N.Z. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Otago Witness, Issue 1813, 20 August 1886, Page 10

N.Z. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wednesday, August 11. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. IN COMMITTEE. The Rabbit Bill was further considered in committee. There was considerable discussion of a new clause providing that the board may strike a, rate not exceeding three-sixteenths of a penny in the pound on the rateable value in the county. Mr HURSTHOUSE complained of the manner in which new clauses were brought down. Mr BRYCE protested against this system of legislation. Here was a rating clause brought down in a slipshod way and sought to be introduced into the bill at the last moment. Mr HURSTHOUSE said it was not treating the House fairly or honestly to bring down what was virtually a new bill in the way the Government had done. He requested the Minister in charge of the bill to report progress. The Hon. Mr TOLE said he could not consent to do so. The several proposed new clauses had been on the Order Paper for some time. Mr HURSTHOUSE objected to the rate being imposed by a bare majority, and would move to recommit the bill. The rating clause was carried on the voices. A clause was added on the motion of the Hon. Mr TOLE exempting boroughs and towns from the operation of the act. ,Mr SCOBIE MACKENZIE moved to insert a new clause, providing that stockowners may vote by deputy. After considerable discussion the proposed clause was negatived by 35 to 23. The bill was reported as amended. The Property Assessment Bill was considered in committee. On clause 2, amended definition of company, being put down, Mr W. D. STEWART pointed out that this was intended to include church property. Mr MACANDREW said this was stealing a march on church property. It was unjust to force this proposal at the fag end of the session without the persons interested having an opportunity of exerting their political influence against it, if they had any. It was like hitting one below the belt. It involved a loss to the churches of £3000 or £4000 a year. It was monstrous for such a large question as this to be brought up at the very dying hour of the session. Sir R. STOUT said the church pepple knew all about this, as they fought it out in theSupreme Court. Were they going to exempt a million worth of property from taxation ? Most of the property, too, was State granted land. If they did as was done in other countries the State would confiscate all this land. Mr O'CALLAGHAN held that these church lands had been vastly improved by public works, and should not be exempt from taxation. Mr BARRON was surprised at hon. gentlemen refusing taxation to the Government. It cost £15,000 a year to keep the Government in office, and why then should taxation be refused? Sir R. STOUT said Mr Barron charged his travelling expenses, and he (the Premier) did

not know that the colony got much for it. The colony got the Government cheap for £15,000. Mr MACANDREW said it was mere bunkum to say the State had endowed the Church in Otago. He wished he had the eloquence of the Premier, who could make the worse appear the better cause. — (Laughter.) Mr BRUCE would vote against the clause, on the ground that to tax church property was equivalent to placing a tax upon the moral health of the community. Mr ROLLESTON thought they should not cripple the few civilising agencies we had, and the course they were adopting now would have that effect. Mr GARRIOK held that the ecclesiastical corporations had been benefited to a large extent by the Municipal and General Government, and could it be held that they should not contribute something towards good government? Mr FULTON said the churches should be thankful for having escaped taxation so long, and their moral sense should acknowledge the justice of being now called upon to pay a fair share of the taxation of the colony. The clause was carried by 35 to 17. On clause 4, " Trustee of property held in reversion, &c, liable to tax," Mr GARRICK moved a proviso to the clause as follows : — "Provided that no trustee shall be deemed liable to pay such tax out of his own pocket." This was agreed to, and the clause was amended and passed. The bill was reported as amended. The Settled Land Bill was considered in committee. All reference to mortgages was omitted. Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again. BILL PASSED. The Property Assessment Bill was read a' third time and passed. THE COUNCIL'S AMENDMENTS. The amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Otago Harbour Board Leasing Bill were agreed to. A committee was appointed to confer with the Legislative Council on the Harbours Bill, the managers being Messrs Macandrew, M'Kenzie, and the Minister of Mines. Committees were appointed to confer with committees of the Legislative Council on the amendments made by the Council in the Counties and Municipal Corporations Bills. SETTLED LAND BILL. The Settled Land Bill was again considered ,in committee, and further amendments having been made it was reported as amended. The bill was read a third time and passed. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON moved to recommit the District Railways Bill in order to reconsider clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. He said the clause relating to the cash to be paid to the company had been altered in a small House. Mr PEARSON asked the Minister what he wanted to dp in the matter. Did he want the amount which had been reduced reinstated ? Mr MONTGOMERY said the Minister wished now to have the^ amount reinstated between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning in a still smaller House than that which reduced the vote. Was it not a case of " lobbying " ? He did not believe the Minister would have come down with this proposal to reinstate the amount unless he had been led to believ® there was now a chance of reversing the deliberate decision of the House. He felt strongly they would be doing a wrong if they consented to the proposal made by the Government, and he should vote against it. He objected to going into committee .to restore the amount which the House t had deliberately struck off a few nights ago. Captain SUTTER also objected to the proposal made by Government in a thin House when many members were away. If they inserted the amount struck out the other night the whole sum required for this railway would be £131,000. He could not see any possible excuse which the Minister could give for this proposal. Mr BRYCE wish*! to en*er his protest against this attempt to squander money of the colony. Considering that the Premier was so much concerned with the company that he had ;to refrain from voting on the question, the Government should be very careful in their action. It appeared to him that the Government had carefully watched their opportunity for bringing this motion forward. He also protested against the lobbying that had been going on over this matter. > Mr DUNCAN protested in the strongest manner possible against this attempt to restore the amount which the House had struck out. ' He was quite prepared/ to join any other member in resisting this proposal. Mr BUCHANAN was satisfied that influences of a most unfair character were now being used to induce members to give a larger price for this railway than it was worth. He should also be glad to remain a fortnight if they removed this injustice. Mr ROLLESTON hoped that now the Government had seen the temper of the House on this question they would do well to agree to the adjournment of the debate. He felt the House would be acting wrongly if it con»ented to reopen this question at all, and he' saw no necessity for reopening it. If the company refused to sell the Waimea line they did not want to force them to do so. He hoped that Ministers would not press this matter at such a late hour. Mr PEACOCK moved the adjournment of the debate. The Hon Mr RICHARDSON said he had no wish to force this question in a thin House. Half the members who had spoken to him knew that the question was to come on that night. Major ATKINSON thought the Government would be wise to make an adjournment, and he thought also the Government should fix a definite time for the question, so that members should know when it would be taken. The motion for the adjournment was agreed The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said he would make it the first order of the day for to-morrow. The Hou°e rose at 1.45 a.m. Thursday, August 12. The House met at 2.30 p.m. j MR VAILE'S RAILWAY REFORM SCHEME. The Select Committee brought up its report on Vaile's railway system as follows :— " Your Committee have taken a great deal of evidence regarding the practicability and the probable financial results of Mr Vaile's scheme as applied to passenger traffic, and the balance of evidence given by experts was unfavourable to it, while the evidence given in its favour seemed to depend largely upon somewhat speculative estimates of the probable increase of traffic in certain proportions over the various distances and the different classes. On the other hand, however, the returns furnished to the committee by the Railway department, and included in the evidence, giving detailed particulars of the passenger traffic and the revenue derived from it from station to station for the various dis-

