should be avail able without going on the London market. He suggested, therefore, that the money should be obtained from the Post Office Savings Bank, the Government Insurance Department, and the Public Trust Office.’ The Government securities which choked the three departments of the State should be unloaded in London, and money thus secured on easy, tei-ms. The last election was, he hoped, a triumph of the New Democracy, and the aim of that democracy should be the amelioration of the condition of the poor, the abolition of all privilege, and the purity of Government. What was the record under the present Premier since the election ? A record of dishonour. They were now going further by this Budget, which meant borrowing throughout. What they asked for in their public men was that they should be men of probity and honour, men who could not and would not lie. But the malign influence of the Premier overshadowed • all his colleagues, and threw

doubt upon the administration even of the various proposals in the Budget. The Hon Mr Reeves said that though Mr Hutchison had made a clever speech, it needed that one drop of human blood which would convince the people of the Colony that the man 'who delivered the speech was speaking his own convictions, and that he was one who had a record for consistency. He had attacked the Premier ; but the Premier, whatever his faults, had never turned his back upon one with whom he had fought shoulder to shoulder. When he remembered the service the Premier did for the member for Patea when the latter found himself sorely pressed, he thought how characteristic was the attack which the member for Patea had just made on the Premier. The hon member had told them that he supported the principle of the Lands for Settlement Bill. It was a very old story, the support given to a Bill when it had been accepted by the people; but he had seen the principle of a measure supported when the Bill itself was sought to be killed by adroit amendments in committee, and he would not be surprised if the member for Patea and his friends attempted that this year, as they had tried to do it last year. As to the Bank of New Zealand Bill, no information which could have been gained by a committee would have been worth the having. The time when soldiers were drawn up for battle was not tho time to hold counsels of war. Then was the time to face the emergency, and that was what the Government and Parliament did. He believed that the cheap money scheme would be well received in London, and that the money would be raised at par. He contrasted the moderate tone of the London Times concerning this scheme with the hysterical abuse lavished upon it by some of the newspapers in the Colony, to show how it would be received in financial circles at Home. The member for Patea had told them that our credit was falling. The Opposition had repeatedly told them that, and to do them justice, they and their papers had done all they could to ruin the credit of the Colony. But the Liberal Party had saved that credit; the revolutionary Liberal Party had seen the credit of New Zealand at Home rise to a height never attained under tho prudent and business-like administration of the Conservative Party. The hon member, whose brilliancy consisted in attack, and who, when his own party came into power, had promptly changed sides so that he might still have a Government to attack, had come out that night with an original financial proposal. The Minister pointed out in what respect tho proposal would not be satisfactory, and said it was undesirable that the Treasury should have to go outside to get the money for its Treasury bills. He pointed out that what Mr Gladstone had described, as pointed out by Mr Saunders, as the “ pestiferous practice of anticipating revenue,” had been followed for years by the Ministries of Mr Gladstone himself, and went on to say that by collecting the land tax four months earlier they saved the taxpayers the payment of interest on Treasury bills. As to the conversion, the Atkinson Government had converted everything that was possible; and had made arrangements for a conversion operation just before going out of office, but countermanded it before they left office, in order to disorganise the finances for the incoming Government. The member for Eden had told them that the interest charges had gone up, but to show how the charges stood compared with those of the other colonies, he pointed out that the interest charges in New Zealand from 1889 to 1894, five years, had gone up A 700 0; whereas in three years in Victoria they had gone up A 174,000, and in New South Wales A 255,000. So much for Conservative finance on the other side as compared with Liberal finance in New Zealand. With regard to the new departure made by the Colonial Treasurer, he had, in his opening speech in the debate, answered the speeches of the Opposition. The Opposition had given their speeches in their opinions delivered to an enterprising journalist, and had thus given themselves away. The only power that could get the money cheap from the English lender was the State. He distinguished between the bad borrowing of the past and the borrowing of the present. He did not take the same view of the Budget as the Opposition did. They frankly did not understand the Budget, and it discounted their criticism. Ho saw legitimate financing in the Budget proposals where they saw reckless plunging ; lie saw relief to the producer, he saw work for the worker, he saw hope for the town and country, and he saw national progress instead of national stagnation. Notwithstanding the heartbreaking fall in values, the volume of our exports had enormously increased ; but what was weighing upon the colonists of New Zealand was the iron law of interest. The member for Selwyn, who opposed the cheap money scheme, had furnished the best cause for it by describing the frightful results of the appreciation of gold. No Government could raise the price of produce, but what the Government could do was to lower the price gf money for the farmers, and thus materially lighten their burdens. The only power in New Zealand which cheapen money was the State, because it was the State only which could borrow money cheaply. Mr T. Mackenzie said the reason why money was dear was because the Government had placed a penal tax upon every penny invested in mortgages, which was not balanced by a tax of equal gravity upon other investments. As to the Land for Settlements Bill, he could assure the Minister for Labour that the farmers of the country had very little regard for him, because lie had stated at Christchurch that tho whole of the taxation should be placed on the land. The Minister had told the people of Dunedin that the Government had grappled with the unemployed difficulty and had settled it. Why, never in the history oi the

