N.Z. PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2116, 13 September 1894, Page 18

N.Z. PARLIAMENT.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5.

In the Legislative Council to-day the Divorce Bill was practically killed. The Dunedin Loan Conversion Bill passed through Committee, and the Kaitangata Relief Fund Bill was read a third time.

STATR FORESTS,

The Hon. Mr M'CULLOUGH moved— VThat in the opinion of this Council it is desirable, whenever land which has been sec iroart as State forests, shall be declared as too longer within the provisions of * Tho Now Zealand State Forests Act 1885.' That an equal area of forest land be set aparb as a State forest in the provincial district in which the land withdrawn was situate." The Hon. Mr BOWEN supported the motion. Sucoeesive Governments were to blame for denuding State forests, Sir J. Vogel's Government only excepted. The Indian Government had reserved lands for State forests for many years past, and the experiment had proved eminently successful. He regarded it as foolish to support Arbor Days when the country was continually sacrificing State forests, which should be set apart for future generations. The motion was agreed to. BILL PASSED. •

The Kaitangata Relief Fund Transfer Act Amendment Bill was read » bhird time.

THE DIVORCE BILL.

Before resuming the Divorce Bill in Committee. The CHAIRMAN said when the bill was 'last before the Committee the division on clause 4, making imprisonment a Cause for divorce, had been erroneously recorded. By the leave of the Counoil he would alter the Journals reversing the division list, Which would have the effect of striking out the clause. — This course was adopted, and the clause was declared struck out. The bill was further considered in Committee. The Hon. Mr SHRIMSKI moved that the chairman do leave the chair.— Agreed to by 21 fco 13, and thus the bill was killed. The following is the division list :—

Ayes (21). — Messrs Reynolds, Stewart, L. Walker, Richardson, Whitmnre, Williamß, Bonar, Kerr, Shrimski, Wabawaha, Pharazyn, Feldwick, Kenny, Dignan, Acland, Ormond, Bowen, Grace, Whyte, Holmeg, Buckley. Noes (13).e-Messrs Barnicoat, Bolt, Swanson, Kelly, Rigg, Jennings, Jenkineon, M'Cullough, Oliver, Stevens, M'Lean, Montgomery, MacGregor.

In the House of Representatives to-day, after a discussion on the Westport-Cardiff Coal X-ompany's petition and questions, the Public Works Bill and two bills dealing with Native matters were read a second time. In the 'evening progress was reported on the Adulteration Acts Amendment Bill dealing with the weight of bread. The Rating on Unimproved Value Bill was committed, but progress was reported before the clauses were considered in detail.

WESTPORT-CARDIFF COAL COMPANY.

Mr G. W. RUSSELL moved that the minutes ,oE evidence taken before the Railway Corainittee on the Westport-Cardiff Coal Company's petition be printed. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said under the circumstances he felt justified in sending the report on to the Railway Commissioners, as there 'Vere a great many men out of employment owing to this dispute. A lengthy disouision arose on the whole '.question, and it was finally decided that the [reporb lie on the table and that the evidence be {printed.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS.

Replying to Mr M'Guire, ; The Hon. J. M'KENZIE said a bill was ibeing prepared dealing with the administration of secondary and university education reeerves, but there was no intention of diverting those reserves from the purposes for which they were set aside. Replying to Mr Thompson, whether the Government will give any assistance to county councils to pay for tha next triennial valuations, provided the Land Tax department is supplied with the necessary valuations required by that department, The Hon. J. G. WARD eaid he could nob ' bold out any hope whatever that a direct contributio would be given for this purpose. Repljii.g to Sir R. Stout, The Hon. W. P. REEVES said he should consult the Native Minister to see if any provision could be made for providing university scholarships for Maoris and half-castes. ANNIVERSARY DAT.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and .determine the proper date for a general holiday for the celebration of the anniversary of the foundation of the colony, the committee to consist of Messrs Button, Graham, Hogg, W. Hutchiton, Bell, Saunders, Steward, Wilson, and the mover. — Agreed to*. THE DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL.

The Destitute Persons Bill was committed and passed without alteration. THE STAFF OF LIFE.