tances, to some extent supported Mr Vaile's contention. Mr Vaile also stated that, having no departmental returns upon which to base kis calculations, he was unable to estimate I even approximately the effect of his system as applied to goods traffic. The evidence regarding the applicability of the system for the carriage of goods, from which source more than two-thirds of our railway revenue , is derived, was unfortunately of the most meagre description, all of the witnesses called by Mr Vaile stating that they had not gone into that part of the question, and declining to express any decided or definite opinions regarding it. The committee finds— (l.) That" it may be inferred, from the numerous petitions on the subject presented to Parliament, and referred to this committee, that a great deal of discontent and a desire for change exist in the colony. These petitions also favour the adoption of Mr Vaile's system. (2) That although the system now in force in New Zealand is similar to that in ijhe United Kingdom and its dependencies, and is fairly well administered, it is, nevertheless, not satisfactory as a system. (3) That there is generally a belief that the present scale of charges is higher than is desirable in the best interests of the colony, and that a considerably reduced scale, especially as regards the carriage of goods for long distances, and as regards New Zealand products, 1 would largely promote settlement and production. For these reasons, while admitting that the evidence adduced in favour of Mr Vaile's system has not been sufficient to prove conclusively that it would be a financial success, or to warrant its application to the railways of the colony as a whole, the committee, bearing in mind the great importance of the subject, are of opinion that a trial should be given to the system on an isolated section of our railways. It would, however, be unfair that on^ part of the colony should enjoy the advantage of cheap transit, thereby enhancing the value of property therein, at the expense of the general colonial revenue. Therefore * the following proviso is necessary; — The committee recommend the Government by'legislation to give the local bodies the power of carrying it into effect where they may so desire, provided that the various local bodies in the district to be served by the section of the railway to which this scheme is to be applied shall have previously struck a rate sufficient in the opinion of the Government to recoup any losses to the revenue which it may entail ; such losses, if any, to be calculated on the basis of the revenue of that section for the past financial year, with the average increase or decrease of general revenue of the New Zealand railways either added or deducted." BEPLIES TO QUESTIONS. TS/Lv BEETHAM asked the Government if they will place a sum on the Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of subsidising voluntary contributions raised by an association for the purpose of importing the natural enemies of • the rabbits. Sir J. VOGEL said the Government could not recommend a further appropriation in this direction than had been already decided on, but if the question was put again the Government would consider it. Mr HOBBS asked* the Government whether they intend to pay John Lundon* s expenses in travelling through the electoral district of the Bay of Islands explaining the details of special settlement regulations, and are they going to make arrangements for other persons to visit other parts of the colony on the same mission. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE said the Government had agreed to pay those expenses, as Mr Lundon was well acquainted with the district. The Government also had made similar arrangements in the Canterbury district. Mr HOBBS moved the adjournment of the House. He said it was an extraordinary thing that a gentleman who had expressed his intention of contesting the Bay of Islands district in opposition to himself should be assisted by the Government in this manner, and he thought the House should look into it to see that the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act were not infringed. There was no doubt that the gentleman in question was on very friendly terms with the Government, and he (Mr Hobbs) was determined the House should know what was going on. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE said Mr Lundon had by his efforts induced hundreds of people to put down their names hi order to take up land under this system. He was not aware that this applied to the Bay of Islands district, nor either to any other district to the north of Aucklandd, and in Mr Luridon's speeches no reference whatever had been made to politics. Mr ROLLESTON said the Government would get themselves into no end of difficulty with the land question if they employed people outside of their own officers to go about the country in this way. Mr MACANDREW said the whole difficulty would be solved if Mr Lundon were taken from the Bay of Islands district and sent to Otago. After further discussion, Mr WHYTE said he remembered this Mr Lundon when a member of the House saying in the House that his way of getting into it was by putting his friends on the roll, and plenty of - them. He also remembered that Mr Bryce had, about 1878, been sent up to this very district to investigate some [case of wholesale roll stuffing in which this same gentleman was concerned. He trusted this was not what he was now engaged in doing again while in the pay of the Government. Mr BEETHAM said he distinctly remembered Mr Lundon stating when he was formerly in the House that a desperate disease required a desperate remedy, and no doubt he was now endeavouring to illustrate this by goinjs amongst Mr Hobbs' constituents. Sir G. GREY said a return should be prepared showing how many persons were employed by Government in this manner. , The Hon. Mr BALLANCE would consent to , such a'return if asked for. Mr HOBBS agreed with Mr Macandrew that Mr Lundon should.be sent to Otago. and he hoped they would keep him there. Ho took great interest in the settlement of the land, and had no objection to Mr Lundon addressing meetings in Auckland, but he did object to his going through his (Mr Hobbs') electorate at the expense of the country professedly explaining land settlement regulations, but in reality electioneering"; for he did state at his meeting at one place that he intended to be a candidate at next election. The motion for adjournment was lost. NEW BILL. On the motion for the recommittal of the District Railways Purchase Amendment Bill, Mr RICHARDSON said if the House would ' not now agree to reinstate the amount to be paid to the Waimea company in cash he should advise the Government to drop the bill. He wished to say that the Government had made the best possible terms far purchasing the line. If the House agreed to the recommittal he should move that the cash payment to t.?™™ , c c 9c 9 m P an y be reduced to £33,000. Mr COWAN hbped the Housewould agree to

the recommittal of the bill, in order that the amount might be reinstated, which was something like what the company agreed for. He also wished to say that the position of the ratepayers under this bill was not improved, but would,; be very materially prejudiced, while the liability of the Government would not be increased. Mr OONOLY strongly objected to the extravagant proposal of the Government, and he hoped the House would negative the motion by a larger majority than voted for striking off the £8000 a few nights ago. Mr W. F. BUCKLAND protested against this species of legislation, and he objected altogether to those second divisions, as they were a source of great danger. Their legislation was rapidly becoming a matter of expediency. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. THE WAIMEA PLAINS RAILWAY. Colonel TRIMBLE resumed the debate on the recommittal of the District Railways Purchasing Act Amendment Bill. He said there never was a more profligate proposal made than to throw away £8000 of the people's money at a time when the cry of the unemployed is heard from all quarters. He protested against the system of lobbying and button-holing which had been goinar on in respect to this question. Mr DARGAVILLE asked as' a compromise whether the sum of £31,000 would be accepted, 30 as to bring about some practical result ; or would Ministers still adhere to the larger amount. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said before he answered the question Mr Dargaville should say whether he coupled that with the condition as to the rates. Mr LAKE denied that what was involved in this matter was whether they should pay £35,000 or £27,000. The real question at issue was the honour of the Government, which was very seriously involved. He protested against the action of the Government in endeavouring to recommit this bill, and hoped no compromise would be made over the matter. Mr DOWNIE STEWART Said he had opposed this bill last session, but he now felt that of all the district railways in the colony this was one which Government should purchase, as a paying concern. He held that when the price for the line was decided on no outside influence should be allowed to have any weight with the House. He intended to use his judgment as to the amount that should be paid. Mr FERGUS thought the bill should be recommitted, and that a definite conclusion should then be arrived at as to the price. He contended that the Government should purchase the line. He only wished that all the actions of the House wece as clean as the present proposal. He had condemned Mr Cowan for his slavish support to the Government over this railway, but he never thought for a moment that the hon. gentleman was actuated by any other motive except desire to benefit his constituents. He believed that by passing this measure they would be doing justice to a large and deserving section of the community. Mr WAKEFIELD thought Mr Fergus had given the strongest reason why the bill should not be recommitted, 'The division which had taken place was no more a snatch division than that on many other more important questions. He held it was highly desirable the colony should have the line on reasonable terms, but they could very well do without it. He felt that if they left the bill as it stood at present they would get the railway at the price fixed in the bill. The real reason for this bill was that the New Zealand Agricultural Company had Sold land in that district, and the ratepayers had refused to pay their rates. / Mr BROWN said if the division had not been a snatch one the question would not now be before the House. He said one member who had paired voted on the bill. Mr FULTON, as a personal explanation, said he had only been reminded of his pair after the division. Mr BROWN, quoted from the report of the Public Accounts Committee in favour of* the purchase, and he strongly supported the proposal made by the Government to recommit the bill. Mr KERR thought the reason for all the talk on this question was because the Opposition were afraid to face the Representation Bill. Mr HAMLIN said he should have to vote against the recommittal of the bill if it came to a division, as he considered the colony was not in a position to throw away £80,000 as proposed by the recommittal. Mr WILSON suggested that the matter should now go to a division. The motion for the recommittal of the bill was carried on the voices, and the House went into committee. Clause 4, Treasurer may issue debenture bonds sufficient to realise the purchase money. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON moved to strike out " £27,000 as cash payment to the company," Mr DARGAVILLE supported the motion with a view to substitute " £31,000/' The motion was carried by 27 to 25. The following is the division list : — Ayes (25). — Messrs Bruce, Bryce, Buchanan, W. F. Buckland, J. C. Buckland, Conolly. Dod•on, Fulton, Grace, Hakuene, Lake, Macarthur, Montgomery, Newman, Peacock,Pearson,JEteese, Rolleston, Sutter, Thompson, Trimble, Wakefield, Whyte, and Wilson. NOES (27). — Messrs Ballance, Bevan, Bradshaw, Brown, Cowan, Dargaville, Fergus, Fraser, Grace, Guinness, Hatch, Hobbs, Joyce, Kerr, Lance, Moat, O'Callaghan, Pyke, E. Richardson, G. F. Richardson, W. D. Stewart, W. J. Steward, Taylor, J. W. Thomson, Tole, and Walker. Pairs. — For : > Messrs Johnston, Ormond, Levestam, Duncan, Fisher, and Beetham. Against : Messrs Pratt, Pere, Holmes, Gore, Hirst, and Turnbull. Mr DARGAVILLE moved that "£31,000" be inserted. Motion carried on the voices. Colonel TRIMBLE asked whether Mr Richardson would drop the bill now, as he stated that if £35,000 was reduced he should do so. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said what he had stated was that if £27,000 were retained he should drap it. •■ The bill was further amended and reported. On the motion for the third reading, Mr WAKEFIELD desired to point out that in, committee, by a majority of two, at the instigation of Government, £4000 had been paid to these great companies, which could very well have been saved to the colony. He thought this fact might be useful at unemployed meetings throughout the colony — that Government had, by the vote just taken, given £4000 to these great companies. He had made these observations in order that it should go forth to the country what action the Government had taken in this matter. Sir G. GREY appealed to the Premier, for his own sake, not to force this bill through, as it had only been decided in committee by a majority of 2, Sir R, STOUT said h© had taken no interest