Colony was there such dire distress as at the present time, when there were cries for bread not only in the towns but in the country districts, that were absolutely unparalleled. The pernicious part of the Budget was that applying to the Bank of New Zealand. The Government had undertaken a responsibility which they ought not to have undertaken. As to the conversion opei’ation, it meant, broadly put, that the Government had added A 616,000 to the permanent debt to pay off A 500,000. With reference to the cheap money scheme, the Government would do a very good thing if they could give money at cheap rates to the farmers without imperilling public finance. Mr Hogg held that duiing the term of office of the Government borrowing had practically ceased, that the labour market was now much more healthy than it had been for years, and that the taxation of the Colony, instead of being increased, had actually decreased. The Government had improved the position of the Colony and lightened the burdens on the taxpayers. Mr Flatman thought the cheap money scheme would be one of the grandest things possible for the country. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Larnacii. The House .adjourned at 12.35 a.m.

Thursday, August 9. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. FIRST READINGS. The following Bills were read a first time :—Newspaper Libel Limitation Bill, the Minister of Lands; Cemeteries Act Amendment (Cremation) Bill, Mr Bell; Auckland Harbour Board Empowering Bill, Mr Lawry. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr Larnach, resuming the financial debate, said he would accept the figures in the Budget as sent down by the Treasurer, because ho had sufficient confidence in those whose names were signed to those figures. As to the public debt, 10 millions was attributable to tho Maori War; nearly 16 millions was incurred by the public works policy of Sir Julius Yogel, chiefly in the making of railways, and the remaining 13 millions had been borrowed to carry on public works throughout the Colony. He explained the operations regarding the sinking funds, and held that the accusation that Governments were not justified in using the sinking funds which had been set free was unwarranted. It had been said that the Treasurer had not calculated to a nicety his estimates of revenue and expenditure. He held that during the last financial year the Treasurer had made almost an exact calculation in his estimates. He suggested that the revenue could be increased by raising on the ad valorem principle the duties on bank cheques and receipts. The charge might bo made as follows:—For every AIOO, Id; for every A2OO, 2d; for every A3OO, 3d, and so on; and the individual who drew his cheque for A6OOO would have to pay only ss. This charge would raise a considerable revenue without pressing hardly upon shoulders that could not bear it. The proposal to borrow A 250,000 for lands for settlement was a magnificent one. It was a measure that should have been brought in years ago. He regretted, however, that the Government were asking for a sum far inadequate for the requirements of the people of the Colony for one year. The A 250,000 would buy only 50,000 acres, and that would only give to ten districts in the Colony 5000 acres, and that, he maintained, would not satisfy the earthhunger that he knew existed in some districts. The Budget proposals meant borrowing, but it was collateral borrowing, with security of a class far superior to any ever offered to investors by any colony. While the policy was a sound one, a great deal would depend, however, upon wise and prudent administration. Tho policy of loans to farmers meant that for the first time in the history of the Colony labour and enterprise wore being brought to shake hands with capital, face to face, and thus they were proposing by this policy to establish a great commonwealth in this country. He suggested, however, that the Treasurer should consider the advisability of placing- his first loan for this purpose at a rate not higher than 3 per cent., and if he communicated with the Agent-General he would find that he would very likely get all the money he wanted at that figure, or, at all events, at a rate not beyond A 3 4s per cent. He thought that while they had gone far enough in placing duties on the necessaries of life, there was room to go much further in taxing the luxuries and elegancies of life. He held that the graduated land tax should not cease at A 210,000, but that it should go on with even greater rapidity above that figure. There was something repugnant to him in seeing a bonus on the exports of the Colony, and therefore ho opposed the coal bonus. He would like to see the amount of the bonus given to industries that would consume the given quantity of coal per annum. Regarding the beet sugar bonus, it should not be given to the manufacturer entirely, but should be shared with the producer. He had been a sorry listener to what had been said about the Bank of New Zealand during the debate. The unanimous voice of the House had allied the Colony with the Bank, and he thought tho step a wise one ; but it was wrong of the Opposition to come now and not* only cry out that a foolish thing had been done, but to throw mud at the Bank. If they wished to provoke a run on the Bank, they could not havo gone a better way about it than the mean way they had. The alliance between the Bank and the Colony would last, not for ten years, but for ever, and he complimented the Colonial Treasurer on the magnificent confidence trick he had performed. Here they had now a State bank, and it would be strong, and it was the duty of the Colony to strengthen the institution. Air MaGviiw considered that settlement

