Wellington, November 9th. The House met at 2.30.

Otago Witness, Issue 1355, 17 November 1877, Page 9

Wellington, November 9th. The House met at 2.30.

EXPLANATION. Mr LUSK, as a matter of personal explanation, dssired to make a statement in regard to the circumstances under which the House had in hia absence fined him for a breach of privilege. He did not think the Committee had treated him fairly in not having brought their report before the House before he bad left for Auckland. They knew well that he did not admit the justice of their report, which cast a gross imputation of untruthfulness on him. He had not the remotest idea the Committee would bring the matter before the House in his absence. He denied that the evidence in any way justified the repori. It was, on. the contrary, entirely confirmatory of all his statements. The Committee had not even askad the evidence of the other party to the transaction. He analysed the evidence at length and com mented on it. He contended the Standing Orders had been stretched to find him guilty of any breach of privilege. If their orders said one thing in plain language the House should not interpret them to mean something else, and so prove traps to members. He had not done what he was accused as guilty of. Proper evidence had not been taken, and on these grounds he claimed consideration from the House. He read a letter from Mr To:iks confirmatory of his statements before the Committee. Mr Whitaker had received L 33 last year from the Thames Borough Council fordraftingaHarbour BilL It was paid to the firm of Whitaker and Russell. The House had never treated such conduct as an offence before this case, although it was constantly done. He did not in any way appeal to the House to reverse its decision. He had not done anything morally wrong, or committed any intentional contempt

NEW BILL. Marine Act Amendment Bill (Sheehan). OBDEB OF BUSINESS.' The Orders of the Day being called on, the SPEAKER said he thought Major Atkinson was entitled to move according to notice that all Orders of the Day be postponed until the House bad disposed of the no-confidence motion.

Mr STOTJT raised several points of order against this oeingdone. 'A long discussion ensued, in which Messrs Bees, Travers, Reynolds, Whitaker, and Sheehan took part, and it was still proceeding at 5 p.m.

Oh the House meeting to- day, Major ATKINSON moved the postponement of the Orders of the Day to enable the motion of wantef confidence to be taken. A discussion on points of order was going on when' " Sir GEORGE GREY announced a message from the Governor, covering correspondence in the privilege case. This was read, and after this

Mr STOUT said he thought the question had now assumed larger proportions. It waa no longer between the Governor and the Houue, but the Governor wished to make it one between the House and the Home Government. He had not intended to raise any sach question, but the Governor now wished to make the Secretary of State judge of the privileges of the House. Who was the Secretary of State he would like to know, that he was to dictate on such a question ? He was a person unknown to the constitution, and had no right to interfere. The case also had another aspect. The Governor had a3sutaed a position that the duty of the Ministry was to obey his views, not those of the House. This was at variance with all the principles of Constitutional Government. He moved that the correspondence be taken into consideration at 2.30 to-morrow Mr ROLLESTON suggested Monday. Mr TRAVERS did not understand that the Governor has planed himself in any position antagonistic to the House. It was a question not as between the Governor and the House, but as to the position in which Ministers stood to tha Governor and to the House. That position was not a wise one, and Ministers were guilty of disrespect to ihe House in laying the original papers on the table. They were equally responsible with the Governor for the contents of those papers. It was a transparent patent trap laid by Ministers to catch the Governor. If actuated by honest feelings, they should have dr * w ° * he Governor's attention to the remarks which Mr Stout afterwards took exception to. The position of the affairs was on the part of the Government perfectly contemptible. They had dragged the Governor like a red herrini? across the ecent to bring the House into collision with Bia Excellency, in order to save themselves. It was not the question of privilege, but a question of Constitutional law which had arisen between the Governor and His responsible advisers. The question was whether Ministers were not bound either to defend in the House His Excellency's conduct, or else to resign, and allow others to take their place. He moved, as an amendment, that the matter be taken into consideration at 7.30 on Monday. Mr REES contended that Mr Travel had entirely mistaken the meaning of the Go vernot's message It distinctly referred to the privilege question, and not to the position of the Ministry. He commented strongly on ths inconsistency between the views expressed by Mr Travers and those he now expressed. If the Secretary of State was to be made the judge of the privileges of the House they might up the Constitution Act. Mr GISBORNE did not understand tha Governor to wish to refer the privilege case to the Secretary of State, but that His Excellency desired to ask the Secretary of State whether he had been placed in proper relation to the Houee by lus Ministers. If Ministers could not or would not defend the Governor in the House they should resign. Mr SHEEHAN compared Mr Travers to St. Peter in constantly denying himself. He denied absolutely that the Government had set any trap for the Governor. He called Mr .Travers, Mr Gisborne, Mrßolleston, and those who had deserted, the seven last joints of the Opposition tail, and said they had promised most solemnly after Sir George Grey was chosen leader to tupport him throughout the session. Mr Gisborne had gone e \r- • * «. "r to Bay ne would support a Ministry of six pairs of of old shoes for the session rather than let Mr Atkinson back. Ministers declined the position of being bound

tosupport the Governor if he came into conflict with the House contrary to their advice : but if through talcing their advice any conflict arose, they would support him to the utmost. He would rot agree for a moment to any third party being called in to decide as to the privileges cf the House. They were the judges of their own privileges, and the Governor had acted against the advice Ministers bad giveu him. The Governor was an independent branch of the Legislature, and could be heard just as much if he came into conflict with any other branch as the Legislative Council would if it came into contact with the House. It was thref ore _ absurd for the Governor to compare hi 3 position to that of a criminal, and to talk of being condemned unheard. Besides the Governor had it in his power to dismiss his Ministry if he liked to take the responsibility He would not for a moment lend himself to any quarrel with the Governor, *.vho, as the connecting link vnth the House and the country, he regarded as the most valuable feature of the Constitution. He and his colleagues had acted in the most perfect good faith in the advice they had given to the Governor, and they would rather resign than promote any quarrel of a serious nature between the House and the Governor. He urged postponing the consideration of the matter till to-morrow evening.