whatever in this question, and had refrained from votiug on it. He charged Sir G. Grey with being the cause of this line having been purchased, as that hon. gentleman had gone to Gore and urged the people to got the Government to buy the line. He had promised to support them in forcing the Government to puri chase it. Sir G. GREY said he was led to believe that the people at Gore were induced to purchase land in ignorance of the conditions as to rates. The bill was read a third time by 139 to 18. On the question of passing the bill, Sir G. GREY said he hoped the House would pause before passing the bill, seeing that the Premier was solicitor to the company and the Treasurer was a large shareholder. He contended that this Government should not pass this bill, but they should allow some other government to bring in such a measure. Mr WAKEFIELD wanted to know why Mr Richardson did not drop the bill now that £31,000 had been inserted into the bill, after his declaration that he should do so if £27,000 had been retained. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said they might have to drop it yet. Mr WAKEFIELD said the hon. gentleman knew the company would jump at it. They were deliberately giving the company £4000 more than the railway was honestly worth. It was as well that the country knew it. He again wished it to go forth that the Government had just given £4000 of the public money to a private company. After further discussion, The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said Mr Wakefield had deliberately tried to mislead the House by stating that the Government had rerecently paid £1 7,000 for a property that could be had a few months before for £3000. The bill was then passed on the voices. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY For further consideration of the Pnblic Works Estimates. Class [8.— Telegraph Extension, £21,700.— Carried. Public buildings, general department offices, £7000. — Carried. Judicial, £21,100.— Carried. Post and Telegraph, £3500. — Carried. Customs, £500. — Carried. Lunatic asylums, £16,400. — Carried. Hospitals and charitable institutions, £8100. — Carried. Quarantine stations, £400.— Carried. School builditigs, £55,000. — Captain Russell pointed out that the school accommodation in Hawkes Bay district was quite inadequate for requirements. He hoped when the' money was distributed the claims of that district would be mare fully considered. — Carried after considerable discussion.

Friday, August 13. The House met at 2.30 p.m. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. Mr PYKE asked the Government whither they will afford facilities for the erection of floating mills on the Clutha river, and what encouragement they will give to such enterprise. The Hon. Mr LARNACH said the Government saw no objection to this privilege being granted. Mr PYKE asked the Government what concessions they are prepared to grant for the encouragement of companies desiring to work the bed of the Clutha river for gold upon an extensive scale by aid of costly machinery. The Hon. Mr LARNACH said the Government would place a sum of money on the Supplementary Estimates for the purpose. Dr NEWMAN asked the Government whether they will take steps during the recess to. stop 'the yearly contribution of £2669 towards the government of a part of New Guinea. Sir R. STOUT said last session contributions were arranged for three years, and the Government could do nothing further till that time was up. Mr HATCH asked the Minister of Justice why a chief warder named Ferguson, who was discharged for habitual drunkenness from Dunedin gaol some few months ago, should, soon after the prorogation of Parliament, be allowed and paid an amount of £60 ov thereabouts. The Hon. Mr TOLE said that the warder referred to was' an officer of 20 years' standing, and on finally being dismissed without notice his retiring allowance was taken into consideration. The amount proposed was about half what he would have got had he been allowed to resign. Mr HATCH asked the Minister of Justice if, during the recess, he will examine the cost of the gaol department, with a view of explaining why in New Zealand the cost of each prisoner per annum is £53 9s 9d, whilst in Victoria it is £38 19s 7d. The Hon. Mr TOLE said that the greater number of gaols in New Zealand than Victoria caused the extra expenditure, more particularly the keeping up of several small gaols in tho smaller districts. Mr BEETHAM asked the Government if they will place a sum of money on the Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of subsidising voluntary contributions raised by associations for the purpose of importing the natural enemies of the rabbits ; the sum 'expended to be subject to the control of the Government. Sir J. VO GEL said the Government could not agree to the request, as individuals might combine and subscribe a certain amount and claim a subsidy. Mr JOYCE asked the Minister of Marine if he will during the recess issue instructions to the master of the Government schooner Kekeno to visit the Auckland and Campbell Islands with a view of reporting upon the result of the series of close seasons that have been observed in regard to seal fishery. • The Hon. Mr LARNACH said this would be complied with. Mr MOSS asked whether the Government would give the House an opportunity of discussing Stark's purchase, as the matter was causing great indignation in Auckland. Sir R. STOUT said it was impossible for him to reply to the question at present. It would depend on the progress of the business in the House. BILLS PASSED. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON said the exigencies of the public service required that the Government should take up the bill which stood in Mr Beetham's name entitled Railways Construction and Land Act Amendment Bill. He would now move for the committal of that bill. — Agreed to. The House went into committee on the bill, which passed with amendments. The clause providing that railways should not be rated was struck out. The bill was read a third time and passed. The Hon. Mr TOLE moved that the Rabbit Act Amendment Bill be recommitted for consideration of certain clauses. — Agreed to. The House went into committee on the bill. Clause 24 (subsidy to be paid out of the consolidated fund) was amended to limit the amount of eubsidy to £10,000 in any ono financial year and to limit the amount of subsidy under clause 48 to £500. The bill was reported, read a third time and passed,.

Sir J. VOGBL movedthe second reading of the Property Tax Bill. The bill, he explained, was to carry out the proposals of tho Financial Statement. Major ATKINSON asked whether the Treasurer did not intend to make any statement on this bill. He felt that the revenue was not sufficient for the proposed expenditure, and ho did not wish to take any responsibility in the matter. Sir J. VOGEL said the Government did not desire to impose heavier taxation than was> found to be absolutely necessary. The great»increase in the price of wool and the prospect of larger crops led the Government to hope that tho railway revenue would . be largely recouped before the end of the year. Although he could not hope that the customs revenue would reach the estimate, tho Government considered it desirable to propose to the House that the property tax should be reduced. The bill was read a second time. Sir J. VOGEL moved the second reading of the Pu 1 lie Revenues Bill. He proposed to increase tho issue of deficiency bills to the amount of £200,000, which was partly neoessavy on account of the falling off in the revenne. Major ATKINSON thought in the face of the statement just made by the Treasurer as to the 11 falling off iv the revenue they were not justified in reducing the taxation by £12,000. The bill was read a second time. The House went, into committee on the Property Tax Bill, which with slight amendment, was read a third time, and passed. The House went into committee on the Public Revenues Bill, which passed without amendment, was .read a third time, and passed. THE REPRESENTATION BILL. Sir R. STOUT moved that the House go into committee on the Representatinn Bill. He said that if the population basis were not agreed to by the House he should not go on with the bill. He had received a'metnorandum fiom the Registrargeneral which stated that the census returns would not be completed till the end of the year, which would prevent the board going on with their duties till next year. He wished to say that he should not proceed with the bill unless a substantial majority of the House was favourable to it. The reason why he did nob go on ' with the bill at an earlier period of the session was in consequencts of his own illness. Mr MONTGOMERY thought the bill should be passed, as something might happen which would necessitate going to the country on the present basis of representation. He was quite prepared to assist iv passing the bill this session, even if he had to stay in Wellington longer than usual. He should vote, however, for retaining the present number of members. He should like to make a few amendments, but generally he would support the bill. Mr MACANDREW said he had neither spoken nor voted on this bill. He felt clear that if Parliament was to expire' by effluxion of time there was no necessity to pass tho bill this year. He said it was evident by the temper of the House that if this bill got into committee some weary nights and very acrimonious discussions would arise. He had no objection to staying in Wellington if the question of unemployed was to be dealt with, but he did object to spending any unnecessary time on the bill this year at such a late stage of the session. He would therefore move, as an amendment— "That it is inadvisable that at this late period of the session the Representation Bill should be proceeded with further until next session, and that Parliament should be summoned for the despatch of business not later than the first week in May next." Mr DOWNIE STEWART said they had a duty to perform in this matter, and they should perform that duty now. He was -well aware that if left till next session it would be held over their heads in an undue manner. He was in favour of amalgamating the city electorates, but he was not disposed to vote for a reduction of members. The bill on the whole was a good one, and he hoped the Government, if they were anxious for its passing, would make it a Government question and stand or fall by it. He asked whether if the number of members were reduced, the Premier would proceed with it. Sir B. STOUT would say frankly that he did not think the number of members would be reduced but if the number were not reduced he should still go on with the bill. In reply to further questions from Mr Reid, Sir R. STOUT said he hoped the House would meet in April next year, and thought the new electorates would ba arranged in three months. Mr REID thought there was no necessity foi 1 the bill this year, and that the question should be submitted to their constituents. Ho had come up pledged to support a reduction of the number of members, and in voting for the second reading of the bill he was induced to believe that such a reduction would be made. Mr MENTEATH objected to the population basis, and denied that the principle had ever been affirmed before in tho House. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. CONFERENCE REPORTS. The reports of the conferences on the Municipal Corporations Bui and Counties Bill were agreed to. Sir R. STOUT reported that the conference on the Local Bodies' Loans Bill had not been able to agree. THE KEFRESEKTATION BILL. , ' Mr MENTEATH continued the debate on the committal of the Representation Bill. He said in this bill they had an entirely new departure which partook of the nature of a political experiment, and he held they should have the whole recess in which to consult their constituents over such an important measure. The bill was not required at all this season, and if it came before the House nexb year it would become law before Parliament expired. He objected to any reduction in the number of members, and considered the bill' a retrograde step from the bill of 1881. Sir R. STOUT wished to say that he never looked on the Representation Bill as a party question, as he considered that it was a bill that should be considered quite apart from any question of parties. He inteuded to stand on the population basis, and could not consent to any further amendment than had already been given notice of. Mr BRYCE referred to the fact that Government whips had been canvassing against this bill, and that one or more members of the Government were also against it. There were peculiar rumours on the subject, which he would not now go into. He felt there was no reason why a division on the bill should not be taken at once. He contended that if the Premier abandoned tho bill this year he would probably also abandon it next year under similar conditions. Sir R STOUT said whatever the fate of tho bill was this session he would introduce it again next year hi tho same form. If the bill were abandoned this session he thought ' ( the sense of the country by next year would be so marked that a much, larger majority would support it.