should proceed on the Ci own and Native lands in the North Island before lands were purchased in the South Island. He did not think the cheap money for farmers would be raised at 3 per cent., as suggested by the last speaker, or even at 31 per cent.; and he feared that when the day of reckoning came, men would be returned to the House to reduce the interest, or to knock something off the principal. He opposed the reduction of the interest ,>f the Government Insurance Department, as people who had insured their lives were expecting to receive bonuses. The Minister of Lands, though an obstinate man, was honestly doing his duty ; but he assured him that the land settlement policy would be a failure unless roads and bridges were made to enable people to get to and from their land. He reviewed the surplus of the Government as unsatisfactory, and condemned the Government for borrowing in spite of their non-borrowing piofessions. He opposed the fruit duty, but commended the Government for what they proposed to do in reference to the dairy industry. It was most unjust and cruel for the Government to collect the land tax four months too early. Major Harris accepted Mr Ward’s figures as correct, and thought the condition of tho Colony satisfactory. He was glad to see the Government encouraging the dairy industry, which would be a great boon to the Colony, but he was inclined to think the Government would benefit the fruit-growers more by assisting them to destroy the insects that ravaged fruit than by putting a. duty on imported fruit. He had promised to vote against borrowing, but he meant the borrowing of the past, and not such as was contained in the present Budget. Mr R. McKenzie described the Budget as one of the most Liberal and progressive ever submitted to Parliament. He considered, however, that tariff reform, an adequate system of local government, and a reform of the charitable aid laws, should have been dealt with this year. There should have been some more comprehensive scheme dealing with the mining industry. At the evening sitting Mr McKenzie continued his speech, and said the sooner we got rid of the Railway Commissioners the better. Mr R. Thompson said he was not opposed to borrowing, because he did not see how it could be avoided. He was sorry there had been no increase in land settlement during the year. r lhe whole system of purchasing Native lands was a scandal, and he would oppose the Native land vote in tho Budget unless a responsible board was appointed. Regarding the cheap money scheme, he failed to see where the Government would borrow money at Home to lend at 5 per cent. If, however, the money was lent up to two-thirds of the value, the Treasurer might rest assured that the State would never see that money again. The Budget was entirely a Canterbury one, and Auckland would benefit nothing by the proposals. He was not going to be deceived or fooled, and would not go back to his constituents and tell them that the Budget would benefit them when he knew it would ruin them. In the Budget proposals there were the elements of success if they were wisely administered and kept clear of political intrigue. Mr Stevens resented the attack which Mr G. Hutchison had made against the Premier. That hon gentleman’s charges were untrue ; they had not been proved, just as charges he had previously made against other Ministers of the Crown had

