GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10622, 14 October 1896, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13. Th» Conncil met at 2.30 p.m. A petition from C. B. Moriaon praying to be heard at the bar of the Council on behalf of certain clients affected by tho Horowhenua Block Bill was presented by Ihe Hon. Mr MACGREGOR, who subsequently gave notice that on Wednesday he would move tbat the prayer of petitioner be granted. The replies of Messrs R. S. Bush and J. M'Kerrow (Royal Commissioners) to tbe statements made. by Sir Waiter Buiier in respect of the Horowhenua Block were laid on the table by tbe Speaker. Both gentlemen saw no reason to alter their opinions as expressed in the report of the Royal Comminaion. FIRST reading. A number of bills were received from the Lower House and read a first time. SECOND READING'S. The Native Land Laws Amendment Bill was tead a second time pro forma, and referred to the Native Affairs Committee. The Public Bodies' Powers Act Amendment Bill was te&d a second time, slightly amended in Committee, and reported with amendments. BILLS PASSED. The Land Tax and lucume Tax Bill; Tobacco Excise Duties Bill, Publio Revenues Act Amendment Bill No. 2, and River Boards Act Amendment Bill were read a second time,, passed through'Committefi without amendment, and read a third time tend passed. HOEOWUKNTJA. The Horowhenua Block Bill was further considered in Committee. The Hon. ;J. MacGregor amended Wb original amendment to the effect that the court to be set np should be composed of the chief judge of the Native Land Court and two of the present judges of the Supreme Court assigned for that purpose by the Governor-in-Council.— On a division tbere was a tie, tbe-votes bfeing 15 for and 15 against.—-The Chairman oe Committees thereupon gave his casting vote against the amendment, which yras thus lost. The interpretation clause was then agreed to Unamended. Clause 18, which had also been postponed, and whioh'tbe Native Affairs Commtttee had recommended should provide that no right of appeal should lie from any decision of the court, waa amended as suggested and the clause agreed .to.* '.. '* ~."■. A' new clause (2a), reviving " The Native Equitable Owners Act 1886," was inserted. Anew clause (26), providing tbat the provisions of the above act should apply to divisions 6,11,12, and'l4-, in order to allow cestui gut frustent to become the certified owners of certain portions of the block, was also inserted. The schedules wero then passed with the amendments proposed by the Native Affairs Committee. The bill was reported jvs amended. At 5 p.m. the Conncil adjourned till 11 a.m. on Wednesday. ' -

HOUSE .\OJ?: EEP.RESENTATIVE.S.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 12. After, the telegraph office closed the Native Land Laws Amendment Bill was put through its final stages. THE BANK BILL. The Bank of New Zealand and Banking Act Amendment Bill was introduced by message from the Governor, and read a first time. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he proposed to take the second reading at 2.30 p.m. Captain RUSSELL said he had no wish to obstruct the bill iv any nay whatever, but he could not guarantee tbat tho Opposition party would be prepared to go on with tbe debate at 5.30, as tbey had not* had time to perm c the voluminous evidence that had been laid on the table that evening. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the proceedings of tbe Banking Committee had been reported, and well reported, from day to dey by the whole press of the colony, and he took it that the leader of the Opposition had followed the evidence closely. There was no necessity, therefore, for him to Wf.de through the bulky, document that had been presented to the House. Members were anxious to get borne, and if the debate was delayed it meant postponing the closing of the session. With a few minor exceptions the,bill Bimply gave effect to the recommendations of tbe Banking Committee, and he hoped when the leader of tbe Opposition i had perused it he would see his way to agree to the debate proceeding in tbe afternoon. The House rose at 2.10 a.m. i

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13. Ihe House met at 2.30 p.m. • BANKING ' LEGISLATION. . • Captain RUSSELL asked what course Mr Seddon proposed-to take with respect to the banking report. He noticed that that order was No. 20 on tbe paper, and the Banking Bill] Was No. 1. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he thought the better plan would be to take one discussion ou tbe bill and . report. Two debates were absolutely unnecessary, and would be a waste of time.

Captain RUSSELL said tbat meant that members were to be confined to half an hour to discuss both the bill and the report, whioh he regarded as very arbitrary and unfair. However, tbe Opposition were few in number and the Government woro many, and they could only submit to the force of numbers.