•Mr BABRON should like to see the blanks filled up by 60, and if members were reduced he hoped the number of Ministers would be reduced also. If a reduction to 60 were not to be agreed to, he should vote for any other reduction that was proposed. Three or four Ministers in the House would be quite enough — three for choice — and the others could discharge their duites in a higher sphere. 1 The motion for the committal of the bill was put and lost by 30 to 36. The following is the division list : — Ayjss (36) — Messrs Atkinsen, Ballance, Barron, Bruce, Bryce, Buchanan, F. Buckland, Conolly, Dargaville, Fergus, Fisher, Fitaherberfc, Fulton, Grey, Hakuene, Hamliu, Hirst, Hobbs, Johnston, Lake, Locke, Macarthur, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Moss, Newman, Peacock, G. F. Richardson, Rollestan, Stout, Thomson, Tole, Trimble, Wakefield, Whyte, Wilson. Noes (39) — Messrs Bevan, Bradshaw, Brown, J. C. Buckland, Cadman, Cowan, Dodson, Duncan, Fraser, Gore, Grace, Guinness, Hatch, Hursthouse, Joyce, Kerr, Lance, Larnaeh, Levestam, Macandrew, J. M'Kenzie, M'Millan, Menteath, O'Callaghan, O'Conor, Pratt, Pyke, Reese, Reid, E. Richardson, Ross, Samuel, Seddon, W. J. Steward, Sutter, Taylor, J. W. Thomson. Pairs — For: Messrs Moat, Mackenzie, Ormond, W. D. Stewart, Beetham, Smith, W. J. Hurnfc. Against: Messrs Garrick, Ivess, Harper, Holmes, Turnbull, Pere, Coster. [Only 37 of the names voting against the motion are given.] On Mr Macandrew's amendment being put, Major ATKINSON said under ordinary circumstances he should not have been surprised at the vote just taken, but he was surprised at the action of the Government on this bill ; for no more disgraceful proceeding had ever been witnessed than what had just taken place. There was the Premier of the colony, who had told him this bill was necessary for the good government of the country, and yet three of his Ministers had voted against him. If the Premier was sincere in his desire for the bill, he would at once adjourn the House and dismiss those Mmisters from his ' There was ,not a single effort amongst members of the Government to govern on principle, and their action was bringing constitutional government into disrepute. If the Premier had bean defeated by the votes of his whips alone, it would not have been so surprising; but the hon. gentleman was actually defeated by his own colleagues. What would tho country think of the Premier's sincerity. The principle they were arguing was that the population of the country should be properly represented. He contended that a dozen men next session could prevent the Representation Acfe being passed at all. What hopes had they of passing such a bill? The Government of ISSI (had to face the same difficulty as the present Government had to face, and the bill at that time was carried by the Government with the assistance of the Opposition. The Premier cou'.d do the same thing now, but the fact was he had never been premier of the colony. The Treasurer was the real premier and leader of the House. But ho ventured to say that the Premier would shortly have to give an account of thac night's proceedings to the country. He repeated that there was no chance whatever of getting the bill passed next year, as it was proposed to meet only a week earlier than the present session. The Government had had very little opposition this session, and no factious opposition, and yet they had one of the hardest sessions that had been held for years under guidance of responsible Ministers. He should like to know what the Premier was going to do with such menas Messrs Guiuness and Seddon next session, and what possible advantage would be gained by postponin g the bill till next year. He felt that the loss of the bill itself was a small matter compared wibh the degradation which the Government was bringing on the colony by their action. Sir JULIUS VOGEL said Major Atkinson had tho whole session been throwing himself at the Premier, with the object of joining him if the Premier would have him. He had seen statements to this effect iv several newspapers of the colony, some of which supported the member for Egmont himself — that the hon. gentleman bad shown the most intense jealousy of him (Sir J. Vogel) and had tried to join the Premier by bestowing on him the most fulsome praise. He defended the Premier's action in the manner in which he had introduced the bill, and said the Premier had told the House that unless he had a substantial majority he should not go ob with the bill. Tho reason he (Sir J. Vogel) voted against the bill was because he did not think there was time to discuss it this year, and he felt sure that next year the member for Egznonfc would attack the Government if they attempted to pass the bill in] three or four days. He asked Major Atkinson by what right he challenged his (Sir J. Vogel's) vote on the question. If the bill was not a party bill, why should not members of the Government vote" as they pleased on it? As for those members of the Government who had voted against the bill, they had done 'so because a large number of their followers were against it, and they were not desirous of carrying the bill with the assistance of those whose business it was to be in opposition. Mr MOSS said the acbion of the Government was evidently intended to hold the whip-hand over Northern members during the recess. He would move- as an addition to the amendment, " That the question should be properly considered by the country, and that there should be a dissolution." Mr ROLLESTON said that the proper course for the Premier to pursue now would be to phce his resignation in the hands of the Governor. He could not possibly adopt any other course with honour to himself after the professions he had made. Ho thought the spectacle they had witnessed that night was the most extraordinary that could be experienced in the history of constitutional government. It was no answer whatever to the three colleagues of the Premier to say they voted against this measure because there was no time to discuss it. The rfeal reason was because Ministers for a loiij; lime had been propelled by a knot of people who were interested in the construction of the Midland railway by an impracticable route. The Government were miserable corpses without any life in them. Sir R. STOUT said when he first referred i?o the Representation Bill this session he expressed the opinion that there would probably not be sufficient time to discuss it in the present session. He had never promised that the bill should be passed this session. He wished the bill to be passed for two reasons. The first, because it would be a good thing out of tho way for next session; and the second, because he desired to show that he had no feeling of North against South. Ho found, however, that several members who promised to support ( the bill were really not supporting it, and he considered that a bill of this kind should be carried by a considerable majority. He ha,d nothing to do with \he. member, for, PameU^

because he had never lost an opportunity o£ voting against the Government this session and had shown no desire to help him (Sir R. Stout) with any liberal measure. He wished to say that although the bill was defeated this session, it should be brought on again next session at an early stage, and he should do his utmost to do justice to the colony by taking a population basis. If the bill were a party question his colleagues would not have voted against him. As to the Government whips, he contended those gentlemen should be allowed to exercise < their own discretion in certain matters, and other whips had frequently clone the same thing. As to Mr Moss' amendment, what would result from it? The result' would certainly be calamitous to the whole interests of the colony, and he hoped he would withdraw it. The population basis, he admitted, would be a fair subject for consideration during the recess. He hoped the House would accept his assurance that although the bill would not pass this session, he should do his utmost to pass it next session as a Government measure. Mr LEVES.TAM said the Premier had always led the House to believe that the bill would not be passed this session. Mr Moss' amendment was then put and lost on the voices, and Mr Macandrew's amendment was carried. LEGISLATIVE EXPENDITURE. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr O'CONOR moved—" That the report of the Legislative Expenditure Committee be considered." Mr FULTON drew attention to an item of £200 for travelling expenses of members* wives. He thought as members had a sufficient amount voted for their expenses then? wives should be included in those expenses. Mr BARRON hoped the whole report of the committee would be considered. Sir R. STOUT,.said the committee had done very valuable work, but he hoped the matter would be postponed till next session when it could be more fully considered. After further discussion, Mr O'CONOR said he was quite prepared to take a negative vote on his amendment. The amendment was lost on the voices, and the House went into COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY for consideration of the Estimates. Class I.— Vote £420, Legislative department. Mr O'Conoe moved that the item £150, preparation of indices and appendices of journals of both Houses, be struck out. He said their work was performed by one of the clerks of the ' House, who already received £400 a year. — The Speaker defended the vote, and said the work was beingdoneat far less cost than if it wereperf ormed outside the House. — Mr J. C. Buckland also supported the vote, and said the -work was very valuable and useful to members. — Mr O'Conob contended that they should nob pay their officers, extra for work of this description, when they had so many officers who had nothing to do during the recess. — Mr Hatch moved that the vote of £35 for extra assistance for " Hansard" staff be struck off.— Lost on the voices. — Mr O'Conor withdrew his amendment, and the vote was passed. — Sir J. Vogei. moved to report progress, which was agreed to. BILL PASSED. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON moved the second reading of the Railways Authorisation and Management Bill. — Agreed to. j The House went into committee on the bill, which passed with verbal amendments, was read a third time and passed. Saturday, August 14. The House met at 2.30 p.m. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. Major ATKINSON asked the Defence Minister if he will embody in the new volunteer regulations a clause to the effect that all rifle battalions of six companies and over shall be entitled to their proper number of field officers— viz., one lieutenant-colonel, two majors, and one adjutant, as recommend by Sir G. S. Whitmore, commander of the forces, in his report laid before Parliament last year. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE said it was in; tended to frame new regulations immediately after the session. Those regulations would provide for battalion officers as suggested in the question, and it was decided to introduce the element of competition into the regulations. Mr O'CALLAGHAN asked the Government whether they are prepared to assure the House that they will recommend for adoption nesfc session the purchase of land for special settlements, in suitable localities, when such purchase has been advised by the waste lands boards of the colony. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE said he propose** to consider the matter very carefully during therecess. He would probably bring down legislation on it next session. LOCAL BODIES' LOAN BILL. Sir R. STOUT said as there was no chance of the conference agreeing on the Local Bodies' Loan Bill he would move that the amendments made by the Legislative Council be agreed to, in I order that road boards might be able to avail I themselves of the provisions of the bill I Mr M^ARTBUR contended that it was no* J competent for the Council to amend this billl He should like to see the bill tacked to the Appropriation Bill, and if he could do so ho should movo to that effect. The SPEAKER said it was too late now to j object to the acbion of the Council. j Sir J. VOGEL said the. government would either have to abandon the bill or accept the amendment. He pointed out that the amendment was pernicious and mischievous in the last degree, as dea.d persons and absentees would be counted on a poll of ratopayers for a loan under the bill. The Government had offered a number ;of compromises, but none were accepted. la seconding the amendment, he only did sc» out o£ a choice of two evils — viz., that of accepting or losing the bill. Mr MONTGOMERY agreed with the Treasurer's remarks, and said the time was coming; when tho House would have to make a staacß ' against the interference- of the Council witht their money bills. The motion ih,£s amendments made by the Legislative Council be agreed to was then put and canned on the voices. KECOJMITTING THE ESTIMATES. On the motion that the resolutions be reported from Committee of Supply, Sir J. VOGEL xaoved that the vote of £0607, Treasury department, be recommitted for the purpose of oonsidering the item of £100 which was stvuok off the salary of the secretary to the Treasury iv a thin House at an early stage of the session, and also £50 struck off the salary of the assistant secretary to the Treasury. Maior ATKINSON had great pleasure in supporting the. Treasurer in this proposal, as he could bear testimony to the fact that those officers were highly deserving of the increase and really effected large savings in the Treasury department. The motion was agreed to. Mr itARKACH nioverl that tho vote of.