not been proved. Respecting the question of land settlement, there were millions of acres of Native land well worth purchasing, and it was the duty of the Government to give people an opportunity _ to purchase land of this kind. The roading of Crown lands was also most necessary to promote settlement, and as it was an allimportant question to men who went into the bush to cultivate the soil, he hoped the Government would give it consideration. It was the bounclen duty of the Government to acquire open land and Crown land for settlement purposes, and it would not only pay the Government handsomely, but it would pay the people also who took up the land, provided they got it at reasonable rates. He knew of cases in which farmers had paid 12.} per cent, for money, and if they had prospered while paying such exorbitant interest, who could say they would not prosper if they paid only 5 percent ? With reference to Native lands, it was only just that the Natives should be in the position of receiving fair remuneration for their land, and that could be attained by the restricting of the area to be sold to any individual, and by providing that the land should be sold only to those who wished to become bona fide purchasers, and not speculators. Mr Pirani, speaking with regard to the Bank of New Zealand, thought that three millions would have to be advanced to that institution to put it in a perfectly secure position. He opposed the duty on fruit, and held that instead of giving the bonuses mentioned in the Budget, the Government should have reduced the duties on the necessaries of life. He hoped that the Government, in their railway policy, would take over the entire control of the railways, placing the management in the hands of a man who could be depended upon. He supported the proposal regarding insurance companies, and suggested a scheme of State fire insurance. It was gratifying that the Treasurer was proposing a cheap money scheme, though he did not agree with the manner in which it was framed. Regarding the two-thirds value, he understood the proposal to advance twothirds on the value of the land to be optional with the board. The bonus for coal suggested the locking of the stable after the steed was stolen. He wished to refer to the importation by the Minister of Lands of experts of all sorts, who, when they arrived in the Colony, generally turned out to be failures. Mr Pirani resented the manner in which the land boards were treated by the Minister of Lands, and said he regretted coming into conflict with that Minister, who was, he recognised, doing his best for the settlers of the Colony. He should, however, leave the administration of the land laws to the boards. Mr Buddo approved the vote for purchasing lands for settlement, but opposed that for the purchase of Native land, because he did not think public money should be spent in buying lands which were inaccessible. The cheap money scheme was one of the most desirable planks in the policy of any Government in the colonies. He congratulated the Treasurer on a most carefully thought-out Budget. Mr Hall-Jones did not quite like the way in which Messrs Hannay and Maxwell were got rid of from the Railway Board, and he would have liked to see the old Commissioners remain in office until Parliament met. He would be in favour of seeing the railways brought under the control of the House. One effect of the cheap money scheme would be to relieve the Banks from a class of business which had been unprofitable to them. The sum to be advanced should be limited in amount. He could not reconcile his mind to the consols scheme, and would not support it without further information. He objected that there was nothing in the Budget to help those who had neither land nor other wealth. He strongly urged that the revision of the tariff ought to have been undertaken this session. Mr Maslin said that a deficit might have been expected this year after the depression throughout the country, and yet they found the Treasurer reporting a surplus as the result of the year’s operations. He was not so sanguine of the results of the cheap money scheme. He held that there ought to be some revision of the tariff even this session. He hoped that Parliament would resume direct control of the railways. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Mills. The House adjourned at 12.20 a.m.

Friday, August 10. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. LOCAL BILL. The Dunedin Loan Conversion Bill was introduced by Mr Pinkerton, and read a first time. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr C. H. Mills, continuing the financial debate, held that the criticisms of the Opposition had not weakened the Budget proposals in any way. The wisdom shown in this Budget would preserve the national credit at its present high standard at Home. The cheap money scheme, with judicious administration, would be the best scheme they could put before the country at the present time, and would result in general prosperity. Neither was it an innovation, because for years past advances had been made to village settlers, and the new departure would be practically an extension of that scheme. He urged at some length that the mining industry should be further encouraged and developed. He thought also that the fishing industry should bo assisted, for by that means employment would be found for hundreds of people. In his opinion, the time had come when the State should resume control of the railways. He held also that a comprehensive system of local government reform was urgently necessary. In conclusion, he thought the present Budget was the most statesmanlike ever brought down by a Liberal and democratic Government. , fllr W. Hutchison argued that the cheap

money scheme did not mean borrowing. The Government were simply becoming security, and would not get any of the money. But as everything in this matter depended on the details, he would not give his assent to the proposal until he had an opportunity of studying those details. With reference to the Bank of New Zealand guarantee, he confessed that he distrusted the whole transaction. It was not borrowing, but it was something like robbery under arms. To back bills on the “stand and deliver” principle of the old footpad, or the Kelly gang in Australia, was contrary to the whole principles of legislation. He heartily agreed with the opinion of the Treasurer that the railways should be managed for the encouragement of producers. He urged retrenchment in the Civil Service.