.' The Hon. Mr SEDDON said no good purpose could 'be served by having, two debates. The bill was the outcome of the inquiry, and that being the case he saw no necessity for having two debates.

Captain RUSSELL asked the Premier to adjourn consideration of the bill till 7.30 to give them time to master the contents of the bill.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON refused to postpone the bill, and said no good 'would be gained by it.

-'The Hod. Hi* SEDDON moved the second leading of the Bank of New Zealand and Banking Act 'Amendment Bill, to make further provision respecting t'ae Bank of New Zealand and to amend the law relating to hanks. He said it was i, stated -in the Governor's Speech that it was necessary banking matters should be dealt with this session, and one of those matters tbere referred to'was dealt with in this bitL Hereferred to the setting up of the Banking Coram ttee this session, and said be bad thought it wouta have been better to have one inquiry by ,b*fe Houses, but as circumstances bad transpired it was better there shonld have been two .loqiairies.; ss As.t-o--.the report brought down by tb. Legislative Conncil, he said it had been read in many Quarters with great disappointment, coming from the source it did. Referring to the report of the House Committee and the exhaustive nature of the inquiry, he Bhould only refer .to its conclusion and the bill which waa based on it. He hoped the discussion on this bill would be a calm and dispassiohate one. The evidence taken by the committee' was before members, and, no doubt, had been carefully studied. He quoted portion of the evidence relating to Mr John Murray's failure to givo information to the Government respecting the position bf the Estates Company. Mr Murray,' however, had stated that he could hot give details as to '_ the landed valtie of thA eatatesi &c, and he (Mr Seddon) refused to believe" tbat Mr Murray bad wilfully refused to givo that information to the Government; He might have had misgivings in his mind as to the vs-lua, or he may not have agreed with Mr Hanna as -fo the valuation. :It made no difference, however, to the action of the Government coming to the assistance of the Bank of New Zealand. They had it in evidencs that there was no pro- ' babUity of the colony hiving to make good a !£s;note, and that the position of the bank was now a sound one. He held they most take that from the finding of both committees after a searching inquiry, and that being the case .it was a matter of congratulation for tbe colony. UnderJ clause 2 they provided that a now Bystem of management should come into force on the 31st March next. It might be said the new board should commence before that date, but. first of;all they had tbe election,of tbe board by the Government, and both the Government and the Opposition would* be occupied with electioneering during the next few months. Then there was. the half-yearly meeting of the bank itself, which took" place in February, and as they had to elect tbree members that would be a most suitable time to select them. Further, the end of March was the close qf,'the financial year of the bank, and it would not be right to make tiie new board responsible for the actions of their predecessors. However, this was a Committee question, and could, be decided by tbe House. Then as to the question of the Government recommending for-appointment three members of the board of , directors, the chaagr, in his opinion,' was a iiecessary one. He held that it was desirable for three directors-to be appointed by the Government, three by the shareholders, and two by both Houses of Parliament. They did not propose^ to take away the respontibility of the Government towards the bank, and he said if that responsibility were to be maintained the Government should ho-vs the power of nominating the chairman of the board. He. next detailed the mode of election of members of the board by the Couucil and tiy the House. Ciause 8. provided that the new board should take office, on. the 31st March, and tbe present board would cease to hold office on that date. With respect to the abolition of tbe president tti the bank, be eaid there was a great difference brtween the position of president and that of chairman of the board of directors, and he .thought it better to abolish the position of president, because too much power was given to him. Referring to the proposal to appoint a new general mauager, the Government bad come to the conclusion that a change was desirable, without at all desiring to injure the