£11,318 (miscellaneous services) be recommitted. — Agreed to. Mr RICHARDSON moved the recommittal of the vote of £150,000 for permanent way.— Agreed to. Mr O'CONOR moved that the vote of £17,390, legislative be recommitted. He said this vote was passed so hurriedly on a previous occasion that members scarcely knew anything about it till it had passed. ' Mr CONOLLY said the vote was put deliberately and in a distinct manner by the Chairman of Committees, and it was members' own fault if they were not present. Sir J. VOGEL hoped Mr O'Conor would not press his amendment. The amendment was lost on the voices. COMMITTEE OF SCFPLY. The Treasury vote was recommitted. A lengthy discussion ensued on the proposal to increase the salary of the secretary to the Treasury from £700 to £800 and the assistant secretary from £500 to £550. The increases were carried by 29 to 15. The Hon. Mr LARNACH moved— "That £10,000 be added to miscellaneous services for the s.s. Hinemoa, and for a new boiler for that steamer." Mr PYKE said it was a highly improper thing for the Government to bring down this proposal at the end of the session, after previously being rejected by the House. Several other members defended the vote on the ground that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should have a steamer of this description for the public service. The Hon. Mr LARNACH said the new boiler had been' ordered for the Hinemoa ; besides, half the' financial year was already over. IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. Mr GUINNESS moved that the vote for the Hinemoa be reduced by £1000. — Lost on the voices. The total vote of £10,000 was then carried by 34 to 14. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON moved to reduce item £670,000 for permanent way by £21,800.— Agreed to. He also moved to reduce the item for rolling stock £83,000 by £15,000, and explained that a transference of these votes was necessary in consequence of the reductions made in the loan schedule. — Agreed to. The Supplementary Estimates were then considered. Vote £1200, additional cost of census.— Mr Wakefield said several of the census returns •were compiled in a ridiculous manner. For instance, five people were returned whose occupation was given as members of the House of Representatives. He thought the Registrargeneral aimed at too much by uselessly minute returns, which produced ridiculous results. He was surprised that any department should occupy its energies in such an absurd manner. — Mr Hatch also complained of the way in which the census returns were compiled, and said he knew of some cases in which sufficient census papers were not left at dwellings. — After further discussion the item was passed. Vote £750, lunatic asylums, one month's leave per annum to asylum attendants. — Carried. Vote £710, remission of rent of infected runs. This vote elicited a long discussion. — Sir R. Stout said this money had been paid to the people in possession of these runs as the Government had taken possession of their runs in order to cleanse them from scab. — The vote was carried. Vote £5000, revote of subsidy of pound for Sound on rates levied in goldfields counties. — aptain Sutter moved that this vote be Btruck out. — After some debate the amendment •was lost by 30 to 24, and the original vote carried. Vote £1145, marine and harbours. — This vote ceused a long discussion as to sums set' down for rivers. — The vote was carried. Vote £2726, Minister of Native Affairs (miscellaneous).—Mr Cowan moved that the item £2000, services of Sir W. Fox under the West Coast Settlement Act, be struck out.— Sir R. Stout defended the vote, which he said was proposed by the previous Government, but had been refused by Sir W. Fox. He had since, however, sustained some losses, and he ,(Sir R. Stout) understood that if the House now passed the item Sir W. Fox would accept the money.— Major Atkinson said no one in the country had more fully earned this honorarium than Sir W. Vox by the large amount of work he had performed, greatly to the settlement of the Native difficulty. Sir W. Fox had always refused any remuneration for those services, although pressed to accept it by previous Governments. He had lately, however, experienced some reverses, and he (Major Atkinson) asked Government to put a sum on'the Estimates for the purpose, which, he was happy!to say, they had .agreed^to. Of course it rested with the House whether It voted the amount or not.— Mr J. C. BBdJW opposed the vote. He asked whether it wastrae that Sir W. Fox received £10 per day for travelling expenses while he was engaged on this commission.— Sir R. Stout said he had only received actual expenses.— Mr Fishee supported | the vote and said Sir W. Fox's long services to the colony entitled him to the generous considera- ! tion of the House.—Mr Hislop also supported the proposal, and said the House should deal with it independent of parties, as Sir W. Fox had 'been Premier of the colony for many years and was always ready to give his services to the country.— Captain Butter said that was an extraordinary argument. Sir W. Fox had made money out of the colony. — Mr Kerr said he could speak from personal knowledge that Sir W. Fox was a monied man when he came to the colony.— Mr Seddon strongly opposed the vote.— Mr O'Conor said the House should not vote on this motion unless it was inquired into by a Parliamentary committee. He should therefore, in justice to Sir William Fox ilimself, aiove that progress be reported so that the vote Blight be postponed.— After further discussion Sir R. Stout said it appeared to him certain members were determined to block the Supplementary Estimates. If this kind of obstruction were persisted in the Government would have to drop the remainder of the Estimates.—Mr Seddon objected to the Premier carrying his measures with the assistance of the Opposition. He asked, How could the Premier possibly economise when he proposed a gum of d£2ooo for ibis purpose? He should speak plainly and caff, tf" 8 a compassionate allowance. It was commonly rumoured that Sir W. Fox was again coming ints t be House, and that he was to be our future Prfc"^***' Th * &mmnt proposed to be voted was, he «t»PP oSied > to P r ?: vide the wherewithal.— Mr MoNi"«T° MKBy c . not vote for rewarding Sir W. Fox for tvices Tendered while he was a member of the HousSe". ~~ The motion for reporting progress was lost by 46 to 13. — Mr Seddon moved, in order to change the subject, that the sum of £11, refund?'of Native Land Court fees, be struck out.— Sir It. Stout said it was evident they could make no further progress without encroaching on Sunday morning, and he thought members were not prepared to do that. He should therefore move that progress be reported. — Mr Hislop asked if, when a few members proved obstructive, they were always to give way to them in this matter. The