The Adulteration Prevention Acts Amendment Bill was committed. Clause 3, all bread to be sold in loaves of a certain weight. — Mr Morrison moved an amendment to the effect that bread shall be made into batch or tin loaves.— The Hob. Mr Seddon hoped the amendment wanld nob be passed, and he should move a further amendment that bread must be sold by weight. — After a lengthy discussion Mr Morrison withdrew his amendment, and the Hon. Mr Seddon moved to alter the clause to the effect . that the act should not apply to rolls, cakes, and confectionery, instead of making it not to apply to bread made up into rolls or French twists.— Mr Buddo' moved that the words " one pound loaf " be struck out of the clause, as he thought bread should be made up in 21b and 41b loaves, and that bakers should not be compelled to make them into lib loaves. — The Hon. Mr Seddon opposed the amendment, and pointed out that poor people might not be able to purchase a 21b loaf. — Mr Buddo's amendment was lost, and Mr Seddon's amendment carried by 34 to 23 — The portion of the clause, making the act not to apply to rolls and French twists was struck out by 36 to 22. — Mr Mobbison moved a further amendment — " That the act should not apply to any description of fancy bread." — The Hon. Mr Seddon said if this ■were agreed to they might just as well leave the law as it stood. — Captain Russell supported the amendment. He pointed that if the clause were passed as it stood now it would be impossible to have such things as rolls for breakfast. He thought that would be a great hardship on bakers. — The amendment was carried by 29 to 27, and the clause as amended added to the bill. -■'■■-, After some discussion the Hon. Mr Seddon ' .. promised to recommit clauses 3, 4, and sif the bill was allowed to go through now. This was agreed to, and the remainder of the bill passed. Mr HtrrCHlf on moved a nsw clause affecting ; adulteration, which was lost by 41 1»&. L SCte bill was jgpprted, as amende**.'

NAMES OF DISTRICTS,

The Designation of Districts Bill was committed.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON said this was a charge made by the Imperial authorities, and not by the New Zealand Government.

THE GAMING BILL.

Sir R. STOUT stated that the conference had been unable to agree on the Gaming Bill, and he moved—" That fresh managers be appointed, consisting of Messrs Larnach, Fraser, and G. W. Russell."

After some discussion it was decided that the managers from the House consist of the Hon. Mr Seddon, Captain Russell, Messrs Houston, Larnach, Fraser, and G. W. Russell.

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

In Committee on the Rating on Unimproved Value Bill,

Clause 2 evoked a very lengthy discussion. — Mr Buchanan, Captain Russell, and Mr Earn■haw strongly opposed the bill. — Sir R. Stout s&id hon. members could not deny the fact thSt this bill exempted capitalists from taxation, and he could not see how this could possibly benefit labouring men. He intended to move thab no general rate levied under this bill shall exceed 2d in the pound on the unimproved value. — Mr M'Gowan admitted that the bill would relieve a capitalist who used his capital, but not a capitalist who allowed his land to lie idle — The Hon Mr Ward regretted he could not accept Sir R Stout's amendment, and said it would have to be left to the discretion of the local bodies to fix the rate. Many of the local bodies would be unable to obtain the necessary revenue to enable them to carry on if this amendment were carried. — Captain Russell said Mr Ward himself had just proved that the bill would work unfairly. He (Captain Russell) still held that the bill would press with undue heaviness on all poor land, whilst owners of rich land, who could well afford taxation, would receive exemption. — After a further lengthy debate clause Z was passed by 43 to 11. Clause 4, ratepayers may by vote adopt this act. — Mr Mehedith moved that 30 per cent, of the ratepayers may demand that a proposal to rate property on the unimproved value be submitted to the ratepayers instead of 20 per cent, as provided in the bill.-JDho Hon. Mr Ward could not accept the amendment.— Sir R. Si out would support striking out 20 with a view of inserting 5 per cent. He held that if the bill were to effect so much good as some nun. members expected, it should have a chance of being brought into operation. — The amendment was lost by 29 to 22.

Clause 9 caused a very lengbby debate, several members contending that the clause was altogether too ambiguous, and required re-draftiug. The clause was carried by 36 to 11.

Clause 10, Adjustment of rating powers under the aoie of 1876 and 1882.— T0 this Sir R. Stout moved a proviso thab the limit of ratiDg for general rates should be the sum of 2d in the pound on the unimproved value for every three farthings in the, pound on the gross value, 'and also for every shilling in the pound on the annual value. — The proviso was lost by 29 to 16. Mr Eahnshaw moved a proviso enabling any city or borough in which this act is not in force to impose in addition to ordinary -rates a special rate on unimproved land not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound. — Mr Carncboss strongly supported the proviso. — The Hon. Mr Waed refnsed to accept the amendment, because it would prevent local bodies from taking advantage of the act without consulting the rotepayers. — Mr G. W. Russell supported proviso and hoped the Government would not make it a party question. — The Hon. Mr Seddon said the proviso was evidently moved for the purpose of destroying the bill, and the Government could not accept it. — Sir R. Stout depricated motives being attributed by the Premier. He supported tho proviso. Mr Eabnshaw's proviso to clause 10 of the Rating on Unimproved Value of Land Bill was lost by 31 to 11, and the clause passed without alteration.

On clause 11, Mr Fraser proposed an amendment that besides waber and gas rates, hospital and charitable aid rates should be levied on the gross value. The Hon. Mr Ward opposed the amendment, which was lost by 29 to 14. The remaining clauses passed with Blight amendment.

Mr Wi Pere moved a new clause exempting Native lands from the provisions of the act. — Lost by 32 to 12.