present general manager. He believed tho salary of £1250 was ample for a general manager, and thought tbey conld ge.t ]ust as good a man for £12b0 as for £1750. As £1250 was the highest salary paid by the Government tbey had fixed this amount at £1250. If there was a general consensus of opinion tbat £1250 was I too small they conld easily rectify it by a | Governor's message, but they ought to discourage these very high salaries. Jfc was proposed by the bill that the chairman of the board should receive £1000 a year, which was considered ample and somewhat extravagant, but as he would have to devote the whole of his time to the bank it was probably worth tbat amount. The directors were to receive £250 a year, which was the sum fixed for the other directors. Clause 10 provided that no overdraft shall be allowed by the bank to any officer of the bank or to any company of which a director of tbe bank is a director. He asserted tbat many of the heavy losses sustained by the Bank of Nnw Zealand were caused by tho fact that the directors of' that bank were also directors of other companies which had bten unduly favoured by getting large overdrafts,. and they should eudeavour to put a' stop to that state of things. With respect to compensation for the president, the Government thought a year's salary would be fair compensation for the abolition of the office, and he pointed out that Mr Watson's position Was subject to "any legislation tbat might be passed by the House. Clause li was the most debatable clause in tbe bill, and provided for power being given to enter into an s greement for taking over tha accounts in the " B" list. He defonded the clause, and said it was provided in the interests of the Bank of Nsw Zealand, and therefore in the interests of the colony. Every director aud officer of both banks had recommended this in the interests of the Bank of New Zealand, and they had no right to set aside evidence of this kind. Ho briefly referred to the other provisions ol the bill, and said it was necessary they should have finality on banking legislation. Sir R. STOUT said he should accept the Premier's invitation to try and discuss this question free from party foiling. He held, however,, it was quiw impossible under their Standing Orders to discuss this bill aud 758 pages of banking report and the evidence in half an hour. Hs gave it is his opinion that the patent cause of losses to the Bank of New ZeaUnd was the fall in land values, and so loug as tbey had colonial banks acting as Isnd banks there would be considerable fluctuations in the profits and losses of the banks. As far as, he could see. these causes bad not barm pointed out in tho report of the committee. H« referred to the new bsard to be appointed, and said it gave tbo Government the power of appointing five against three, which be thought was not wise. He strongly disapproved of clauso 11 of the bill, which gave power to cancel all existing contracts ps to salary without compensation. This Parliament had uo more power to destroy a contract than a private individual had, and yet they were asked to abolish a contract made' in 1894- without compensation. How could they defend such a proposal as that, and how could tbo warrant of the Governor be set aside in this manner? It was a dangerous precedent for any Parliament to propose, aßd was a most immoral proceeding in every respect. They wero to abolish the president and to appoint a chairman at £1000 a year, and this was a reversal of the policy of 1894. The auditor was to get £1000 a year and the general manager only £1250, which he held was not sufficient to secure a good officer. Ho held if this bill was passed no officer of tho bank would be secure in his position for more than a year, as tho Government could pas 3an act at any time to deprive them of their position. Clause 18 was a most extraordinary one, and gave power to the Government to compel banks to furnish'balance sheets in the form desired by the Gorernaaot of the day. -Was the Government of New,Zsaland to dictate to a foreign bank how its annual balance sheet was to be' made up ? Why, the thing was .utterly ridiculous. Then clauso 19 provider that evety bank doing business in the colony shall keep assets in the colony equal to its liabilities; but how oould that be done? If this were carried, it would bs evaded in a dozen ways, and.the passing of this bill would be no guarantee whatever to depositors and customers of the bank. He asked the Government whether it would not be wise to postpone tbis bill altogether, and be said the Bank of New Zealand could not exist if the feeling got abroad that it was a political institution. The aim of the Government "should be in a different direction altogether. He,had nn objection to a Stato bank of issue, but not to deal with commercial transactions.

Mr 0. HUTCHISON read in full the minority report he bad prepared as an amendment, to the report brought down ,by. the Banking Committee, but made no comment on it. - /.!•;•-

Mr BELL aaid it was a subjeot of regret that they, were compeliad to debate, a question of such great magnitude in half an hour. He reminded, tho House wh6n the amalgamation of the two banks was proposed it had fallen to his lot to move its rejection, but it was represented that they should allow the bank directors to be the best judges of tha question, Ha bad then pointed out that what would happen was exactly what they were asked to agree to now in clause 14. .He protested against this hasty legislation being forced on the House, and asked whether the Opposition had no rights at all in the House that «*ay should ba forced to deal with a bill invoicing millions of money at such short notice. They were told the. House wonld be asked to elect three directors on the proposed new board, but he held that the House was utterly incompetent- to do so, and any man whom he (Mr Bell) migbt propose as a director would be at once rejected by the Premier. He believed this bill did not represent the mature opinion of the Minist"]-. As to the agreement between the bank officers, he was not prepared to agree to that agreement being cancelled, as proposed by the bill, and beheld that Mr Watson had a right to go to a jury to decide whether he had committed such cenduct as justified hia engagement being cancelled. If he had not committed snch condnct he was entitled to adequate compensation, and not such as proposed by the bill. He, at tbe same time, complimented Mr Seddon on his speech, which gave a very clear explanation of \ the bill without containing, except in the first sentence or two, anything offensive. He disapproved of the board being bo large, and pointed out that small committees were much more useful than large ones. As to the question of salaries, he held that tbo House was utterly incompetent to determiue what were proper salaries that should be paid to officers appointed under this bill. He strongly disapproved of the clause relating to the bank balance sbes'K, and said the forms should be prescribed by statute, and not left to the power of any Minuter to deride the way balance sheets should be prepared. ' •/ The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment.