Major ATKINSON thought they had better postpone the consideration of the matter until Menday. If the Government would take a division on the want of confidence motion to-night they could have a holiday to morrow. He was prepared to take a division on that question at once.and test whether Ministers had amaj ority or not. If they had, the Opposition would give them every assistance to get the business done, but until shis question of who had the majority was settled, the Opposition would not suffer any bininess of any kind to be done. The majority would no longer consent to be ruled by the minority.

Sir GEORGE GREY thought there might be a majority of the House obtained, as no one knew one side or the other, but the real question was, who had a majority in the country ? Were the Opposition prepared to appeal to that tribunal to determine who had the majority? He believed the country would support them, and they would use every form of Parliamentary Government to retain the position they were now in. The Opposition had bribed in every direction they possibly could. Major ATKINSON moved that the words be taken down

Sir GEORGE GREY thought it would be well if he were allowed to complete the sentence.

The words were taken down. SirjGEORGE GREY was going on toadd"by promissory subsidies to road beards and boroughs." After some further discussion, Major ATKINSON expressed himself quite satisfied with the explanation. The SPEAKER remarked that, very wisely, the matter would therefore be allowed to drop. Sir GEORGE GREY continued. He was determined, if possible, to keep the position he held, because he believed he had the confidence of the people, and that from their past policy it, would be dangerous to allow the late Ministry to regain office. He believed great reforms could be, and would be, effected in the Colony, and the people relieved of the chains of debt and *übs«rviency to those richerthan themselves. He would therefore enter into no such compromise as Major Atkinson wanted, but would adcpteverylawfuland legitimate means to retain office until the people were appealed to. He most indignantly denied the statement of Mr Travers about bis having laid a trap for the Governor. For himself, , he had done his utmost with his colleagues to prevent any request to the Governor to call Mr "Wilson to the Council, and bad only yielded to repeated representation as to the necessity for efficient legal advice. Then it was only on the repeated solicitation of friends which had prevented his doing what he at first intended to do when his advice was refused on unconstitutional grounds which was to at once resign. He had, however' on reflection, determined it to be his duty to take the course he had since adopted. He did not for a moment believe the Governor intended to force him to resign. Both the Governor and himself were desirous of having the great constitutional question which had arisen settled amicably and for ever, but he could not consent to any third party being brought in to settle a difference of this kind. It should be settled in the Colony, and could be so settled without any quarrels, unless one was brought about by such intemperate language as Mr Travers had used. He believed the Governor would be most glad to see this question settled withoutinvoking foreign aid, and it was their bounden duty so to settle it. No men would advise His Excellency more faithfully than his present Ministers and with this end they would endeavour to bring about an amicable and honourable settlement within the Colony. Those who advised differently were no friends of New Zealand. Mr REID could not conceive anything more feeble than the memos. from Ministers,°and if tnat was a sample of how such questions could be dealt with in .the Colony, i. was nci encourag^ ing. It was very fine of Sir George Grey to talk of relieving the Colony of debt when they were commencing by proposing o very largely increase that debt, and were consenting to spend money in all directions when members asked them.

Sir GEORGE GREY said it was not proposed to ask authority to borrow L 5.000,000, although that sum waa really anted to clear the country. Mr REID continued : That he disputed the statement of liabilities. If the Government was popular it was through the delusive hopes it held out of profuse expenditure coupled with lessened burdens. What had Sir George Grey done since in office to restoie the people then liberties, and render the burthen of taxation more fair ?

Sir GEORGE GREY said he wouxd, if a dissolution were given, so that the people could return members to support i.im.

Mr REID would prefer some practical scheme to hearing vague professions of an intention to give everybody everything at the expense of nobody. Ministers had shown they were noc sincere in the expressed desire to pass the Land Bill. He feared there was little chance now of the Bill getting through this session, especially as it had yet to pass the Council. _ A position acquired by means to which Sir George Grey owed his, was not an enviable but a pitiable one ; it was obtained in defiance of constitutional law and precedent, and of the representatives of the people of whom he was always talking. Sir George Grey was now persisting in retaining his seat on the Government benches. The House was the representative of the people, and any Government attempting to carry on while in a minority must be necessarily wasting time. Such tactics would disgrace any road board, and could only be supported by a wiste of time in speaking against time. Sir George Grey should set the example, instead of attempting to evade the will of the House, aud undermine and destroy the Constitution and all Parliamentary Government. Mr DELAUTOUR spoke at considerable length in reply to Mr Reid,

A motion for adjournment of the debate until to-morrow was lost by 34 to 32. It was then agreed to adjourn the debate till Monday. Shortly before 1 o'clock Sir GEORGE GREY moved the adjournment of the House, on -which another long discussion arose in reference to Major Atkinson's motion at the commencement of sitting, to postpone the Orders of the Day to allow the Want of Confidence motion to come on.