Mr Hone Heke moved a new clause to the effect that Native lands should not be rated more than a halfpenny in the pound on the unimproved value of the land. — The Hon. Mr Ward pointed out that under the main Rating Acb Nabives only paid half "rates, and that was not interfered with by this bill.— The new clause was rejected on the voices.

OBJECTIONS TO LATE SITTINGS.

At 3 a m. objection was taken to going on with the other bills that had been committed, but a motion to report progress was lost by 32 to 10.

In Committee on the Lake Forsyth Drainage Bill, Sir R. STOUT objected to discuss a measure containing such an important principle at such an early hour, and moved that the Chairman leave the chair. He said several members had pledged themselves on the hustings against these late sittings.

Captain RUSSELL said he wished to enter his protest against these most disgraceful proceedings. To force members by means of a ruthless and overwhelming majority to attempt to do business in this way was discreditable and disgraceful to the Home.

The CHAIRMAN called upon Captain Russell to withdraw the terms "disgraceful" and " discreditable," which he at once did, and added that the proceedings reflected anything but credit on the House. The House would soon beceme a by-word throughout the oolony. They had been playing the fool that evening in passing a bill that no one professed to understand. They were reducing parliamentary proceedings to a burlesque. Ministers did not understand their own measures, and forced them on the House when members were worn out and weary. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the House had taken three nights to pass a bill containing 15 clauses, and who, he asked, was responsible for thisP That bill had been designedly obstructed.—(Cries of "No," and "Ye».") At the request of the Chairman, Mr Seddon withdrew the words designedly obstructed, bub said tho bill had been delayed in its passage. Whilst the Government would give members on the Opposition benches every latitude, they could not allow the business of the country to be kept back. It was agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that certaia bills were to be passed that night (Captain Russell denied

should be required to notify to the inspector in the month of Jannary on which of the two days (Thursday or Saturday) they propose to close, and that the day for which the majority vote should be declared the closing day for a period of, say, three years, and that all shops must close upon the afternoon of that day ; but that, in the event of Thursday being declared the closing day, factories such as dressmaking and tailoring workshops, &c, may be closed on Thursday and kept open on Saturday. He considers that unless something of this sort can be arranged, either Saturday should be made compulsory for all shops or the act should be repealed altogether.

.REPLIES TO QUESTIONS.

Replying to Mr Lawry, whether the Premier will make provision in the Municipal c Corporations Act Amendment Bill to enable corporate bodies to prevent any person using offensive matter as manure within the boundaries of any city or borough, The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the matter would be considered, and if found desirable the law would be amended. . Replying to Mr Pirani, whether the Government will give a formal assurance to the House that they will not approve of any agreement for the purchase by the Bank of New Zealand of the business of the Colonial Bank, or of any amalgamation of the business of these banks, unless such agreement shall distinctly and in terms set out the price of shares of either or both companies, the market price of shares as at the date of the passing of the Bank of New Zealand Guarantee Act,

The Hon. Mr WARD said it would be better to wait till some proposals had been made to the Government on these subjects. No proposals had been made as yet. If any negotiations that might be made between the two banks were successful he expected they would come before the Government before being ratified.

Replying to Mr G. W. Russell as to whether the Government will agree to the setting up of a tribunal for considering cases in which lunatic asylum attendants desire to appeal against dismissal or other alleged injustice,

The Hon. Mr REEVES said he should make inquiry into any prima facie cases of tyranny, but if there were any cases specially complicated he should set up a special tribunal to inquire into them. ""* Replying to Mr Maslin, The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he had ordered a full inquiry and report on the statement in the Lyttelton Times of the 4th September making certain charges against the police in connection with the hour for closing hotels. Replying to Dr Newman, The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he did not purpose this session to introduce any bill dealing I with old soldiers' claims. [ BANKING MATTERS. ©»ptain R.USSELL moved the adjournment

of the House to elicit some more information from the Colonial Treasurer respecting the reported bank amalgamation. He thought the House had a right to know something raon* of this matter. The whole of th« colony wtre si-A-tira that shares in "the Colonial Bank were r.ipidly rising, and the colony was specially interested in knowing whether that rice v?as due to the intended amalgamation of the Bank of New Zealand, which had a Government guarantee. He contended the whole intention of tho Legislature in passing the Bank Guarantee Act was that no important transaction should take place without the consent of the president and auditor of the Bank of New Zealand, and if any transaction was considered unsafe the president could veto it. His opinion was that the colony was vitally interested in knowing what negotiations for amalgamation were going on, and he held that if they waited till official information reached the Colonial Treasurer on the matter, it might be too late for tho House to consider the matter at all.