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed *(*• 7.30. ' Mr G. W. RUSSELL said that the fact that Parliament was now asked to increase tho number of directors stowed that those of teem who prophesied that tiie Bank of New Zealand was drifting tp a State bank were correct. He j thought, however, that* ho was echoing tbe opinion of the Honse when he said tbe appointment of directors of the batik should be f-.ubje.ct to the Disqualification Act. He considered it rtther a large order for the House tri-discuss, within 24- hours* the report and evidenao which it had tskeu the committee months to prepare. The Premier had told them Mr Murray had not disclosed tho position of 'the Estates Company, and the fact of his not having done, co was the means of the colony guaranteeing nearly three millions of money to the bank, That beiug the case, the Premier's statement that afternoon that tho colony would not have to pay a £5 note was received with laughter. He asserted that not one reason was given by the committee for depriving Messrs Watson and Mackenzie of their appointments, and in thia the committee bad ntultifled itself. It appeared to .him that the proposed abolition of tbe office, of president ftas cnlv abolition in name. But wby should Mr W«tsoa be dismissed ? It could only be owing to his _act:ou before he became president or after. If it were, because of things that happened before he became president, be would indeed have become a scapegoat. If therefoce auy blunder wsb committed in appointing Mr Watson, it waa the Government that committed tbat blunder; ana" if his office was abolished because of his incapacity in' the Colonial Bank the Government wete guilty of great . reckbisuess in making tbe appointment in the first instance. It was unfair arid unjust, however, to dismiss a man from his office without giving any reason for doing so. Mr DUTHIE complained of having to debate a report straight off that had taken ihi.ee or four months to prepare. He ca&tged fche Government with having burkt-d b.qairy on tbe committee, and said the proceedings of that committee, packed by Government supporters, was in reality a great semdal. He asserted this colony bad beeu dragged in the mnd by the Government, and gross misrepresentation made by them ; and the Government, of which they should be proud, was referred to iv financial journals in the old country in most contemptible terms. He referred at some length to the evidence taken before the committee, and said that nlthough they were told the Bank of New Zealand was now in a sound condition they were told by the anditor that a further loss of £45,000 had been discovered. He com-