The SPEAKER replied tbis could only be put by the consent of all parties, unless notice was given in the regular manner. Mr STOUT taunted the Opposition with their impatient desire to get into office. m Mr MOORHOUSE asserted tha* the Opposvtion had a vyorking majority of seven in the House, and the Government was simply taking advantage of the forms of the House to deprive the country of its natural governors, who had a right to office, and the Government were now in a respectable minority, and no amount of talking would alter a single vote. Mi- SHEEHAN in a long speech chaffed the Opposition about the motion No. 3, which he called a neglected and criminal child The Government had given the Opposition full opportunity for a lair attack, and it had failed. Ministers would take their own time to receive another attack, and Major Atkinson would have to wait the regular course for motion No. 3 to come on unless they would accept the challenge to c™ to the country to decide between thera. He challenged Major Ukinson to agree -othis. If he did he (Mr Sheehan) would promise to contest Egmont with him, and not to come back to the House if he could not beat him there. The Government knew they had fie country behind them, and if there was to be a fight a I'outrancelthey would carry !t on with spirit. They had the right of arranging the Order Paper for the next three clays, and would exercise it, and if the Opposition chose to obstruct public business the Government would give them the opportunity to obstruct sooie of taeir own pet measures. Mr GISBORNE admitted Major Atkinson's conduct was not conciliatory in opposing the adjournments asked for by the Government, but he appealed, to both sides to come to some compromise so as as not to obstruct the course of public business. The Government should not take advantage of a technicality to avoid testing the opinion of the House. The motion for the adjournment was carried and the House rose at 2.35. + Wellington, November 10th. On the House resuming at 7.30 last right, after a short discussion, the Speaker gave hia ruling on the points of order raised in reference to the possibility of Major Atkinson moving that the orders of the day be postponed to enable the want of confidence motion to come on. He aaid such a moti< n was quite admissible under ordinary circumstances, and the House uad power to regulate its own business if notice was given of intended alterations in due order. But under present circumstances the notice given was that on the first order of the day being called on Major Atkinson would move Lia motion, and now the first order was that the House go into committee en the Land Bill. The standing orders we're clear that an order of the day for going into committee on the Bill being called on the Speaker should leave the chair without the question being put. So soon, therefore, as the order was called on he had to leave the chair, and he did not see therefore, how, looking to the words of the motioii, Major Atkinson could possibly find an opportunity to move the resolution. The orders of the day were then called on, and the House went into committee on the Land BilL Considerable progress was made, a large number of clauses passing without amendment. The Canterbury new clauses were postponed, and the House rose at 1.5 a.m. Mr Travers has given notice of motion that the thar.ks of the House be tendered to His Excellency the Governor for his message, and that in the opinion of the House the action of the Ministers was unconstitutional and merited censure. ♦: Wellington, November 12th. In the Legislative Council today The Auckland College and Grammar School Bill was read a third time. The Wyndham Recreation Reserve Bill wa3 ordered to be committed at next sitting. The Council adjourned until 7.30 out of respect to the late Mr Ludlam, and to enable members to attend his f unera 1 . The House met at 2.30 p.m. to day, when a new Bill was introduced, viz., the Civil List Act Amendment Bill (Larnach) Sir GEORGE GREY moved the adjournment of the House till 7.30, to enable members to attend the funeral of the late Mr Alfred Ludlam, a former member of the House, and an old colonist, who had rendered valuable service to che Colony. Mr STAFFORD seconded the motion, and said he would be glad to see the adjournment until to-morrow, as a mark of respect to his memory. Sir GEORGE GREY could not consent to a longer adjournment at the present stage of the session. The Speaker then left the chair till 7.30. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr SHEEHAN laid on the table a telegram from Major Te Wheoro to Sir George Grey stating that Tawhiao was collecting food for the expected visit of Sir George Grey. In reply to Major Atkinson, Mr LARNACH said he would give notice before bringing down another Imprest Splyup Bill. Major ATKINSON moved the adjournment of the privilege debate for a week. The whole argument had been fairly replied to, therefore there was no reason for going on with the debate. The whole question to be referred to the House was one of Constitutional law, and not one affecting the privileges of the House, and the time of the Hous,e, therefore, would be better occupied in discussing the Land Bill than in discussing this subject. Mr STOUT thought Major Atkinson was treating Mr Travers very badly. He was evidently afraid, if the debate went on, Mr Travers's motion would be carried, and he would be sent for to form a Ministry instead of Major Atkinson. If the debase was adjourned for a week the House could not reply to what was before it on this case, and an exparte statement would go Home by the mail next week. Major Atkinson's anxiety to get on with business now came rather strangely after his recent threat to obstruct all business till his no-confidence motion was discussed. It was very unkind of Major Atkinson to check Mr Travers's ambition to become the leader of the Opposition.

Mr GISBORNE would have supported the adjournment if a mail did not leave for England in the interval, but he objected altogether to the view set forth by the Governor that the House could not determine the extent to which the Ministry were responsible to Parliament. He objected to any such question being referred to the Secretary of State. The House was perfectly competent to decide on auoh a question.