The Hon. Mr WARD said that any information which the Government would receive on this matter would at once be laid before the House.— (Captain Russell : " It will be too late then.") It would not be too late. He might say it was not a case of the Bank of New Zealand taking over the business of the Colonial Bank, nor was it a case of relieving that bank at all. He might say that whatever the negotiations might be, they would not be carried out till the Government were made aware of them. The Government were most anxious to see the president and directors of the bank appointed, but they could do nothing in that respect till the headquarters of the bank were removed to Wellington. He again asserted that under the present conditions no negotiations could be concluded until they were laid before the Government and the House. The only interest to be considered was that of the colony itself, and if they thought any amalgamation could be effected without the consent of the Government, he should at once introduce the necessary legislation to prevent it. He could assure the House that nothing definite would be done in the matter unless the Government, in the first place, agreed to any proposal that might be made, and until the Houbo, in the second place, agreed to it. In reply to Mr Buchanan, he (Mr Ward) said that in his opinion legislation would be required before any amalgamation could take place between the two banks.

Dr NEWMAN asked whether this amalgamation would increase the liability of the colony in any respect.

Mr ALLEN said he had seen in the newspapers that negotiations were started at the instigation of the Government. He should like to know whether the Government were instrumental" in instigating the proposals for amalgamation. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he thought Mr Ward had made the position quite clear. The Government had not started negotiations for amalgamation. Was it to be held for a moment that the Bank of New Zealand would entertain any negotiations of this kind without informing the Government? He thought the Opposition knew very little about banking if they thought such negotiations would be carried on without the sanction of the Government. Nothing would be done without the House being informed of it, and whatever was done the Government must take the responsibility. If nothing was done before the House prorogued the matter could not be hung up till the next session, and the Government in that case would be prepared to take the responsibility. The Government were not officially aware of any negotiations at present. They did know that advances for amalgamation were being made between the two banks, but not officially.

Mr BUTTON, speaking with some knowledge of the subject, said there was no power whatever in the Bank of New Zealand Act or Deed ot Association to effect any amalgamation with another bank without special legislation.

After further discussion,

Captain RUSSELL said the Colonial Treasurer bad given them no information at all, and the only reliable information during the debate was that given by Mr Button to the effeot that no amalgamation could take place without special legislation. He (Captain Russell) heard, however, that the House would be asked to pass another urgency bill without being allowed to discuss the matter at all.— (The Hon. Mr Ward : "That is not so.") He had not sufficient faith in the Government to like this matter being dealt with after the House prorogued, and he again complained that they could get no information from the Government on this important matter. - The Hon. Mr WARD regretted that Captain Russell should have misrepresented him on several points. — (Captain Russell i "I did not do so intentionally.") The hon. gentleman had stated he would accept Mr Button's statement and not; his (Mr Ward's). The Government recoguised their responsibility in this matter, and as soon as any negotiations reached the Government they would be at once considered, and the House would be advised of them. The motion for adjournment was lost. MONDAY SITTINGS.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON moved that the Home sit on Mondays at 7.30 p.m. for the remainder of the session. — Agreed to. EATING ON THE UNIMFfiOVED VALUE. On the motion for the third reading of the Rating on Unimproved Value Bill, Mr BUCHANAN and Captain RUSSELL strongly condemned the bill. Messrs Thompson, Hall, and M'Guire also spoke. The Hon. Mr WARD replied at some length, warmly defending the bill, and again asserted that numerous demands had been made for the bill in various parts of tho colony. The bill was read a third time and passed. THE GAMING BILL.

The Hon. Mr SSDDON brought up the | report of the conference on the Gaming Bill. He said the conference had struck out clause 7, ■which proposed that the president of the New Zealand Jockey Clnb should have power to issue totalisator licenses, and thay agreed to place this power with the Goyernor-in-Couacil. He moved that thin be agreed to by the House. — Carried. THE MIDLAND KAII/WAY. Replying to the Hon. Mr Mitchelson, The Hon. Mr SBDDON said it was not desirable to have two discussions on the Midland Railway Company's proposals. He should wait till the company absolutely accepted the terms of the select committee's report on the matter before he took any further Bteps in it. His proposal then would be that the House should wait till Government brought down a bill on the subject, and tafce a g^nfral fSiscu^siou on th".fc measure, which would be in accordance with the report of the committee. After some discussion, The Hon. Mr SBDDON said the Government had forwarded to the company the resolutions paised by the committee, which were laid on the table of the House. Their action was altogether non-committal, but they had a duty to perform in preparing a bill in accordance with the committee* report. The House could theft deal with the whole matter.