privileges of the House were quite as important as keeping the Sabbath'day.— Sir R. Stout said at any rate they should respect the feelings of others.— Mr Seddon asked the Premier to withdraw his motion. He was quite satisfied to go to a voto on the item of £2000. Sir R. Stout's motion was then carried on the voices. Sir R. Stout moved that the House adjourn till Monday at 11 a.m. — Carried. The House rose at midnight. Monday, August 16. The House met at 11 a.m. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. The Hon. Mr LARNACH, in reply to Mr Pyke, said the Government would during the recess consider the desirability of placing floating flour mills on the Clutha river. The Hon. Mr RICHARDSON, in reply to Mr Bruce, said that a number of railway contracts would be advertised immediately. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE, in reply to Mr* Turnbull, stated that the Government were not aware of any land in the neighbourhood of Timaru which was suitable for a village settlement. THE STARK PURCHASE. On the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr MOSS said what he intended to bring forward was the necessity of the House insisting upon a statement, at as early a period as possible after next session, of the sums expended on harboar defences, and on the purchase of Native land. He said large sums were expended under this head of which there was no record of any kind. Referring to the Stark purchase, he asked the House not to call it an Auckland swindle, as very few people in Auckland would uphold this transaction, but the Government had evidently accepted the responsibility of it. He also pointed out that the enormous sum of £27 per foot had been paid in Auckland for a site for a torpedo shed. Mr HOBBS said he had intended to move for a Commission to sit in Auckland to inquire into the Stark purshase. He thought in this purchase there had been a conspiracy to defraud the colony. Many of the people whowere brought to Wellington as witnesses were interested parsons. He felt sure the people of the colony would not rest satisfied with the inquiry that had been made by the Parliamentary Committee, and they would insist on an impartial commission being appointed. He was convinced there had been some collusion in this transaction, and that £10,000 more had- been paid for the property than should have been paid. Mr GORE, as one of the committee, defended the purchase, and said if the Government were not to be guided by the reports of their own officers, who were they to be guided by? He thought there was no collusion proved by the evidence, and the committee could not come to any other conclusion than they had done. In his opinion, no good came of appointing Royal Commissions to inquire into these matters, as it had already been fully inquired into by a committee, and he (Mr Gore) felt quite impartial in this action of the committee. Mr LEVESTAM also defended the purchase, and said the whole of the evidence taken before the committee went to prove that the Government had paid only a fair price for the property. Dr NEWMAN said they had ifc in evidence that Stark had hawked this property all over the country and could not obtain £100 per foot for it, while the Government paid £600 a foot. He held that the whole evidence was very unsatisfactory, and he maintained there had been a conspiracy to defraud the Government. No one could read the evidence impartially without coming to the conclusion that the £17,000 which was paid for the property was altogether excessive, and the Ministry should themselves institute some inquiry into the whole matter. They should certainly appoint a commission during the recess to see that justice was done. Mr BARRON said the whole question had been thoroughly inquired into by the committee, ' and the report was carried by the votes of two Ministers that the Government were perfectly justified in its action over the purchase. He thought no good could be gained by reopening the inquiry now, as the whole evidence was on record. Mr PEACOCK said there was no doubt that very great dissatisfaction and indignation existed in Auckland over this matter, and he thought justly so. It was quite evident that the Government had paid an exorbitant price for this property, and they could have obtained it at a much less price than was paid for it. He believed if the Government had exercised ordinary caution in this matter and associated with Mr Brewer some gentleman acquainted with the value of property in Auckland, this affair would never have occurred. He pointed out that it was in evidence that Stark had previously offered the property for £3500 f or« five and a-half acres and for £4000 for 10 acres. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE did not know that any good would be served by this debate. He said it was impossible for anyone to judge of this matter unless the evidence was carefully considered. A great deal had been made out of the circumstance that two Ministers had voted on this question, and he pointed out that this was frequently done in matters of this kind. He asserted, with regard to the purchase itself, that the Government made the best arrangements that could possibly be made to obtain the property. He denied that the affair was hurriedly carried out. On the contrary, it was fully inquired into by the Minister for Public Works before being completed. He quoted from the evidence taken by the committee, and said it had been stated by a land purchase officer that if the property was brought into the Compensation Court he was prepared to swear it was worth £17,000 ; and' further, the adjoining properties to Stark's had brought as good prices. There was no foundation whatever for the statement that £27 per foot had been paid fora torpedo shed, as stated by Mr Moss. The matter was not yet quite settled, but he could say that Mr Moss had been entirely misinformed as to the price paid for that land. Mr ROLLESTON sai§ there could be no doubt in anyone's mind after reading the evidence that the country had paid £8000 or £10,000 more for this property than should have ■been given for it. He contended there had been considerable blundering over the whole matter ; but he acquitted the Minister for Public Works of any intention of blundering in it. He protested against the system that was growing up of Ministers going about the country dealing in pjatters of this kind, except in the ordinary way through the heads of departments. M c tfJjgHER said he quite agreed with those nvmhor-a who » aW regarding this transaction IS the couu^V had been defrauded to the sa^e had attended the committed very carefully, an* t^Jg™*"} left in his mind was that the Gove. VQQ }ent bad paid £5000 or £7000 more for the proper.,; * ft ? , should have been paid for it. All impartia. people in Auckland were of the same opinion. |

He said as far as he was concerned that he took up a perfectly impartial position on the committee ; and it was well known that he could have changed the report of the committee had he chosen to vote Jand not paired with another hon. gentleman. There was no doubt the report was decidedly unsatisfactory, and it required two Ministers to bring up a favourable deci&ion. If Mr Ballance maintained now that the property was increasing in value he knew nothing whatevo,r about the value of it. The whole of the evidence showed that Stark was hawking the property about for £7000 or £8000, and up to the time that Stark knew that the property was required for defence purposes he offered £8000 or £9000. He said a telegram had just been put into his hands to the effect that 1000 signatures had been obtained in one day to a requisition in Auckland asking for an inquiry into the matter. Before the House prorogued he said this discussion was absolutely necessary, but he did not accuse the Government of having acted in any other way but precipitously. He was convinced, however, there had been a conspiracy on someone's part to defraud the Government, and it should bo further inquired into. He was of opinion that no other conclusion could be come to by any impartial person than that the Government had been in some way defrauded of £5000 or £6000. Mr TURNBULL said the members of the committee should have raised their objections when the report was presented to the House. He could not see what good was to be gained by this discussion. The Government could _ not obtain money back again even if a conspiracy were proved. Mr MONTGOMERY said his impression was that the Minister was hasty in concluding the purchase of that land. The price paid for it was £7000 in excess of the market value. The question should not rest where it now was ; but a commission should be appointed, and if it could be proved upon oath that there was a conspiracy to get more out of the Government than should have been obtained for this property, bhat crime should be sheeted home to those people who were guilty of conspiracy and they should be punished for it. Mr BEETHAM thought the Government should not hesitate in appointing a commission to inquire into this matter, as great injustice had been done by which the public had suffered. Mr FULTON said the House did not blame the Minister for Public Works in this matter, and it was to be 'regretted that Mr Ballance should get up and defend him. Mr WILSON asked whether the Government would agree to a commission. Sir R. STOUT said he could not reply to a question of that kind offhand without consulting the Cabinet. The House then went into Committee of Supply for further consideration of THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. Mr Turnbull moved that the. sum of £11 be struck out for refund of Native Land Court fees in succession orders. — Lost on the voices. Mr Tuhnbull referred to the vote of £2000 proposed to be given by the House to Sir Wm. Fox for services. He said the Premier was constantly saying that certain things were contrary the spirit of democracy, and he contended this vote would be entirely contrary to the spirit of democracy, and it would be establishing a very dangerous precedent. There was no doubt the reason why Sir Wm. Fox had formerly refused this amount was because he knew it would come within the provisions of the Disqualification Act. — Mr Gore suggested that the vote should be withdrawn till next session. — Sir J. Vogel said the voto came before the House for work and labour well performed, and for which the payment was a very moderate one. He contended that the Government should not strike this sum out simply because Sir W. Fox had previously refused the remuneration. — Mr Bryce said he had not always agreed with Sir W. Fox, but he admitted that he had done this work remarkably well, and the payment was well deserved. He had recommended to the Cabinet that £2000 should be placed on the Estimates for Sir W. Fox's services. The vote was declined by Sir W. Fox, but" since then that gentleman had expressed his willingness to receive payment. He (Mr Bryce) had since recommended that the money should be paid whenever Sir W. Fox was ready to receive it, and' he should therefore vote for the amount being passed now. — Mr Seddon protested against the vote being passed, and asked why Sir Dillon Bell should not be p*aid for his services on the West Coast as well as Sir W. Fox.— After further discussion the vote was agreed to by 26 to 16. A lengthy discussion ensued on the vote of, £500 for School of Mines, Otago University. — Tho vote was retained. Mr Sutton moved that the item £3000, to give effect to a resolution of the House on the claim of F. D. Rich and others for compensation towards the cost of opening the Shag Point coal mine, be struck out. — The item was retained by 31 v to 11. Mr M'Arthur J moved to strike out the item £450 (subsidy of £1 to £2 up to £450) for auriferous cement crushing machine. — The voting resulted in ayes 24, noes 24. — The Chairman i^ave his vote with the ayes, and the item was struck out. — The House rose at 5.30 p.m. Evening Sitting. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Consideration of the Supplementary Estimates was continued. ■ On vote £6884, State Forests end Agricultural department, the Hon. Mr Ballance said the cost of the new department was not excessive. The chief controller received £600 a year, and he was a gentleman specially qualified _ for the . position. — Mr Rolleston said the de- j partment was being expensively managed. He objected to the vote £1000 for a new School of Agriculture at Whangarei, a district unsuited to agriculture. — Mr Newman said if there was one department which should be encouraged more than another it was the department of Agriculture and of Forestry. — The Hon. Mr Ballance said it had been decided last session that there should be a School of Agriculture at Whangarei, and the Government were only following out the direction of the House in this matter. The money hitherto expended in encouraging plantations was mainly wasted, the principal plantations being eucalypti. — Colonel Trimble considered the State Forests department an expensive toy. — Mr Hobbs said that the amount proposed to be expended on the department was as a drop in a bucket compared with what was expended on goldfields. — Mr Buchanan moved to reduce the total vote by £4500. — Mr Kerr moved that the vote be struck out altogether, in order to test whether the opponents of it were in earnest or not. — Mr Locke said that on the poor, cold, clayey lands in Auckland, among manuka scrub, were to be found hundreds of young kauri plants ; and he held that Auckland was, therefore, the place to establish a school of forestry. — Major Atjunson said the vote ought to have been brought down on the original Estimates. When the House passed the general es&mates, no intimation was given as to the necessity fop a' *HSs>.v? vote, He wished to know what was