Had Mr Travers moved his motion, he would have moved an amendment, respectfully but . firmly, asserting the right of the House to determine for itself the Constitutional relations of Ministers to Parliament, and objecting to refer to the Secretary of State any such question. The views advanced by the Governor were dangerous to the first principles of Constitutional "Government, and if the adjournment would interfere with the House asserting those principles he would oppose it. > Mr REYNOLDS opposed the adjournment ' of the debate. <► Wellington, November 13 th. THK PRIVILEGE DEBATE. In the House last night, after M^ Revno'rlq . Mr WAKEEIELB opposed thY adjourn- , ment of the debate on the privilege question. i It should be settled at once. By ordering : Ministers to lay the correspondence ou the : table, the Governor jhaJ invited the House t.j express an opinion of them. To delay this t would be disgraceful to the Governor. The , proposal to go on with the other business would ' come with very bad grace from Major Atkinson, who a few nights ago had agreed to "stonewall all business. Mr. Travers's motion ( should be dealt with at once. No business i should be done till this question was settled Mr BRANDOX thought the question was ( one solely between the Governor and Lis Ministers. He did not Eec that the privile<*°s ' of the House were at all involved. He supported the adjournment. ' Mr WOOD opposed the adjournment. . Mr TRAVERS was indifferent about the : adjournment, as he did not see how the t privileges of the House wera in any way concerned in the discussion. The House ; had asserted them, and his Excellency 1 had neither assented nor dissented so , *ar. What the Governor said was that in ! the attitude Ministers had taken he was unable '. to give a definite reply. Had Ministers resigned because the Governor would not , admit the privileges of the House, he would t have supported them. It was his relation to the privileges of the House which ihe Gos vernor wished to refer to the Secretary of State. It was a pity Sir George L Urey had not followed his first instincts and resigned. Had Ministers done so he would have supported them, and so would every member who had any regard for the 1 privileges of the House. The Governor simply wished to refer hh relations between Ministers and himself to the decision of the Secretary" of State, but that. decision would have no effect on the House, which had nothing to do with the , Secretary of State, who, however, was the , Governor s superior officer. There was no in- , consistency in his having defended the privileges > of the House, and at the same time being ready , to condemn the conduct of Ministers. He had . acted consistently throughout. The' adjourn' ,' ment would in no way affect the privileges of i the House. 1 -Mr SHEEHAN had lost all faith in protes- ! tation about things not being party quea- : tions. They were always insincere. This matter was being made a party question, and ' this adjournment was asked for because the 1 party would not respond to the whip, and '■ follow Mr li-avers on any terms. He quoted \ from Mr Travers's previous speeches on ■ the subject to show how incjnsistent ms conduct was. If .this question were • allowed to be referred to the Secretary of ■ btate the House would be abandoning its privi1 leges, and therefore the Government opposed 1 the adjournment, on the ground that an exparte 1 statement, of the case should not be allowed to 1 go Home without protest. Mr Travers wr.s a ; political will-o'-the-wisp, always wavering, al\vaya changing, and no one ever knew how to have him. They had tried to drop a 1 little salt on his tail, but without effect. No one could fix him. Had Ministers resigned 1 under the circumstances they would have estab1 lished a most dangerous precedent, and have ; shown the Governoi an easy Way to get rid of .Ministers he did not like. 'He ha-i the utmost scorn for those who would barter the constitutional pri, -lieges of the House by making them depend on outside power for mere party objects. Such a course would be the first step to the sacrifice of all constitutional freedom, and would establish a despotism. Ministers 'were quite prepared to stake their existence on the defence , of the liberties of the House. He was proud of the position Ministers had taken in the matter. He repeated the denial that Sir , George Grey had in any way provoked a quarrel with the Governor. On the contrary, Sir George Grey had very unwillingly assented to recommending any appointment to the Lsgislative Council until the whole queaticm. of the constitution of that body could bs eo)>sjdered. Mr HODGKINSON thought the Governor had committed a fresh breach of privilege in maintaining the House could not decide the questions at issue, and that they should be referred to the Secretary of State. Sir GEORGE GREY thought Major Atkinson had brought shame on himself, the House, and the country by proposing to refer the question of privilege to a foreign authority. The Opposition should also be ashamed not to proceed Tvith the vote of censure they had brought forward. The Governor knew too well what was due to the House to forward any explanation to the Secretary of State. The Governor claimed the rights of a Governor without the advice of bis constitutional Ministry whenever a vote of want of confidence was pending in the House. The Minis-" try felt it to be their duty to at once contest the existence of any such right, and the only tribunal to decide who was right was the House. Ministers had endeavoured to bring the question before the House in a manner without offending anyone. Now further questions arose, and the Governor said he was responsible only to the Secretary of State. This was a most dangerous doctrine. The constitutional duty of the Secretary of State was to recommend the Queen to appoint a Governor, but Secretaries now used language to the effect " I have appointed you." Once appointed, the Governor was simply responsible to the laws* and Constitution of the country he was governing. A Governor had higher powers than a judge, but what would be thought of the judge who held himself responsible- to the Government by which he was appointed? Of the Secretary of State the House knew nothing and cared nothing. That officer had his functions to perform and the House had iis functions. The Governor was now corresponding with other Governors, and the House should, take carethatthe Governor took no advice from other advisers than those appointed by the House. If the Governors were to consult to form a code of laws and precedents amongst themselves most disastrous results w<nila follow. The House should maintain that we ~vere as free in New Zealand as the people in England were free, and no foreign authority should interpose. Our statesmen were as capable of dealing -with our internal affairs as those of any other country with its affairs, and no interference sh :>uld be oermitted. Thus in the matter of granting a"digsolution the Governor should not impose any conditions on Ministers which would not be imposed on Ministers at home. Great prinr ciples underlay these matters, and the House should lolc below the surface in dealing with, these great questions. He referred to several

instances of the interferencs of the Secretary of State with South Africa, which had since been held to be utterly illegal. He believed that recent interference in New Zealand affairs would ultimately be found to be illegal also. An attempt was now being made to reduce all Colonial dependencies to one uniform system of institution 3, and the House ahopld at once resist any attempt to invoke the interference of the Secretary of State. He urged Mr Travera to go on with his threatened vote of censure, or elee have the manliness to admit he had done wrong and withdraw his motion.

Major ATKINSON denied that he ever contemplated allowing any foreign interfereuce with the privileges of the Colony. He would never be found, as Sii v George Grey had been, appealing to the Secretary of State to set aside the action of the House.