(GOVERNMENT KaILWATS. The Hon. Mr SBDDON moved the second ' reading of the Government Railway* Act ! Amendment Bill to amend the "Government Railways Act 1887." He said the bill involved £15,000,000 of the people's money, and that being so, every information should be given to members, and there should be no doubt as to the vote of the House on it. The bill provided that a Minister should sit on the board with the three Railway Commissioners. He should sit there as an ordinary member, but with a vote and casting vote, and no power of veto. An alteration was made as to the term of the appointment, and of the removal of the commissioners, and in this he had followed what was the law in Victoria at present. The power vested in the commissioners to take land for railways was by this bill vested in the Minfcter for Public Works. The Minister would also determine sites for stations. The commissioners could be consulted in this respect, but the responsibility would rest with the Minister. Tha bill provided that all contracts for work above £100 should be submitted for public tender. Referring to the question of railway management, he aaid the voice of the country had decided at the last election that there should ha a change in that respeot. The bill, therefore, only provided that the commissioners should be appointed for nine months, which would give the House an opportunity of considering whether the railways should again revert to the State, and the bill provided that a resolution of either House could hereafter decide whether the railways should jor should not return to Government control. He held that there was a great necessity for this bill in the interests of land settlement and the encouragement of our industries, and in these respects the management of the past and present Railway Commissioners was absolutely defective. His opinion was that where a large publio property of this kind was dealt with by irresponsible persons without Government: control it was a danger to the State and a slight on the Democracy of the country. In < New Zealand their experiments had been a failure, bat in comparison with the other colonies oar commissioners had come out of tho trial better than those of the neighbouring colonies. As regards the present commissioners he said there was a reduction this year of £8000 compared with last year, and there could have been £12,000 without impairing the efficiency of the railways. That proved that he was correot when he said last year that the saving could be made.— (Mr G. W. Russell: •• They are working the shops only five days a werV.") He was alluding to the estimates of the Railway Commissioners, and he held they were perfectly justified in making a change of commissioners. He knew some people thought the railways could not possibly be managed without certain persons being at the head of the management, but experience had proved that was a fallacy. He asserted that there had been a general feeling of discontent amongst the railway servants, but they were much more contented now. Those connected with our industries and also our farmers were complaining and asking for a reform in railway management, which was urgently wanted. He held that by their legislation they were extending the functions of the State in many directions, and that being so they should have some control of the zailways, if not the whole control. He wanted to get back the control of their railways, and the surest way to do that was to proceed step by step. If he had nob thought that, he would have proposed by this bill that the Government should resume full

control of the railways, and if the bill passed they would at any rate secure some control, which was one of the chief reasons for bringing in the present bill. When the commissioners were first appointed it was only an experiment. That period of their appointment having expired, the next question was as to how far they should renew those appointments. This bill to his mind went as far in that direction as seemed desirable. The Government had been most careful in selecting the new commissioners, Mr Ronayne was recognised as being a most; efficient railway officer in every respect. As to Mr Scott's appointment, the Government thought he was specially suitable for the position, and they had no reason to regret the appointments made. Ths service itself had improved, a feeling of confidence was inspired, and the commit sioners were more in touoh with the farmers of the country than had been the case before. When they considered that £15,000,000 of the people's money was at stake, and that they were called every year to vote three-quarters of a million of money without any Government control, he thought the House would be justified in parsing the bill.

Captain RUSSELL characterised the Premier's speech as being as faulty as his bill, and he had failed altogether to convince him that the country wanted a bill of this kind or a change in the railway management. He did not wonder there had been continual clashing between the Publio Works department and the commissioners, because Mr Seddon bad from the firstjbeen violently opposed to tho commissioners, and took every opportunity to thwart them. , Mr Seddon had told them the country had demanded a resumption of State control of the railways, but that was a favourite expression of the Premier's.— (The Hon. Mr Seddok ~?* l l can't help it when I look at the Opposition .be'nches.")— He (Captain Russell) thought Mt Seddon himself would strengthen the Opposition benches very considerably if he adopted the line of conduct with his party which he had been doing lately. He denied that the administration of the late commissioners had been a failure, and held that in every essential particular their administration had been successful. The Premier had stated that farmers were dissatisfied with the railway management; but he asserted that for every petition now presented by farmers against the railI way management there were at least 10 before the commissioners were appointed. Referring to the new commissioners, ha pointed out that the man who was now chief commissioner was the very man who, according to Mr Seddon's own statement when he ttsb first appointed, was a very good surveyor, but who had no experience of railway management. The difference, however, was that when Mr M'Kerrow was first appointed he had two experts with him, whereaa at present he had no such assistance. He did not object to the salaries to be paid to the commissioners, but pointed put that as Mr Seddon would have a deliberate as well as a casting vote he would be virtually dictator of our railways. He referred to the fact that in the 24 years since the public works policy was initiated there were no fewer than 25 readjustments of the Publio Works portfolio, comprising journalists,' farmers, merchants, bankers, and now they had Mr Seddon, the present; Minister. He quoted from figures to prove that the receipts from tho railways during the administration of the commissioners ! was nearly double those, which were received ! before they had the full management. He was also against reverting to political control because that would necessitate political colour*

As the result of the commissioners' manage-

ment he pointed out that the men worked i fewer hours than before, the public travelled ' cheaper and. auicker, »r?d U*» xtttmw revenue.

Vfas largely increased. He hoped the House would not agree to the bill.