' plained strongly that the committee had refused certain evidence as to writings off, and said its proceedings were a sham and a delusion. After referring to Mr Ward's.connection with the Farmers Association,* ho - aunerted tbat when he (Mr Ward) had taken charge of tho banking legislation in the House he knew he was promoting measures from which he was likely to benefit. They were called upon now to reconstruct the bank and to abolish tbe president, although no resson was given for his dismissal, but before the b&nk could attain a good position they would have to secure able and reliable nien to tr.ke charge of it. The Hon. Mr WARD never had any doubt in bis own mind as to the personal nature of t'ae attacks made upon himself; bub if he had any doubts at all, the speech just delivered by Mr Datbie would bave removed those doubts. Ho hud not intended spenking iv this dtbate were it not that he was attacked, and tbat was why he addressed the House en this occasion. He said tbat all the evidence before tbem went to show that there was at the baok of the whole matter a political conspiracy to injure him. Referring fco the report brought down by the Legislative Conncil, he said that after all tbe attacks made on him tbat renort only stated it was to ba regretted ho (Mr Ward) bad not resigned his position in the Government. He was quite at one with them in that statement, and said it he had known the influences that were at work he should h&vo resigned his position in tbo Government long before. One of the honourable members who bad the presumption to sit in judgment on him was the member for Patea, bub he should not exchange his position for tbat of Mr Hutchison, and he was convinced uo other member of the Houte would do so either. He should like to refer ta Mr Hntchison s action in stronger terms, but it misbt not be parliauieutary. He warmly resented Mr G. W. Russell's speech, and denied that be (Mr Ward; b~d made a scapegoat of Sir Watson. Did Mr Bussell wish'him to refer to the circumstances under which he (Mr RusseU.) bad left a certain church P—(Mr Russktx : "Rsfer to thepi.") They all knew tbat- the re.won why tha member for Riccarfcon attacked the Government was because Mr Hall-Jones was taken into the Ministry and Mr Russell was left out. He charged Mr Duthie witb using evidence that bud been contradicted in order to injure bim (Mr Ward), and Wv Bell bad also nnsrepreS'inted him. He (Mr Ward) bad been clixrged by the Opposition with having prompted the amalgamation of tbe Colonial Bunk with tbo Bank of New Zealand, but why hod tht-y not done him the justice to say it bad come out in evidence that the offer was mude twice to the National Bank befora it was 'made to tbe Colonial Batik at al!, and why had tbey also not admitted lhat tbe purchase of the Colonial Bank'was orgirially suggested by tbe Bank of New ZeaUnd ? If ihe Opposition thought they wero goiug to put him down thoy very much wistooK their mau. Reference wss made by Mr G. W. Russell io 80,000 sacks- of oats, but the evidence showed that tbe oati ware in store at the time; aud even if it were not so, it was proved that he (Mr Ward) knew nothing about the transaction. He asserted tbat tho time would come when the Opposition would regret the course they had taken. He disagreed with some portions of this bill, and be did not believe it was a proper thing to cancel tha appointment of the man who had been appointed as president of the bank. He also did not approve of giving the general manager of the Bonk of New Zealand only £1260 a year. He emphatically asserted that no one connected either with the Bank of New Zealaud or Colonial Bank conld say that any agwrcment hsd been made between them and himself as to writings off for tbe Ward Farmers' Association. ■ Mr G. AY. RUSSELL said Mr Ward bad hinted that hs had left tbe Wesleyan Church under circumstances not creditable to him. He detailed the manner of his joining that church os a probationer, and said he had been strongly urged to continue in ifc. He now wished to say he was prepared to accept any challenge or inquiry into the circumstances under wbich he had left the Wesleyan Methodist Church.

Mr BUCHANAN said he had some time ago listened to a speech from Mr Ward with great regret, but he did not tbink he would have to listen to another such exhibition as tbey had just heard from the member for.Awarua. Mr Ward bad met the arguments advanced aeainst him with personal abuse all round the House. He (Mr Buchanan) wished to refer to Mr Ward solely in his public capacity, and he said now that Mr Ward had deceived the New Plymonth bondholders and ba had also deceived the shareholders of the Bauk of New Zealand. Mr Ward's misrepresentations, in fact, had made New Zealand a byword in the financial world, and he (Mr Buchanan) would be very sorry to see himself referred to by financial papers in such terms as Mr Ward had been referred to. He opposed tbe bill, and said it was a most discreditable thing that tha agreement made witb tbe president of tbe Bank of New Zealand should be sot aside in the way proposed by tbe bill. Tha outside world would cry shame on the Government and Parliament of New Zealand for perpetrating such proceedings. He strongly objected to any increase in the number of directors.