Mr Joyce warned the Government that their great weakness lay in their great strength—in the number of their followers. They had not taken their supporters into their confidence as they ought to have done, and at any moment they might be landed in difficulty. The Government proposed to borrow to the extent of £7, lßs,ooo—that is to say, the Colony was to become liable for that amount. He would not oppose that, but he hoped the Colonial Treasurer, in reply, would make clear what the position of the Colony would be. The Government supporters should be consulted when a policy was to be brought down and their votes asked. What was to be done for the unemployed, or what were the Government doing for the 10,000 children leaving our public schools every year ? He

maintained that the railways should be managed by the Government. He held that the Midland Railway works should be commenced at once. It was evident that this subject was to be hung up again this session. With reference to reciprocity, if the Government would have the courage to deal with this question as they had done with that of the Bank of New Zealand, they could remain on the Treasury benches for ever, so far as he was concerned. At the evening sitting, Mr O’Regan said the Budget contained a great deal of which he approved and a great deal of which he did not approve. He had no objection to borrowing, so long as it was carried out on proper business principles. He had a strong aversion to the feeling of Protection that pervaded the Budget. He was altogether against the proposal to place an import duty on fruit. He held similar views with regard to the bonus on coal, and although he came from the West Coast he was not going to support a principle that was essentially bad. He repeated his objections against the Lands for Settlement Bill, and especially against the eternal lease. He held that more assistance should be given to the mining industry. He warned the Government that he would not vote again so blindly as he had voted on the Bank of New Zealand Bill. It must not be assumed that he was opposed to the Ministry, but he was opposed to party government, which he looked upon as a degrading institution. Mr J. W. Kelly declared himself entirely opposed to the Government in their borrowing proposals. The Budget proposals were the most vicious brought before the House since the old days of the

public works policy. The cheap money scheme would be no benefit to farmers mortgaged up to more than the full value of their land. He was afraid that the evils of the past borrowing days, when Governments were supported, not from principle, but from the consideration of the amount of money spent in each district, would be seen again under these proposals. He commended the Treasurer, however, for the proposals to encourage the fruit and dairy industries. lie made charges of dummy ism and the truck system against the New Zealand Pine Company, of which Sir R. Stout is chairman of directors. Sir Robert Stout denied the charges.

Mr Hone Heke held there was no necessity to purchase Native lands for ten years to come ; but when Native lands were purchased they should at once be settled. He was opposed to the resumption of the preemptive right. The Colonial Treasurer rose amidst applause to reply, and remarked that this Budget had caused interest throughout the civilised world —(laughter)—for he had received a cablegram from Hanover, as follows: “Congratulations Financial Statement.” (Applause.) This was from Mr 13. Ilallenstein —(laughter and applause)—a gentleman whose name stood high in commercial circles in the Colony. In reply to Mr Mitchelson’s contention that the liabilities should have been deducted from the surplus, that hon gentleman ought to have known that at the beginning of the year, <£98,000 of liabilities of the preceding year were deducted, and that therefore it would have been unjust to that year to deduct the second liabilities from the same year’s

finances. Captain Russell’s question, whether the Bank’s difficulty arose because all the remittances of the Colony had been sent to London through the Bank, was unfair. The agreement was that two-thirds of the remittances were to go through the Bank of New Zealand and one-third through the Colonial Bank, and there had been no departure whatever from that agreement. It had also been asserted that the land tax had been collected early because the Bank would not give the money. In the first place, the Bank of New Zealand knew nothing of the matter; that Bank was never applied to, and had nothing to do with it either directly or indirectly. Supposing, however, that every bank in the Colony had refused to provide the money, the Government had the Treasury bills available, and would have been able to lodge these and replace them at Home with the Imperial guaranteed debentures, and the whole thing could have been done just as if nothing happened. Captain Russell : Why did you collect the tax ? Mr Ward would like to know who was responsible for the finances of the Colony — the Government or the Opposition. The Government were bound to look ahead, and if they did not look ahead, their opponents would be the first to remind them of it. Another statement implied by Captain Russell was that <£500,000 of the other million guaranteed to the Bank of Now Zealand was to be used to pay off the liabilities of the Assets Company. This was incorrect. When the Bank of New Zealand Bill was before the House, he (Mr Ward) had stated that the Government