Dr NEWMAN said it appeared to him tbat the Premier had in every possible way taken all the power out of the hands of the commissioners and placed it in his own. What was the good of the commissioners at all, aud why had he not done away with then and taken the management himself ? He thought, after uve years' experience, it was time the railways came back again to the Government. Referring to the freights on the railways, he held that they shonld be all alike; but he found that they were much less in the South Island than in the north. .The Piemier had told them business was increasing, but he held it was falling off, and the new commissioners had increased the expenditure from 61 per cent, to 67 per cent, of the revenue. He repeated tbat it was greatly to be regretted that the Premier had not Tested the railways in himself, and in order to test the feeling of the House he should move, entirely on his own account — •• That instead of the bill being read a second time it should ba referred back to the Ministers, so that they may so alter it as to make the railways revest in the Queen."

Sir R. SIOUT seconded the amendment, because he had always been opposed to the .control of the commissioners. His objection to the bill was that there was no leading idea or guiding principle in it. The bill contained no policy at all, as it did not provide either for Ministerial control or control by the commissioners. His opinion was that the railway management should not be left to three irresponsible persons. It should be directly under Ministerial control. He had always defended Mr Maxwell, ai he believed him to be the ablest railway expert they had in the colony. Mr Hannay was also an able man. and he held it was entirely wrong to remove those men and (supplant them by two mea who were in no way equal to them in adxninistrative abi *ty. Ho had no wish to reflect on the present commissioners, but there were plenty other men in the service just as competent. He approved of the clause providing • for a board of appeal for officers and servants of 'the railway service, and he hoped that if the railways went back to the Government 'that an appeal board would be maintained. ;As to the management of the present commissioners, he said what he had heard was not : satisfactory. He had always been a believer in trade unions, but he denied the right of two or three of those unions to dominate the whole service. He believed some of those unions had more to say in tbe railway management than anybody else. He referred to tha list of railway servants which he had previously alluded to in the House, and said that all those men on that list had been reduced in salary by the Railway Commissioners — some ot them very materially. It might be said that this was done for the sake of economy, bub he had been shown the list a month before ib was acbed on, and he held that was another stroDg reason why the railways should be removed from the control of the commissioners and pUced under the Government. He instanced the case of the locomotive engineer who had received rapid promotion, by the present commissioners simply because, in the late strike, he had gone against the late commissioners, and ha was rewarded for having opposed his late employers. That man's name was on the list he had referred fcoas one who was to be promoted, and he asked whether that state of things wa* fair. He would give trade unions absolute freedom, but he objected to any unions bossing the service. He knew that what he had stated was correct, and he held that an inquiry should be made into it by the commissioners. It was a wrong principle to have their employers appeinted to positions for their political opinions. He should support the amendment. The whole tone of the Premier was really in favour of the amendment. The Premier had told them he wished to proceed slowly, but the bill did not do that. It provided that next session a resolution could be passed vesting the railways in the colony, and yet it was also provided that the commissioners could be kept on salary for three or five years. Parliament should be able to say whether they were to have commissioners. If so they should have f nil control, but if they were not to have them (and he hoped they were not) then let the house have tbe courage of its convictions and vote for the railways going back to the Government.

Mr M'KENZIE (Buller) agreed with Sir R. Efcout when he said they should do away with the Railway Commissioners, but he was per feebly well satisfied that the present commissioners oould manage them just as efficiently as the late commissioners He had no objection to the commissioners continuing for a year or two longer with a Minister on the board, but it would be a fatal mistake to allow things to remain a- they were at present. Mr EARNSHAW referred to Sir R. Stout's remarks respecting the railway servants' unions, and said that, having been intimately connected formerly with those unions, he knew absolutely nothing of what the hon gentleman tad stated as far as Obago was concerned. He regretted that the Premier had not done justice to this important subject, and it was no doubt owing to the late sitting of the previous night. With respect to the Railway Commufcioner*, he asserted that the present chief commissioner .Was objected to by the whole of the Liberal party for the last five years as a man who* had ,jao capacity to manage the railways, no matter jhow good a surveyor he might be.- He should /support Dr Newman's amendment with I pleasure, as he had always been opposed to the ! commissioners. ; Mr CROWTHER had made np his mind that {the bill contemplated thab no commissioners should work nnder it, and that being the case ,he thought Dr Newman's amendment should bo carried. The Premier by this bill proposed ,to set himself up as a separate authority, and jibe commissioners would be in a subordinate position altogether. There was, therefore, no necfwity for tlie country spending £3000 on those commissioners, who were only to be kept till the Premier was able to do without them. The amendment was in the right direction, and be sbruld support it. 1 Mr WILSON would vote for the amendment, although be was in favour of tbe act as it now stood. There were only two ways of managing •the railways — either by commissioners or by j direct. Government control. The bill was a comi promise between the two, and he should vote against it if the n.mpndnaent was not carried.