The division on the motion for the adjournment of the debate was carried by 38 to 37. Ayes, 38. — Atkinson, Beetham.Bowen, Brandon, Burns. Curtis, Douglas, Fitzroy, Gibbs, Henry, Hunter, Hursthonse, Johnston, Kennedy. Lumsden, Manders, Miiean, Moorhouse, Morris, Murray- Aynsley, Ormond, Reid, Richardson, Richmond, Rolleston, Rowe, Russell, Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Sutton, Teschemaker, Travers, Wason, Whitaker, Williams, Woolcock. Noes, 37.— Baigeut, Ballance, Barf, J. C. Brown, Bruce, Bunny, De Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Gisborne, Grey, Hamlin, Hislop, Kodgkinson, Joyce, Kelly, Larnach, Lusk. Macandrew, Macfarktne, Montgomery, Murray, Nahe, O'Rorke, Pyke, Rees, Reynolds, Seaton, Sheeban, ShrimsJd, Stout, Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tola, Wakefield, W. Wood. Mr REYNOLDS moved that the debate would be resumed at 10 o'clock tonight, so as to enable Mr Travers to go on with his motion if he really meant it. Mr GISBORNE hoped both sides would agree to resume the debate on Friday, so that an expression of opinion of the House on the important points raised might go Home by the same mail as the Governor's memo. Mr REYNOLDS assented to this. Mr REES accused the Opposition of bringing representative institutions into contempt, and making themselves ridiculous. They were attempting to stifle an expression of opinion of the House on most grave and important questions. On a division by 38 to 37, the motion for resuming the debate on Friday was negatived. Mr STOUT said the reaaonthe Opposition were so anxious to adjourn this question, was the desire of the Canterbury runholders to get their leases settled in the Land Bill. They were bartering their privileges for the sake of these leases. He hoped the people would soon be given an opportunity to say whether they approved of such conduct. Matters had now come to being a mere faction fight It was no longer a party warfare. He criticised the composition and action of the Opposition at some length. _ They even made the Land Bill a party matter in committee, and all they cared for was the Canterbury run clauses. An attempt was now being made to ostracise the present Premier because he was as remarkable now as he always had basn for his liberal views on the land question, and his opposition to all cliques, and rings, and governing parties. The last division would have been different bad not an hon. member sitting beside him, who had promised to accept Friday, not broken bis word. _ Mr LUMSDEN said this was a most audacious charge. HehadeaidhewasmllLigtoagres to Friday : but he had consulted those with whom he usually acted, and they had assured him they had the best reasons for iosisting on a week's adjournment, so he had voted with his party. Z Mr DE LAUTOUR thought the House should Jcnow what tuese excellent reasons were. No doubt the Opposition wished the mail to leave with a vote of censure still hanging over Ministers, and without the House ext pressing any opinion whether the Governor was wrong or right That was th« 3 Gospel according to Toryism. Mr Wakefield said a week's adjournment meant shelving this large Constitutional question altogether, and _ preventing the House expressing any opinion on it He was grieved to find men like Mr Stafford abandoning the noble position he had hitherto occupied in the history of the Colony by voting to prevent the discussion of such a question. Very different waa the action Mr Stafford took in 1867 and 1869, when in conjunction with Sir George Grey he resisted the tyranny of the encroachments of the Secretary of State until one W2s removed from governor ship and the other from office. Now Mr Stafford foUowed a servile party, and ruined the reputation he hitherto held as the best upholder of the rights and privileges of the House and the people of New Zealand. Mr SHRIMSKI moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr REYNOLDS proceeded at length to criticise the conduct ot Mr Travers in relation to the privilege matter.

Mr TRAVERS said if the Crown of England refused to accept the advice of Ministers to appoint a peer it would raise a question between the Crown and Ministers, but would not affect the privileges of the House o; Commons. Ministers would, at Home, resign onder such circumstances, or else have been bound to defend the action of the Crown in Parliament. He quoted authorities to show that while they retained office the Ministry were bound to defend the act of the Crown, and if the Crown refused to do an executive act on their advice they must either resign or defend the refusal. Had an improper appointment been made by the Crowa Ministers would have had to support it, and they were equally bound to snpport the refusal to make an appointment. Had tho Government resigned here he would have supported them. The reasons given by the Governor for refusing their advice was- a, matter quite distinct from the refusal, and wa«s a breach of privilege. The House was, however, quite justified in dissevering the two point" in considering and dealing with them. The question of^ privilege was quite distinct from the constitutional relatior.s between the Governor and his Ministers. The Committee of Privileges had through its proceedings carefully maintained the distinction, but he and others had never lost sight of the latter part of the question. He defended his consistency throughout. He had never exonerateithe Ministry from the chargeof unconstitutional conduct. Had Ministers resigned the Governor would have had to find Ministers who were prepared to justify his conduct in refusing to appoint Mr Wilson, and the reasons given for it. Despite party feeling, he did not think the Governor would have been able to find iv the House advisers who would accept that position. He did not choose to force the motion of which he had given notice on the House contrary to the expressed wish of the leaders of the party with which he was acting. He had not been guilty of any violation of party ties. He had, however, left the party he previously belonged to, because they broke their word, distinctly given as a condition of his joining them. This was that Sir George Grey should not be at the head of the Government. He held the highest opinion of Sir George Grey, and thought he had suffered greatly for his loyalty to New Zealand. He had Been very badly treated by the Home Government, bat yet fie did not wish for other reasons

to see Sir George Grey Premier, and it was be- 1 cause distinct pledges given on this quastioa had been broken that he refused to support the Ministry formed under Sir George Gtey. Mr STOUT compared Mr Travers's last speech with the one m.ide the last time the subject was before the House, showing how different it was. If the Ministry felt it at any time their duty to move an address to the Queen to remove a Governor could they be held responsible for what a Governor did ? If the Ministers were the persons responsible, why, then, had Mr Travers himself moved what was a vote of censure on thb Governor for something which Mr Travers now maintained somebody else, and not the Governor was responsible? ]Vlr Travers also, after deprecating party feeling in dealing with ibis question, now admitted he would not move his motion because his party leader desired him not to. The object of all all this was that the Governor might send home an ex parle statement of the whole affair, and the privileges of the House wei c not to be vindicated because Major Atkinson could die tate to Mr Travers. Was it true party government — that government which was based on a conspiracy of half a-dozen men — to ostracise a. man like Sir George Grey from political life ? Where waa tne principle in this ? Let them compare the action taken by many of these very men, in 1867, in Parliament agreeing to an address to Sir George Grey highly eulogising him and his services, with their attempts to ostracise him 'now. If a Governor was to take a part in party fight, and aa soon as a vote of want of confidence was tabled disregard the advice of his conntitutional advisers, desj potism would be established, and the relations between the Colony and the Mother Country | would be seriously affected. After Mr Travers's speech the country would see it was not a question of political principle or administrative reform which was the cause of the opposition to thn Ministry, but purely a question of personal antagonism to a man who had rendered most eminent services to the country. Mr REES criticised Mr Travers's conduct at length. The only fault Mr Travers seemed able to bring against Sir George Grey was that he had served his country well and deserved well ot it. He would like to know how those who had voted with Major Atkinson on this question would justify their votes to their con stituents. Mr Rees was proceeding to speak of Mr Travers seeking office, when Mr TRAVERS said he had been frequently asked to join the present Ministry. Sir GEORGE GREY : By whom ? Mr TRAVERS : By Mr Larnach, for one. Mr LaRNACH : I have no recollection of