had received from the Bank of New Zealand representative a statement that the other million would bo used—one half for strengthening the coin reserves, and the other half for anticipating the necessary advances to settlers in the Colony. Captain Russell : Mr Murray did not say that. Mr Ward said that probably Captain Russell was referring to a statement said to have been made at the committee meeting of the Legislative Council. That statement was published in a Wellington newspaper, and he was so amazed at it that he communicated with Mr Murray, who replied that what he had stated w r as that if <£.100,000 of the shareholders’ money were called up by the Bank, that £500,000 would be used for the purpose of relieving the Assets Company. Again, Captain Russell had asserted that <£Bo,ooo a year had been practically added to the burden of the taxpayers. The sum of <£Bo,ooo a year would be due at 4 per cent, upon the two millions, but the Bank had to pay that. If the Bank failed to do so, it was provided in the Act that the Government would have the right to appoint a liquidator if they wished to step in, and the liquidator would have all the powers of a Supreme Court Judge. The Government would not be responsible for the £BO,OOO unless the Bank failed. Mr Ward went on to give an explanation regarding the £500,000 of Imperial guaranteed debentures. The operation regarding these debentures was carried out by the late Treasurer (the Hon J. Ballance), and saved the Colony £2779 per annum. It was a good transaction, and one to the

honour of the late Treasurer; but it was Hot fair for the Leader of the Opposition to condemn the present Treasurer, and to apply to the transaction such terms as that it was worse th in the worst extravagance of the most uproarious spendthrift who ever played the fool with his money. Captain Russell : Hear, hear. Mr Ward, continuing, pointed out that Captain Russell knew that the present Treasurer had had nothing to do with it, but he did not state that fact because it did not suit his party, and because he wished to injure the Government. He (Mr Ward) had nothing to do with the transaction ; but lie stood to it, and maintained that it was a good transaction. The Treasurer reviewed a scheme proposed by Captain Russell in 1887, under which twenty millions would be borrowed at 5 per cent, and lent out at 6 per cent.; and in view of the character of the proposal, he claimed him as a supporter of the more moderate proposals of the Government. During the debate, Sir Robert Stout, Dr Newman and Mr G. Hutchison had suggested that the Government should take the money for farmers from the Post Office, Public Trust Office and the Government Insurance Department. Now, he would ask hon members who know anything about ordinary business matters where the difference was between borrowing from the three departments to lend to settlers and borrowing direct from the people in the first instance ? (Cheers from the Government benches.) The Government would have to pay interest for it, and there was no differeneo. Sir R. Stout had also said that this proposal threatened the solvency of the Government Insurance Department.

But the officer at the head of the Department ought to know something of the matter, and he had stated that the Department would not suffer if the amount which must be invested in Government securities and local bodies were made one-third instead of one-half. The Government would take care that the Insurance Department would not suffer. Captain Russell : Four per cent.!

Mr Ward : Four per cent.! and a very g-ood job if the rates all over the Colony were 4 per cent. (Cheers.) The moment they created a sufficiency of capital, continued the Treasurer, they would give employment to the people and fresh life to industry, and therefore a large increase of business to the Government Insurance Department. He maintained that the Government would easily obtain money at low rates of interest. A few months ago the Government had received an offer of two millions of money at 3 per cent, for the purpose of carrying on railways. He had seen a letter received from Australia since the Budget proposals were made known offering to lend money to settlers to the extent of £140,000 at 5 and G per cent.; and yet hon members on the other side of the House were continually predicting that the Government would be unable to raise the money cheaply. Members of the Opposition had sought to attack the surplus. The Government, in making up the surplus, had done what was done by every country in the world and by every monetary institution : any moneys coming into the Treasury in the ordinary way, when the revenue accounts were balanced up, were taken credit for ; and it was perfectly useless for members to argue against that. Mr Ward ridiculed Dr Newman’s suggestion that a crushing duty should be put on tobacco, and that the State should make a monopoly of the tobacco industry, and went on to say, in answer to Mr Montgomery, who asked whether the £250,000 for roads and bridges were to be spent on railways, that that money was not to be so spent. Befoio Mr Ward could reply to Mr Dutliie and other speakers during the debate, the time-bell rang, and in the remaining five minutes the Treasurer defended the policy of the Government against the charge of borrowing, pointing out that the only proposal in the Budget that could be declared one of borrowing was that of raising £250,000 for roads and bridges. At this moment the Speaker informed the Treasurer that his time was up, and Mr Ward resumed his seat, cheers being given him from both sides of the House. The House then went into Committee of Supply. There was considerable discussion on the first vote regarding Ministerial residences and the Government advertising. Sir R. Stout, quoting from a return laid on the table that day giving the names of papers receiving Government advertisements, asserted that the advertisements were distributed according to political colour.