Mr G. J. SMITH did not believe in the political control of the railways, nor did he believe that the control of the railways by the commissioners was satisfactory, either to commercial people or to the employees. He was glad to state that that state of things had been altered during the last few months. Political control would be bad because of the pressure brought to bear on the Minister for appointments to the Service. They were bad enough at present, but tinder a Minister those appointments would be infinitely worse. He thought the system of control by commissioners should be oontinned, but modified, and he cordially agreed thab the Minister ahoaldhaveaseatontheboard. His opinion was that the Minister should have a seat with two other commissioners, and with equal voting ■^owar, -Two c—***i™fi*ipa*i wmU *t*anA tq

the business portion of the railways, while the Minister could look after the policy. The present bill, however, contained proposals that he could not agree with, and he objected to the bill being passed this session, when by a simple resolution next session the whole thing could be swept away. Ifc would be far better if a vote 1 were takon on the question whether they were to have Ministerial or divided control. He should vote against the amendment, and would support the bill.

TOWN DISTRICTS

Mr G. HUTCHISON moved the second reading of the Town Districts Bill, to revive " The Town Districts Act 1881." He explained that ha had introduced the bill at the request of his constituents.

The Hon. R. J. SEDDON strongly objected to the bill, and said it was one of the most dangerous measures introduced this _ session, which was eajing a great deal. The bill would bring into existence a number of local bodies which the Legislature had declared were unnecessary and were injurious to the country, and by its provisions . a few residents would be able to form town districts at any time. He held that the bill was unnecessary, especially as the . Government promised to bring down a complete local government scheme next sesuon. He hoped the bill would not proceed beyond the second reading. Mr G. W. RUSSELL supported the bill, as there were several suburban localities in his district which were not large enough to form into municipalities, but would be greatly benefited by this bill.

Mr G. HUTCHISON said the bill only proposed to revive a system of looal government which existed up to 1885. It merely proposed to remedy certain grievances which existed at present, and to set up centres of local government in small localities. He asked the House to affirm the prinoiple of the bill by voting for the second reading, bub he was aware it could proceed no further this session unless the Government toek it up. The motion was agreed to. COBONFJRS' INQUESTS.

Mr SAUNDERS moved the second reading of the Coroners' Inquests Bill, which, he explained, had been before the House six times already, and its provisions were well known. It provided that the deadhouse of a hospital should be a public morgue, and that lionised publicans should, if requested by a J.P. or police constable, supply .accommodation on his premises for holding coroners' inquests. The bill also provided for the payment of juror* who had travelled more than two miles at 6s per day for every day on which they shall attend more than four hours, and 43 6d if nob exceeding thab time. If jurors have travelled not more than two miles to attend an inquest, and are detained more than four hours, they are bo receive 5s a day, and not exceeding that time 33 6d. — The motion was agreed to.

NATIVE BIGHTS.

Mr HONE HliKfeJ moved the second reading of the Native Rights Bill, to empower the aboriginal Natives of New Zealand to enacb laws for the government of themselves and their lands and other property. He spoke at some length in support of the bill.

The Hon. Mr CARROLL thought Mr Heke had not chown that any good would result to the Natives from tbis bill, which was altogether outside practical politics. He opposed the bill, and said the Natives themselves did not know what they required in matters of this kind. He held that the time had come when the special representation of the Native race in tha Bouse should be done away with. In some districts the Maoris, in thab event, would still probably ba strong enough to reburn one of their number to the House, and a European member would represent them more effectively than they would themselves, owing to the superior education in politics which European members possessed.

Sir R. STOUT regretted the absence of the Native Minister on an important occasion of this kind. He thought it worthy of note that a member of the celebrated Heke family should be there advocating in excellent English that the Maoris shonld have some form of local selfgovernment. The bill was nob practicable itself, but he held the Maoris might have more say in the management of their lands. He thought the Maoris might be met, as it was perfectly impossible for them to compete with Europeans on equal terms, and that being so he was desirous of seeing special representation maintained. His idea was that in purely Maori districts they might give the Natives some form of local government for dealing with their lands, and he hoped the House would pass the second reading of the bill, if only to ■how the Natives that the House considered some advance should be made to them in this direction.

Mr E. M SMITH strongly opposed the bill. Dr NEWMAN said it would be 'absurd to pass a bill of this kind, but he thought it would be a calamity to the Maori race if special representation were abolished.

Mr T. MACKENZIE (Clutha) thought the whole history of Native land transactions in this colony was scandalous. He had great sympathy with Mr Heke, and thought he had just as much right to introduce his bill as Dr Newman had to introduce his ridiculous measure giving women the right to sit in Parliament. "

Mr G. HUTCHISON did not agree with Mr Carroll's remarks, and said tbat hon. gentleman could nob have spoken as the representative of the Maoris on the Government benches, but as the European representative of Waiapn. He (Mr Hutchison) regarded the bill as a protest against the long course of injustice which the Natives had suffered at the hands of Parliament. If only on that ground, it should receive some attention from the House.