Mr REES said if Mr Travers put himself into such a ridiculous position as going about the lobbies making Cabinets up he must expect to hear of it. The adjournment of this matter of privilege was calculated to place the Governor in a very false position, both here and at Home, where the subject would excite a large amount of interest. The House wouldnever submit to any decision of the Secretary of State. He objected altogether to the various Governors forming a kind of governing body of themselves, without any reference to their responsible advisers. If such a state of things were permitted the liberties of the people were in danger. A dissolution was the only remedy for the present condition of affairs in the House. Either the present Ministry must be allowed to finish the work of the session and prorogue, or the House should be dissolved at once, and all of them be sent to give an account of their services to their constituents. He would prefer the latter course. His side were not afraid to face the people. Mr TRAVERS said Mr Bunny was present when Mr Larnach offered him the Attorney- ' Generalship, and was prepared to confirm his statement.

Mr LAJRNACH said he had been with Mr Bunny in Mr Travers's officp, but it was before he was a member of the Government at all, and no offer was made to Mr Travers to join Sir George Grey's Minisiry. Mr SUTTON said it was all nonsense to talk about the privileges of the House beintj invalid, it was a very petty matter to be wasting time over. The first suggestion to refer the matter to the Secretary of State came from Sir George Grey in his memo of the 7th, and not from the Governor at all

Mr GIS BORNE quoted the resolutions of thn New South Wales Parliament in 1874, condemning the interference of the Secretary of State in appointments to the Legislative Council, and as subversive of the Constitution of the Colony, and opposed to the privileges of Parliament. He would like to see the House vindicate its privileges and position in a similar manner, and when the opportunity ottered he would propose a resolution in that direction The ACTING-SPEAKER, Mr O'liorke, pointed out that if a motion for the adjournment of the House was carried, the whole question would be got rid of for the session. Mr JOYCE thought this would ba a very desirable conclusion, as the House had already resolved that the Governor had beei- guilty of a breach of privilege, and His Excellency had practically admitted having inadvertently done so. There was no good in pushing the matter further.

Mr REID thought too much altogether had been made of what was really a very small matter. He thought, under the circumstances, the recommendation of Mr Wilson's appointment was deserving of censure. Ministers were also to blame for the publication of the correspondence when they laid this beiore Parliament. They should have staled at the same time that they had resigned their seats : then if they had shown the privileges of the House had been invaded, he and the House would have supported them thoroughly ; Parliament as one man would rise up to defend the rignt of the House to decide its own privilege. The Secretary of State might give instructions to the Governor, but would hardly venture to interfere with tho House, or lay down any rule for its guidance,. How did Sir George Grey reconcile the present objection to the interference of the Secretary of State now, when last year he proposed to ask the Secretary of State to interfere with the decision of Parliament. Mr STOUT: The petition was to the Queen.

Mr REID said that was a mere quibble. lie had been astonished and horrified at the proposal of the Otago Convention to appeal to foreign authority. He was glad those on the other side had now scon the error of their ways. If there was an appeal to the people, Mr Rees might find his expectations disappointed. Members should act according to conscientious convictions without reference to what people onbride might think. He did not think tha liberties of Parliament had been in any way attacked or infringed, and the mattsr might now be let drop.

Sir GEORGE GREY said it was quite true that he Gad proposed to appeal to the Crown. They held all their privileges under an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and it was to determine whether the House was proposing to break an Act of the Imperial Parliament under which it and the other legislatures it proposed to destroy were created that they wished the •übjert referred to the Imperial authorities.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was agreed to at 12.40, and the whole matte: therefore lapsed.

The House met at 2.30 this afternoon. THE POLICE FORCE. In reply to Mr Gisborne, The Hon. Mr SHEEHAN said that in reducing the constabulary force the late Ministry had granted the officers four months' p&y as a gratuity, and privates one month's pay. LAND BILL. The House went into Committee on the Land Bill. On the Canterbury run clauses, Mr SHEEHAN" declared this was the last possible chasce of any compromise on tue question, and he urged the Canterbury people to accept the terms offered. If these were refused it would become a question with the Government whether the clauses should not be left over as an open question till next year, especially if an. appeal to the country were to take place. In the meantime he did. not think such an appeal would nowbe necessary, buthe urged Canterbury to accept the terms offered. These terms were that the rent should not be less than one shilling per head on sheep, nor less than five shillings per head for great cattle, according to carrying capacity. The Government also proposed to make the lease five years instead of ten years. Mr ROLLESTON said the terms of the Bill as amended by the Waste Lands Committee — viz. , ninepence and four shillings — were in themselves a compromise. This the Canterbury men were prepared to accept, not as what they wanted, but as a compromise. If these terms were increased great injustice would be done to many small struggling men in the bad back country. He urged leasing at a low minimum to meet such cases ; ten years' tenure was not. he thought, too long to give. Mr REID at considerable length reviewed the position of the Canterbury license-holders, and thought that a certain tenure of ten years was by no means more than they were entitled to, locking an the whole circumstances of the case and the fact that most of the license- j holders now were msn who had bought on tho security of holding their runs until they were sold or reserved. He thought the proposed minimum assessment too high. Mr STOUT said Mr Reid had, in the Waste | Lanas Committee, himself, supported the minimum assessment. He contended the Government proposal would actually, give the runholders an extension of tenure to which they had no legal title or right, while it, would be given them with little or no real increase of rent. Mr TRAVERS contented that, according to the wording of the Bill, the Waste Lands Board would have to determine a uniform rate of assessment for all runs between the maximum and minimum, according tc carrying capacity, but without any regard to situation. He thought that for years the Canterbury runholders had enjoyed great and exceptional advantages. He thought a percentage on tho cost and value of the land occupied the best means of arriving at a rental. They should now pay a fair rent, and the House should fix the amount at Is per sheep. [ It would not be oppressive on any run, and on those best situated, a higher rate should be charged. Provision should also be made for, if necessary, increasing < the rental during the j j tenure, 3 the carrying capacity increased. ! Mr STEVENS supported a long tenure and high rental. ' , - Mr MOORHOUSE supported the Bill as it stood. Mr WHITAKER thought the Board should assess not the quality, but the value of the run, as well as its carrying capacity. ' The matter was an ordinary one of land-owner and tenant All existing rights practically terminated in 1880, but the State, being the landlord, should deal liberally in renewing the tenure. If the Board could be trusted to assess fairly, it wa3 not of much importance whether the minimum I were fixed at ninepence or a shilling. He ( thought Ihe fixing of the assessment might be left to the Board, if it was a fair tribunal, and moved that the word " value" be substituted for " quality," in clause 98. - Agreed to. On a division, the ninepence minimum I assessment on sheep was carried by 37 to 27. In the Legislative Council, the City of Dunedin Loans Consolidation Bill, third reading, was agreed to. The Public Reserves Bill waa cad a second time.