The Premier contradicted this, and said that the Government had found it necessary to economise in the matter of advertising. They found that past Governments had fattened the strong papers, and the strong papers had crushed out the weak, and the present Government were willing to give weak papers a chance to live. If they were to advertise in all the papers of the Colony, the cost would be something enormous. The first item of the Estimates was agreed to, a motion to reduce the salary of the Native member of the Executive by £1 being lost. Progress was reported. FIRST READING. The Designation of Districts Bill, received from the Legislative Council, was read a first time. INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL. This Bill was received by message from the Legislative Council. Mr G. Hutchison raised a question of privilege that the Council had altered the Bill in respect of fees. It was resolved that this question should be considered on Tuesday, when the other amendments will be dealt with. The House adjourned at 2.10 a.m. Tuesday, August 14. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. EKETAHUNA CEMETERY RESERVE. The Eketahuna Cemetery Reserve Bill was introduced by Mr Hogg, and read a first time. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL. This Bill was received from the Legislative Council and read a first time. INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION. The amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill were agreed to, except that in clause 7, by which industrial unions shall not be allowed to own more than an acre of land, and that in clause 86, paying the members of conciliation boards; and a conference was appointed with the Council regarding these two amendments. COMPANIES ACCOUNTS AUDIT BILL. At the evening sitting the Companies’ Accounts Audit Bill was passed through committee. HARBOURS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. When the Harbours Act Amendment Bill was in committee, Mr Bell moved an amendment providing that the overdraft of a board shall not at the end of any financial year exceed the amount then owing to the Harbour Board for dues, rents, and other revenues not specifically appropriated to the payment of interest or sinking fund on loans. Sir R. Stout thought this would unduly limit Harbour Boards. Mr Pirani said the clause would offer a premium to boards to neglect the collecting of their rates. After some further discussion, the amendment was lost; but a further amendment by Mr Bell providing that th 3 limit of overdraft in the Bill should not affect the

right of any hank to be repaid ont of the fluids of the board was agreed to. Mr Bell moved a new clause, enabling a board to appropriate in any year any part of the harbour fund to create a special fund to pay for injury to the board’s property, or to meet other exceptional losses. This clause was agreed to. The Colonial Treasurer moved a new clause, giving a board power to - make bylaws levying harbour-improvement rates on all goods or merchandise discharged at or shipped from the port. Tho nwe clause was carried by 33 votes to 23. Mr Bell moved a further provision, requiring shippers and consignees to supply to Harbour Boards details of the weights, measurements, and values of goods shipped or unshipped before such goods are shipped or unshipped. This amendment was lost. The Hon Mr Ward proposed another amendment, stipulating that no board should be responsible for the act or omission of its harbourmaster in case he shall be a duly qualified pilot. He explained that at present, if a pilot acted in the capacity of harbourmaster, the board would be free of any responsibility for accident ; but the new clause provided that in case of a harbourmaster who was a duly-qualified pilot causing an accident the board would not be held responsible. Several members urged that this was too important to be passed hurriedly ; but the Minister of Marine undertook that if members wished the matter reconsidered he would have the Bill recommitted, and on this understanding the amendment was agreed to. Mr E. M. Smith proposed an amendment enabling the Hew Plymouth Harbour-rating district to be divided into six electoral wards, each ward to return one member to the Board.