Tbe Hon. J. M'KENZIE was not surprised at Mr Buchanan's speech, as he had never yet done justice to the Government over tbe Bank of New Zealand. Mr Buchanan had referred to Mr Ward's speech as ?.n exhibition when he was only defending himself from the attacks made on him in his public and private capacity. If he (Mr M'Keczie) accused Mr(Buehanan of improper dealings in Native lands would he not defend himself ?—(Mr Buchanan :" C«t&inly.") Well, then that was all tbat Mr Ward had done. He (Mr M'Kenzie) aud Mr Seddon hud been charged with burking inquiry on the Banking Committee, but could it be said they bad not tried to find out who was responsible for the loss of four millions, wbich they all knew was tbe cause of the Bank of New ZeaUnd troubles ? If he came back to the House again be should never cease to try aud ascertain who were really responsible for the present position of the bank. AH the object the Opposition had during this inquiry was to get at Mr Ward aud to let everyone else alone. He asserted it was a great mistake to cay they could not replace the present directors of tbe Bank of New Zealand. Why, tbey could even do without the Minister for Lands, who, they all knew, held an important position in the Government. As to cancelling tbe agreement of the president, be h;-ld they had a right to annul tho agreement if they thought it desirable. What they wanted was a directory tbat could take charge of the Bank of New' Zealand, net a coterie tbat would bo influenced by the Wellington Club. Let them have a proper tribunal and a righteous board of directors to manage the institution. His opinion was that tbe best thing tbey could do was to pass tbis bill, and let them come back next yeir and inquire into writings off tbat occurred in connection with the Bank of New Zealand. He hoped the Houße would support the Government in putting this bill through, and tbey would then complete the work of tbe Banking Committee.

Mr SAUNDERS said there waß a time when Ministers addressed the House in a calm mauner, but they had just heard speeches from Ministers who spoke so loud th*t be (Mr Saunders) had difficulty in hearing them. He rt-grsjtted to, hear Mr Ward, for the necond time, attack, the member for PatGa in an unfortunate manner, and ha (Mr Saunders) hud come to the conclusion that telling tbe truth was a dangerous thing. He had frequently said, in the House thai; no member of a Government should be eugeged in any private business iv whicb he would bo indebted to any bank. Referring to the Banking Committee, they all knew there were two prominent Ministers on that committee, and tbey exercised the same amount of influence in it that tbey exercised in tbe House. That beiug the case, the committee could not be regarded as an impartiaitribnnsl. The Premier had told them thafc afterisnon tbat tbe colony would not lose a £5-note by the Bank of "New Zealand, but lie thought tbe colony would lose a great deal, and tbe bank would come to tbe colony again and egain for further assistance. He hoped that what they found revealed in this report wpjuld urge members to see tbat a similar system prevailed here to what was in practice in that modftl country, Switzerland. Tbey wanted meu as Ministers who were capable and honest, who would discharge their duties for tho country in a conscientious manner.

Mr MONTGOMERY said that as a member of the committes he entirely differed from the supposition tbat tbis bill was tbe result of the report of the committee. Clause 14, referring to the "B" list, was also not suggested by the committee's report. He would like to have time to comment on tbe report in order to show ao'H the committee arrived at their decision, but be thought the committee could fairly claim to be iudged by results. If the committee were onesided, the Opposition were to blame for it, as they bad hstd the option of naming four memtiers for it, but declined to do bo. He justified increasing the number ot directors, aud said that the Government were blamed for appointing three directors, but nobody suggested a better plau of appointing tbem. He thought, however, tbat iv appointing directors tbe Disqualification Act should apply, and be intended to move that in Committee. Tbe salary of £1250 proposed for the general nwnager was, he thought, too small, and they should leave tbe question of salary to the bo»r<3. If they were going to alter it, however, they should raise the salary to £2000, or otherwise they would get an inferior man. He