meant by a school of agriculture ; because he understood that the land was unsuited for agriculture. — Sir R. Stout said it meant agriculture, but not grain-growing. — Major Atkinson said if it was to be for a school of agriculture he would vote against the whole thing. If it was for a school of forestry and fruit he would not object to a reasonable sum. — Mr Hursthouse was a thorough believer in the conservation of forests, but he did not think the House should vote so large a sum for what might or might not be a useful school of forestry and agriculture ac Whangarei without further information. Ho would move that the vote be reduced by £5450.— Sir G. Grey advocated the planting of Californian red wood and kauri. The former would not require fencing, which was a great consideration, while the latter was a comparatively fasb growing tree and yielded valuable gum. He supported the proposal for an agricultural and f oresty college. — Mr Hursthouse's motion to reduce the vote by £5450 was negatived on the voices. Mr Buchanan's motion to reduce the vote by £3500 was negatived by 33 to 22.— Mr G. F. Richardson moved the reduction of the vote by £2000. — The motion was lost, and the vote was then passed on the voices. £27,582, actuarial branch of the Government Insurance department. — Colonel Trimble wished to know how it was the Auckland and Ohristchurch agents only 'got £450, and the Dunedin agent £800 in salary. —Sir J. Vogel said the particulars were all to be found in the report of the Select Committee on the Government. Insurance department. It had been found necessary to make the Dunedin appointment in the interests of the department, and the circumstances were well known. — Mr Macandrew said that before the late board ceased to exist salaries had been largely increased. Was it intended to keep the salaries at the increased amount? — Sir J. Vogel said the salaries had been largely increased, but he would not take the responsibility of reversing the decision of the board. With regard to the management of the board, he might state that no Minister could devote his whole attention to the board, and therefore it was in contemplation to place someone over the general manager to act between him and the Government. The Government proposed to make the actuarial branch a branch of the Government proper, and the actuary — who was a man of commanding ability — would be in the position of Government States actuary, and would communicate between the Government and the commissipner. By that means the Government could exercise a more thorough supervision 'than previously existed. — Mr Seddon moved to reduce the total vote by £1000 to test the feeling of the committee. — Rir J. Vogel said if the committee would indicate any specific reductions he would try to give effect' to them in due course, but at present officers were led to expect the amounts now set down for them. — Major Atkinson said he hoped the committee would pass the vote as proposed, because there was not sufficient information before the committee to make any reduction at present. The Treasurer had promised next year to make any reduction possible. Mr Oonolly had no faith in the Treasurer making any reduction in expenditure without a distinct direction from the committee. — Colonel Trimble withdrew his amendment. Mr Seddon's amendment was then put and carried by 33 to 18. — Major Atkinson would like to know what the Treasurer understood by this reduction. Was it meant as a reduction in salaries or a reduction in contingencies ? — Sir J. Vogel said he had not understood the vote as meaning to take off all the increases made. Captain Sutter thought Sir J. Vogel need be in no difficulty about the vote just carried. It was an instruction that some of those officers were too higly paid and should be reduced. The total vote as reduced by £1000 was then carried. Unauthorised expenditure, £7040.— Carried. Public Works Fund, £6465 17s sd.— Carried. Public Trust Office, £611 2s.— Carried. Sums irrecoverable by Crown required to be written off departmental accounts, £396 10s4d.— Carried. Miscellaneous works and bridges, £4859. — Carried, Roads to open up lands before sale, £5000. — Carried. Subsidy to local bodies for providing work for unemployed, and contingencies, £7640.— Carried. Work for unemployed, £8000.— Carried.

Tuesday, August 17. The House met at noon. THE SPECIAL POWERS AND CONTRACTS BILL. The Hon Mr BALLANCE moved that the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Special Powers and Contracts Bill be agreed to. He said he felt compelled at that late period of the session to adopt that course, although he thought the amendments made were not justifiable. Out of 70 clauses originally in the bill and schedule 23 had been struck out. He recognised that some important clauses still remained in the bill. Nothing in his opinion justified the reckless and indiscriminate manner in which the bill had been treated. . Some of the provisions eliminated were of a useful nature, particularly clause 6, which the surrender of pastoral deferred-payment leases for perpetual leases. He admitted that the bill might have contained a few objectionable clauses, but he urged that there were numerous precedents for similar provisions in this bill. He held that no more useful measure had ever been introduced into the House. Mr BRYCE, while not defending the action of the Council, said that the bill had become an abuse owing to the magnitude into which it' had grown ; and if this were coi tinued it would lead to its discontinuance. Major ATKINSON and Mr HAMLIN were of opinion that the Council had acted without any guiding principle. Mr HURSTHOUSE moved that the amend- | ments be disagreed with, and that the House should take some stand and not accept the very important amendments made by the Council. Mr MACANDREW hoped Mr Hursthouse's amendment would not be persisted in, or the bill must be thrown out altogether. In future this measure should be brought down not later than the middle of the session. The Hon. Mr Ballance's motion was then carried by 34 to 11. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m. THE APPROPRIATION BILLS. Sir J. VOGEL moved the second reading of the Public Works Appropriation Bill, — Agreed to. The House went into committee on the bill, which passed without amendment, was read the third timo and passed. Sir J. VOGEL moved the second reading of tho Appropriation Bill. — Agreed to. The House went into committee on the bill, which was reported without amendments. On the motion for the third reading of the bill, Major ATKINSON said he wished to make a few remarks. He did not propose to address the IJouse at any great length, although if he were to patalogue the sins of the Government he was afraid the prorogation would have to be