The Chairman ruled that this should be embodied in a local Bill. The clause was therefore amended so that it should have general application. The Bill was passed through committee. SHOPS AND SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL. This Bill was committed. Mr Hall moved an amendment to the interpretation clause to prevent the sale of goods from carts on the half-holiday. He pointed out that a man who was compelled to close his shop might put some goods in a cart and travel about selling them, thus evading the law enforcing the half-holi-day. ' The amendment was lost by 22 votes to 35. Mr Hogg proposed an amendment bringing hawkers within the provisions of the Bill. The Minister for Labour pointed out that the proper place to regulate hawking was the Hawkers and Pedlars Bill. The Premier agreed with this view, and said he would be prepared to accept such an amendment in that Bill. The amendment was lost on the voices. Mr W. Hutchison proposed an amendment bringing hotel bars within the provisions of the Bill. Sir Robert Stout did not see why hotel bars should not be closed as well as shops on the half-holiday. The Minister for Labour hoped that the amendment would be rejected. A hotel was a different thing from a shop, and was dealt with in- a special law. Besides that, such an amendment as this would endanger the Bill in the Upper House. Mr Pirani said that the Bill would close up shops where colonial wine was sold, and hotel bars, he maintained, ought also to be closed. Mr Reeves replied that a hotel was different from a shop where New Zealand wine was sold. The latter had not a huge building at its back full of people. It would be very difficult for the inspectors to carry out this provision if it became law. Mr Thompson pointed out that the hotels would be in the same position on the half-holiday as on the Sunday, and that the bars would not be closed for boarders. He hoped the amendment would be carried. They were proposing to close the shops and to keep the bars open, and thus they,would give direct encouragement to drinking. Dr Newman thought that the people in hotel bars, compelled to work lcng hours, were as much entitled to the half-holiday as shop assistants. The voting was even—27 votes for and against. The Chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the amendment, explaining that he did so to give the House a further opportunity of considering the question. The Minister for Labour proposed an alteration of clause 3, so that it would read:—“ All shops in a city, borough, or town district, except those wherein is carried on exclusively the business of a fishmonger, or fruiterer, or confectioner, or coffee-house keeper, or eating-house keeper, shall be closed in each week on the afternoon of one working-day, at the hour of one of the clock.” lie explained that this would meet cases in which a variety of goods were sold in one shop, and would prevent a fruiterer who also had groceries in his shop from selling groceries on the holiday. Captain Russell moved to strike out fishmongers, fruiterers, and confectioners from Mr Reeves’ amendment, in order that those shops should be closed with other shops. This was lost by 43 votes to 9. An amendment by Mr Allen exempting poulterers’ shops was lost. The exemptions proposed by the Minister in his amended clause No. 3 were then carried. Mr Flatman proposed that the shops of tobacconists and hairdressers be exempted ; but this was lost. Mr Duthie moved that Saturday should be the day fixed for the half-holiday. Saturday was, he held, the most suitable day. The half-holiday in the middle of the week was very inconvenient. Mr Stevens maintained that if Saturday were fixed, great injustice would bo done to a large section of the community.

Mr E. M. Smith strongly agreed with this view. Mr Tanner was quite satisfied that the Saturday holiday would soon be a national institution ; and it was undesirable therefore to force the pace on the question. Mr T. Mackenzie agreed with the Minister in his objection to Saturday. If that day were fixed, grievous injustice would be done to the country districts. Captain Russell did not think injustice would be done. People would soon settle down to the new conditions. Sir R. Stout urged that Saturday should be adapted. There had been a great change of opinion throughout the Colony on this subject. Those most affected were all asking for Saturday. Mr Willis opposed Saturday. They had tried that day once in Wanganui, and got enough of it. Mr Pinkerton said the whole of the business people of Dunedin were opposed to Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr Duthie was lost by 40 votes to 11. Mr Willis moved an addition to clause 3 providing that whenever any day in any week shall be observed as a holiday or a half-holiday, then it shall not be incumbent on the proprietor of any shop to observe in that week the half-holiday provided by the Act. This was agreed to, and clause 3 was then passed. Clauses 4 and 5 were passed and progress was then reported. The House adjourned at 2.5 a.m.