[ disapproved of cancelling the agreement of the president unless be wero not prejudiced thereby. As to the clause providing for tbo partioular form of preparing bank balance sheets, he did not approve of it. Dr NEWMAN said no* matter what Mr Montgomery said, this bank inquiry was a farce, and it had beaten the record for questions. Tbe Premier, he understood, bad asked 1800 questions, Mr Hutchison had asked 1100, and Mr Montgomery bad asked 1000, Well, Burely after all those questions they should have arrived at the truth; but no oue was auy tbe wiser for the deliberations of thi? coinmittef. He held that if tho bank was to fhiurisb the board should ba of a more politics,! cbarcotcr. Ho, for one, was glad to tee that the president and general manager were going, as he believed it would be to the interests of the colony. What the public wanted was men abso- ; lutely independent of tbe Bank of New Zealand : and the Colonial Bauk. A contract, however, j was a ooutract, aad the piwident should be ! put in some decent position to make up for his i retirement. It was perfectly childish to ask the House to believe that the bank was in a | satiiifsetory position, and if the bank was to ■ have any chance at all legislation should cease aud there should be some finality. Mr COLLINS echoed Dr Newman's desire ! that tbere should be some finality, as the bank- j ing business had been the cause of regrettable incidents which he hoped they would never see repeated on tho floor of the House. He did not see any good that had resulted from the banking inquiry, aud he thought a Royal Commission would have, been mnch better for tho purpose. Tbat would have caved a i&rga j amount of time, it would have been independent of the Honse, and the report would have been brought down much sooner than tho report of the committee. The Minister for Lauds had stated it was necessary to appoint a committee in order to ascertain who were responsible for the heavy losses supstained by the bank, but they knew nothing more now as to who wss responsible for ttiesa losses than tbey knew before. lie'agreed with there who urged that tbey could not possibly get a capable rami ns general manager of tbe Bank of New Zealand for £1250 a ye.ir, and thought it would be wise for the b*»k to pay any sum to get a reslly capable mau for tbe position. He had nothing to say ajjamst Mr Watson's dUinissnl, and thought it r-bould havo taken place losg ago. Mr PHASER ssid this bill should be termed a bill to wreck the Bank of New Zealand. The: bank had been inquired into so much that tbo end cf it would be that tho bank would cease to exist. He did not think ie would bo to the j advantage of the bank to havo a board of j directora elected as proposed by the bill. There wes no doubt that ail this legislation wais injuring tee bank, which only required additional customers to moke it progress. He was not in favour of tho proposal in the bill for tbe election of a beard, and he quite agreed wifch those who said we could not • get a capable general manager for £1250 a year. Mr BUDDO took exception to Mr Fraser's remark that this bill was likely to wreck the Bonk of New Zealand, as tbat would bo calculated lo lead to a feeling of unrest in the colony. He thought tbe question of the purchase of the j Colonial Bank was most of all our trouble, and j if tbis bad not occurred thousands of pound* would have been saved. •He htd always j opposed this purchase, and considered the Bank of Now Zealand had quits enough to do without txking over risky business of that kind. As regarded the proposed board he thought it would bave been an improvement on old arrangements. He would : have to oppoce the clause wbich prevented a j director of the bank from being the director of j another company, as it would be impossible to keep out men possessing good business knowledge which wonld be very usnful. It seemed j to him tome progress bad been mads by the bank since last year, and be did not tbink so much loss would be caused by the estates taken over as was anticipated. He regarded the clause compelling bankers to keep assets in tbo colony equal to their liabilities as a reasonable one. Mr ALLEN said they bad been continually assured they bad heard the last of bink legislation, and now they hsd another bill dealing with tbe ba.uk, whicb, although net asking for a guarantee, was still a dangerous bill. Tbe bill was said to be the result of the committee's report. Ifc would be remembered that when this committee was formed tho Opposition hsd refused to serve on it on the ground that it would be a useless inquiry. As this report was supposed to represent entirely the Government side, they were forced to look on it with some suspicion. Ha intended to movn an amendment that tho bill ba read six months hence not to bill the bill, but mainly to allow those who wished to placpj their opinions on record in a more complete form than they were allowed to do in the half hou; allowed by the Standing Orders. He referred to the fact tbat the report of tbe Lfgislative Council had pointed out the position of tbo late Colouial Treasurer at tha time of tbe bank amalgamation, ancl regretted that the report of the House Committee had not done tbo same thing. Referring to the agreement mode not only with tbe president but with other officers of tbe bank, he thought ifc wonld be very unwise of the House to cancel tbe whole of theso agreements without arranging for the compensation of these officers, who were entitled to it. He asked the Premier what reason there was for deposing the previdont altogether. Was it because his party insisted on it, believing tbe country was with tbem ? If there was good reason for dismissing Mr Watson, he had no right to compensation; but if not, then Mr Watson had a right to apply to a jury fur redress. Hs disapproved of the bank being put under political control, which could not fail to bo injurious to the institution. He concluded by moving his amendment. Mr CKOWTHER said he should put the resppjnsibility of the bill on tho Government. Mr G. HUTCHISON said be should pass over tha abuse aud personalities whjch Mr Ward had heaped on him, aud be should deal only with public matters. He asserted tbat the references he made to Mr Ward were made solely iv respect to Mr Ward's action as a Minister of the Crown, and it was with considerable reluctance he hsd felt it his duty to teke the course he had done. He was speakiug when the telegraph office closed at 2 a.m.