«. t Wellington, November 14th. In the Legislative Council, 1 Mr ROLLEN brought up the Waste Lands Committes's report on the Bluff Harbour Endowments and Borrowing Bill. The report was read, and the Bill ordered to be committed next sitting day. Mr NURSE asked the Coionial Secretary if the Government will detail an engineer to confer with the Riverton Harbour Board to inquire into and report generally what improvements are required to turn the harbour to the best^ account; also, to draw up planjj and specifications for such improvements. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE said Mr Blackett, marine engineer, when on his way South, should receive instructions to furnish the Riverton Harbour Board with a report showing the best mode of improving ihe harbour, and if the Board agreed with the report they would concur in the expenditure sugge&fced therein.

LANDS BILL. In the House last night, On clause 110, which extends the tenure of lease, Mr STOUT moved that the term be reduced from 10 to five years, to terminate in 1885. Mr REES said if the 10 years' tenure was carried he would use every effort to get it . altered, or repealed altogether next session. He therefore urged the Canterbury members to agree for five years as a fair compromise. Sir GEORGE GREY opposed the 10 years' tenure as unjust to the public, -with whose lanck the House was dealing as trustee. He objected to a valuable monopoly being given to a few to tha loss and expense of many. The matter really affected the taxation of the country, and was one of general interest to the Colony, and not simply a Canterbury question. It should not be finally settled till after a general election. He would, however, although rather unwillingly, agree to a five years' extensioM. | Mr WAKEFIELD thought Sir George Grey entirely misunderstood the position of the [ matter. Free selection extended over the | whole of the lands, and it was only a right to depasture stock on them till they were purchased, which was giv<?n to rui)holders. He strongly urged the desirability of giving a ten years' tenure. He objected altogether to putting up runs to auction, as unjust to the poor runholder, and unduly favourable to lar beb 'c companies and rich men. After considerable further discussion, the amendment in favour of five years was nega tived on a division by 36 to 28. On clause 112, Mr STOUT moved that pre-emptive rights should terminate in 1879, instead of 1880. Mr ROLLESTON opposed this, and it was negatived. The remaining clauses were agreed to without any substantial alteration. The schedule and appendices were postponed till Friday, Progress waa reported, and the House rose at 1.35.