delayed for a day or two. He would ask the House to look at the financial position of the colony. The Treasurer, as was well kDOwn, was a great financier, and he came to the colony for the purpose of remedying the dreadful muddle into which^the finances had fallen. He asserted that the Government had not declared its financial polioy yet, and he was afraid they would have to leave the benches before they declared it. The Treasurer had promised to expose some wonderful things in the administration of the late Government, but he (Major Atkinson) asserted that if Sir J. Vogel left office with as clear a sheet as his predecessors he would accomplish a good deal more than he had at present done. The House had already had a scandal of rather a serious nature, and no doubt before the hon. gentleman left office others would be exposed. He wished to call attention to the Premier's speech at Dunedin in which he told the people he was not fit for the position he held unless he could reduce the expenditure by £80,000 or £100,000 a year ; and he undertook to save that expenditure, but had altogether failed to do so. It was asserted that his not having done so was because of the war scare, but he (the Premier) had actually not so much on the defence estimates now as appeared there in 1884. The total expenditure during 1883-4 was £2,000,434, while that of last year was £2,108,404. It might be said the difference in expenditure was because of the railways; but in both those years he had omitted the railway vote so as to make a fairer estimate, which made a difference of £37,000. Taking everything into consideration — education and railways— he found that £27,831 more was expended last year than in 1883. The result therefore was that instead of the Premier making a reduction' of £80,000 or £100,000, there was actually an increase of £28,000 for the last year, and he hoped the Premier would explain that. He found the Government were an utter failure on the score of economy as far as bstimates went, and no statement as to the war scare would avail to rectify it. He should like to see where the reinstated finance was that the Treasurer had promised them. That finance was really increased expenditure and increased taxation. Then as to the property tax, the Treasurer said that the tax had a crushing effect on the industries of the colony. He should like to know whether the Treasurer believed that ; and if he believed it had a crushing effect, what possible excuse could he have for not reducing but increasing that tax? The tax had really been the sheet anchor of the Treasurer after all his denunciation of it. He (Major Atkinson) had ventured to assert that Sir J. Vogel had banished pauperism by introducing the first poor rate into the colony. He felt convinced no financial Minister ever committed such blunders as the present Treasurer, as he had to abandon position after position which he declared was necessary in the interest of the country. Then, after all his remarks about an assured finance, he found there was actually at present due to local bodies about £30,000 as subsidy under the Local Bodies' Finances and Powers Act. He contended there was no grasp whatever of the subject of local finance by the Treasurer. He was of opinion that the Government had not carried out in any way the pledges they had made to the House when they took office. Then as to the Premier's pledges of gradually tapering off borrowing, why, they were actually going 1 to spend more this year than last year, and there was really as much proposed for roads and bridge works as for railways. He again referred to the question of the £800,000 of which so much had been heard. He hoped the Treasurer would tell the House candidly how h9 meant to provide ways and means for next year. He (Major Atkinson) was convinced he should have to borrow or else he could make no provision for the works proposed. Referring to the Midland railway, he was glad a company had been found to take up the work, but he feared the company would never construct it, and followers of the Treasurer who supported him with that object in view would yet find they were following a phantom and they were parting with the substance in order to grasp the shadow. The colony would be better, in his opinion, if they had no hopes of carrying on this matter, and the supporters of the bill would have done much better if they had waited for the railway for a reasonable time, to be constructed as the colony could afford it. The effect of the Midland Railway Bill had been to keep a Gove^pment in power which neither the House nor the country had confidence in. *But as soon as the company commenced its labours — if it ever did commence — he ventured to predict that in a few months afterwards there would be no more un* popular man in Canterbury than Sir .Julius Vogel. Referring to the work of the present session, he said not a single bill had been introduced which was not materially altered after being brought down. Then they had the Estimates brought down and another set introduced by the Governor's message. Some of their bills had reached as much as a fourth edition. The Government had been utterly careless in their style of conducting the business of the House. The Government also apparently did all their Cabinet work in the House, and he asserted that no Government 10 years ago would have stood for a single day if it had committed bo many blunders and indiscretions as the present Government. The key for the whole position, however, was Midland railway, and.he only hoped they would get their railway, although he very much doubted. The Government, he considered, contributed to the paralysis of industries. First in consequence of the Treasurer creating the impression that he was an advocate for large borrowing, and also as to the speeches of Ministers that a dissolution was impending. They evidently, however, thought the present Parliament a very good one, and it would be a fitting climax to their whole proceedings if the Government next year brought down a short bill to prolong the Parliament. He asked the House and the colony separately to consider their position, and he would tell the Premier that his present policy was not one of tapering off, but of extravagance. Sir R. STOUT said Major Atkinson's speech was peculiar from several points of view, as it was more a review of last session than the present session, and it appeared as if it took the hon. gentleman a year to prepare his speech. Referring to the business of the present session he admitted he had found the Opposition fair and not disposed to obstruct business in any way. As to Major Atkinson's remarks about scandals in connection with the Government, he should like him to name some of them. Major ATKINSON said he would at once do so. There was the Stark purchase, the district Railways transaction, and the sites for the Government Insurance Association. Sir R. STOUT went on to defend the Stark purchase and Government officers, and quoted from Mr Mitchelson's evidence that the whole thing seemed to be a cleverly contrived ponspiracy on some one?s part, and that the Government .officials were not to blame so much for the soandals spoken of. Then as' to the District railways affair, he" should like to ask

were the Government responsible for the conduct of members of the House. It was a new doctrine to him at anyrate. He also denied that there was any scandal in connection with the Government Insurance Association. The evidence had disproved that. As to the railway revenue, they had decreased the rates and reduced them by £75,000, and yet there was au increase for the two years of £81,886. He denied that Major Atkinson was fair in his remarks on the Estimates. The total increase in the 12 classes was £80,550 for the period alluded to by Major Atkinson. He referred to the various departments, and quoted largely from figures to prove that the Government had really effected large savings although they had to provide for increased expenditure. He would ask the House therefore to say that Major Atkinson's criticisms were unfair, and secondly that he had effected even more savings than he had promised in his speech in Dunedin. As to Major Atkinson's remarks about introducing a poor law, he was amazed when he heard that statement. He remembered when that hon. gentleman was a colleague of Sir J. Hall he had brought in a bill of this very character, but when he found his supporters would nob agree to it he allowed it to remain at the bottom of the Order Paper. Referring to Major Atkinson's statement that Canterbury members should have \ remained in their natural party, he was surprised at the hon. member taking the view that those gentlemen had no desire for the good of the colony as a whole, but for their own districts solely. Heaven save him (Sir R. Stout) from such blind supporters as those described by the hon. gentleman ! As for the Midland 'railway, Major Atkinson had always opposed its construction by the Government ; and he advised him to attempt higher things than he had shadowed in his speech. He went on to defend the system of introducing bills , brought in by the present Government. He said Major Atkinson's scheme of local government had entirely broken down, and the Government had tried to remedy that failure. As to borrowing, he admitted they would have to taper off, but the Government were obliged to incur expenditure for the present that would have to be done without in future. The local bodies should carry out their colonising functions, and if this were done, borrowing could be tapered off. They could not cease borrowing at the present, and he hoped the present loan would last till March 1888. He hoped also the House would cease to be a large board of works and members would come up to the House with a desire to do their best for the good of the colony. Then, and not till then, would they be able to cease their present borrowing policy. The House rose at 5.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30. Mr MOSS said he should not have spoken but for his having received a telegram from Auckland respecting the Stark purchase urging him to get some assurance from the Premier as to the course he intended pursuing in this matter. Sir R. STOUT said the Cabinet had not yet considered whether any further inquiry should be made. Mr HURSTHOUSE took exception to the Premier's remarks about a great reduction in the railway rates, and said these reductions only proved to him that the Government by that action were compelling the taxpayers to pay for these railways. It was only a favoured few that were relieved by those reductions and not the general taxpayers. He asked, Did the Government mean to say that the policy they proposed would bring the railways to a paying point ? He considered when that time arrived their position would be worse than it was at present. He warned the Premier that if he persisted in forcing a Representation Bill on the House ' based on population only he would be unable to carry it. Sir J. VOGEL said Major Atkinson's speech was not dissimilar to previous speeches made by him. He had harped continuously on the alleged differences between him (Sir J. Vogel) and his colleagues, and to the Government not having fulfilled their promises. He pointed out that the Government had had many difficulties to contend with owing to a falling revenue, depression in trade, and other reasons, but notwithstanding this he asserted that Major Atkinson's statements ware fallacious about then: promises. Referring to the "property tax, he said it was not necessary to say more than that the Government endeavoured last year to free the property tax of some 'of its objections, such as by exempting agricultural implements, but it was the member for Egmont and his friends that defeated it. He denied Major Atkinson's statement that the Government had framed their Government Loans to Local Bodies Bill upon the lines of the Roads and Bridges Construction Act ; on the contrary, the Government differed altogether with the provisions of that bill. He then went on to refer to the Midland railway at some length, and defended the Government for having brought down the Meiggs' scheme. He asserted now that the first arrangement proposed by Meiggs and Co. was a better one for the colony than the present arrangement ; and he wished to say that if he was to become so unpopular as Major Atkinson said, because of his action in regard to this railway, he at anyrate would have the satisfaction of knowing he had acted straightforwardly, and not as Major Atkinson said. Neither had he attempted to make political capital out of it as had been done by the member for Egmont. He referred to Major Atkinson's efforts during the session to create dissensions in the Cabinet, or rather, he might 6ay, to seduce the Premier — and they had that afternoon another specimen of that gentleman's bitterness and dissappointj ment. He admitted that the expenditure was too large ; but members had one policy of retrenchment inside the House and another policy of extravagance outside it, and members who advocated economy were always askirig for a, road or bridge in their particular districts. He ventured to say that the present session had been one of singular utility to the public service, and referred to several of the bills that were passed. He snid it was quite true that since the Financial Statement was read there had been a falling off in the revenue ; but the rise in the price of wool would improve matters, and there was also hope that goldfields would prove more remunerative than they had of late. As to local industries, the only way they could be benifited was by encouragement by the Government on a very comprehensive scale. He contended on behalf of the Government that they had every reason to be satisfied with the results obtained since they took office, and he hoped they would be as successful in the future. The bill was then read a third time. On the question that the bill do now pass, Mr WAKBFIELD said the Treasurer had spoken for a long time but said nothing till the close of his speech, when he had distinctly advocated a policy of Protection, and he thought it as well that the fact should go forth to the country. He denied altogether that the only hope of the country was a protective policy as stated by the Treasurer. He referred at some length to the |

Protection question, and said nothing would tend more to the prosperity of the colony than the liberal principles of Freetrade. The question was one of the greatest of the age, but the Treasurer had trifled with the question in a most foolish manner altogether unworthy of it. Referring to Sir J. Vogel's remarks about members always asking for roads and bridges, he (Mr Wakefield) asked who had encouraged them to do so He ventured to say that no public man in New Zealand had spread corruption more, not only to members but to their constituents, than the present Colonial Treasurer. That hon. gentleman came back to the colony with the best advantage and met kind friends in all directions. He came into the House and found he had not now the power he expected to have, and it was then seen that the Treasurer was not only not a benefit to the colony, but an obstruction, and it would have been much better for his colleagues and the country if he had never taken office. He had never taken the colonists into his confidence, but had treated them as aliens whom he had no sympathy with. The colony was as sound as a rock when Sir J. Vogel took office, and it was in a sounder condition n*w, not because of the Treasurer being in office, but because of the determined opposition of the people of New Zealand to his policy. As for the present session, he said there never had been a session in which business was worse managed or in which the leadership was more divided. Sir J. VOGEL briefly replied, after which the bill was read a third time and passed.