The House met at 2.30 to-day. ANSWERS" TO QUESTIONS. In reply to Mr Hislop, The Hon. Mt LARNACH said they would, cause inquiries to be made regarding the expenses incutred by local bodies in surveying ihe Oamaru and Naseby Railway line, to see whether the Government should contribute. In reply to Mr Stafford's question whether there is any foundation for the statement circulated in the Colonial Press, on the authority of " Our Own Correspondents," to the effect "that officers of the Civil Service of Kew Zealand were placing difficulties in the way of the oresent Government obtaining information as to the public affairs of the Colony. Sir GEORGE GREY replied that the re ports in question had not been published, by authority of the Government. In reply to Mr Stafford, The Hon. Mr LARNACH said he proposed to make his Financial Statement en Monday evening next ; but thi3 was contingent on his being given fair play, and not being interfered with by the action of the Opposition. MEW BILLS. Financial Arrangements Act Amendment Bill (Sheehan), Public Works Act Amendment Bill (Lamach), NATrVE LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILE. .The Hon. Mr SHEEHAN stated that in moving the second reading of this . latter Bill to-morrow, he would make his statement on Native affairs. WORKS IN AUCKLAND. -' > ■ Sir R. DOUGLAS moved, " That thi House will to-morrow resolve itself into la ' Committee of the whole to consider an address to His Excellency, praying he will cause to be placed^ on the Supplementary Estimates ■ the following sums for works set oppesite to 1 them respectively : Road from Maungaturoto to Waikekie, L 100 0'; for opening road at Ruatangata, L 300; wharf at Whangarei Heads,' LCOO ; road at Maungakaramea, LBOO ; tranv way at Komn, L 200 0; Mongati wharf: say LBOO. Total, L 5500." In doing so, lie' pointed oui the claims and" ths necessities of the works. Mr DlGNAN 'seconded, and supported the motion. ... . - After somo discussion, in which -Messrs WHITAKER and LUSK supported, and Mr J. C. BROWN opposed the motion, ' I The Hon. Mr SHEEkAN said he was glad to see at la«t a disposition to do justice to the* North of Auckland. He" had for a* long time fought the battle, and had been opposed by the' " late Government. He thought these works ' were fairly Provincial liabilities, ' as • indeed * were many, other works in the districts north of Auckland. On going into committee the Government would take such action as the financial condition of the country permitted.' After tlje Financial Statement was made, the House would know what funds were available, and if the finances permitted it, more justice ~wjould be done to the north of Auckland ■than was contemplated on the present ' estimates. The .district was a valuable one, which required opening up, and the Government had' every .disposition to do allfthey fairly 'could for it -with the funds available. ' •' > ' •Mr REES pointed out the very large amount of Auckland's Provincial liabilities, as |c6mpared with those. of other Provincial districts.The motion only asked for a very smalMnstal-" ment of justice. The peoplethere were heavily* taxed to pay the 'interest on money snent in public works elsewhere. - Out of some £800,000 Provincial liabilities and supplementary, estimates to be provided 'f of "this year by the Colony, Auckland was only to get some £20,000; j although in area the largest/ and in population apd contribution .tq revenue, the second Provincial district, in the Colony. tendent of Auckland had not been as wise in his generation as the other Superintendents,* who,as children of the light, hadbeen.ableio make, all sortß of appropriations in conjunction simply wii,h the Colonial Treasurer, under the Provincial Appropriations Extension Act, whichenabled this to be done. Taranakij-and Marlboroiigh had absolutely committed the Colony to a larger extent than Auckland. Th,ese liabilities were imposed by consent between the Superintendents and the Government of thefday, andthe Housa should do justice now, as far as possible, to those Provincial districts, -which had not been thus favoured. Mr REYNOLDS said the land 'revenues in, Ota'/o and Canterbury would ultimately cover their liabilities. He contended, and could prove, that within the last 20 years the expenditure, in proportion to contribution to revenue, was greater in Auckland than in either. Canler bury or Otago. Within the last three years no Province had received anything lik so much as Taranaki. | Messrs KELLY and ATKINSON declared this statement to be utterly fallacious. MrMACANDREW pointed out ,that .the 1 Provincial liabilities of Otago were nearly all contracts extending over some years, and not an arrangement between the Superintendent and Colonial Government. Mr HUNTER made a similar explanation in ! regard to Wellington, The assets would meet the whule liabilities. Motion agreed to. | The Native Land Act Amendment Bill (Rees) was ordered to be committed, this day three, months. » ~ ; CROWN LANDS ENDOWMENTS. " ' Mr MURRAY moved — "1. That each county in New Zealand should have a permanent inalienable endowment cf Crown lands in proportion to the area of such county, aad the endowment, where possible, to be within the • county. 2. That each municipality , in 'New Zealand should have a permanent inalienable endowment of public lands in proportion^ to population, and the endowment, if available, to i be within the municipality." - , Mr O'RORKE drew attention to the manner in winch advantage was being taken of the law | allowing municipalities to acquire endowments of I land. Municipalities in Canterbury were getting 20,000 acres each outside their boundaries, and without the House being consulted, - while he actually could not, without the assent- of- theHouse and Government, obtain a small endowment for Onehunga, although the land was within the Borough He would move an amendment, by wav of addition, to the effect that no more^ endowments outside jmunieipalities' boundaries, under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876, should be made, ,and no new grants be issued, before the close of next session, so as to enable the House then to consider, the question of endowing municipalities- on -a, uniform system. Mr BURNS objected that it would.be very unfair to thuu suspend the operation of the law Mr MONTGOMERY proposed to assist the works in proportion to the aTea of such' county ' in the first resolution. He thought Mr O'Rorke's proposal^ was most unfair." The whole sxxbject of endowments would, no doubt" have to be considered at an early period and in. cennection with the subject of 'subsidies. Mr STEVENS supported the motion, as it indicated a proper direction, although no practical effect might immediately follow. He could | not support Mr O'Rorke's proposal. The time was rapidly coming, if it had not already come when subsidies from the Colony to local bodies aiust cease. . The only thing then to be done was to give themendowmentiß, from the public estate ' . *

proposal would' be very-unfairj-eslieciaUyiraT peXg! ap^ at^:, %,' endown|nt,|ere- • After further discussion Mr WHITAKER supported; Mr O'Rorke's proposal That the borougHs throughout the Cotonr should be -dealt with-on some uniform Sy SiTGEORGE UREY.saiithe.Governnlentv.' would most carefully consider the subjects en-" * .dowmente dunng the.recess, and/en'deavdurto 1 ,devise a measure to give practical effect -to 'Mr 'A Murray s proposal. ...racy. felt bound to try.anil make the. msUufcions they found J existing^ • effective,; and usefuLas 1 ,, and '-'endow-' 1 ments such as proposed, was one "*. means-, towards this end. — *"»«»"» j Mr MOORHOUSE pointed out how very unfairly Chnstchurch had.beeatreated.in the matter of endowments, and 'thV 5205 20 (JOb^cres . now granted was a ridiculous coinp'eh'satio'fi'W I the reserves of wh.ch, for ;the" gib'd 1 of u tW l Colony, the city had; years ago- beeh'deprivea' t , He should continue" to agitate 7 fo'r "adeb'iste uf justice being done.' - ' " ' ~ :!: •* • "'• -?"-7»..v i .; Mr 'BOWEN thought' it wduldVe: nib^nn'L just to prevent the endowmeritsalr'eidv^iJnlied" ' .for being granted as proposed' by"Mr;O'Rorke' ' Each case-should be .dealt,witfa'bri its'merirV " i ; 5M E BURNSo P p6s ce d v MrO'RTrke l So S al / * as a most-unfair oner v ! ;• ; - " ;< * " ,-'Vi • Ju * l , The debate was interrupted by the^dVourib^f ment hour. -«W