Captain RUSSELL felt ib his duty to net aside his natural desire to be courteous to Mr Heke and to oppose this bill. He was greatly surprised at Mr,CarroH'n remarks, which showed that he did not possess the same sympathy with the Natives that he formerly expressed. It was notorious that the Government desired to obtain Native lands— honestly if they could, but to get them -and that was the cause of the trouble amongst the Natives. He regretted to hear Mr Hutchison say they should perpetuate the tribal holdings of the Maori people. The only way they could do that was to individualise the title, and he should be glad to support any bill providing against the alienation of Maori land more than was desirable. He held, however, that the only possible way for the Maoris to remain a people was by merging into the European population, and he held further that any system of taking land from the • Maori people without their consent would be a retrograde movement.

Mr STEVENS agreed with Captain Russell's view, and laid it would be utterly impossible for him to support this bill. He thought the Maori people had been well and properly treated, much more so than if they had been under French rule instead of English. It was beyond conception that a special Constitution should be given to the Maori race to deal with their land.

At this stage (11.5) the House was counted, and there being no Quorum, tbe House adjourned till next due

-Ni' i ' ■ In th« House of Representatives to-day, ■after questions had been disposed of, the Destitute Persons Bill was passed. The debate on the second reading of the Government Railways Bill was then resumed and concluded in the evening, the motion being carried on a division by 45 to 13. The Rating of Crown .Lands Bill was also read a second time.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS.

Replying to Mr G. W. Russell, The Hon. R. J. SEDDON said full inquiries -would be made as to the expediency of urging upon the Imperial authorities the desirability of establishing a depot of warlike stores at Wellington, from which the direct steamers trading to the colony could, if necessary, be .turned at short notice into armed cruisers.

Replying to Mr Millar, The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the queition of introducing legislation to enable local bodies to •convert their loans was under consideration. BILL FASSBD. The Destitute Persons Bill wag read a third -.time and passed. > GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS BILL. The Hon. B. MITCHELSON resumed the ■debate on the second reading of the Government Railways Bill. He agreed with 'the Premier that this was a most important bill, and congratulated the Premier •on the change in tone in his speech on Friday night from that of last year on the same bill, ivhen he had vehemently attacked the commissioners. The present bill was one which he did not consider should be placed on the Statute Book. It was a mongrel bill. If the House •desired any change in the administration of the railways they should return to State control pure and simple. This bill provided that the Premier should have absolute control of the railways, and if it passed he would not be able to obtain any men of Bpirit to act with him under such conditions. He held that the •question of State control had never been before the people at the late election, and even if it "were so, he saw no necessity for dispensing 'with the late commissioners. The Premier had brought forward no arguments that it was necessary in the interests of the colony to change the railway management ;*nor did he think any change was necessary. It would, in his opinion, be a huge mistake if they reverted to State control. Those of them who were in the House -vrhilst the State controlled the railways were well aware of the enormous pressure brought to bear on Ministers and members during that administration. There was bound to be dissatiifaction in this department no matter who administered it, but there was a great deal more dissatisfaction when the railways were under Ministerial control, and the ■same^would happen again if they reverted to State management. He was convinced that a .arge majority of commercial men and the users of the railways were satisfied with the -present management, and the agitation for a change came/rom workers and residents in our -cities. Although he was oppoied to this bill as introduced, he agreed that a Minister should have a seat on the board, but not that he -should possess the power proposed by this bill, and no independent-minded men could possibly accept office as commiuioners under a bill of :his kind. With reference to the Premier's argument that the House had no control over the commissioners' estimates, he pointed out 'hat by the act of 1887 ample power was given ■io the Minister for Public Works to refuse to briog down estimates which he considered :-yero excessive. The Premier had stated that the change was required in the interests of settlement and the encouragement ol local industries, but he asked Mr Seddon to point to any local industry which had been ■ crushed by the Railway Commissioners. — (Mr Willis: "White pine.") He held that the result of the commissioners' administration had been that the speed for travelling had been .accelerated, the rates reduced, the grades flattened and curves straightened ; and all had been done out of revenue. The net profit had also increased from £365,000 to over £400,000. He should oppose the bill to the utmost.

Mr BUICK said he agreed with all that had 'fallen from Me Mitchelson with respect to the bill. His opinion of it was that it proposed to hand over the control of the New Zealand railways to the Premier. If this bill were passed, neither the House nor the country would be able to say who would be responsible for railway management or mismanagement. That would •be the result from it. The Premier would allege that he was outvoted by the commissioners, and the commissioners would say they were outvoted by Mr Seddon. The result of the whole thing would be chaos and uncertainty. The rates and fares would fluctuate, and a -degrading conflict would continue until the Premier succeeded in getting a set of commissioners sufficiently pliable to do absolutely as he wished. Members of the House would then demand that the products of their various •districts should be carried at greatly reduced rates until at last the bottom would fall out of our railway finance] and the result would be loie and confusion all over the colony. He atked them whether they could afford to muddle railway matters in this way ; and that being the case, why should they hand over the management of the railways to parliamentary control P The bill did not even give that power. It proposed that a Minister should .-simply dominate the whole concern. He held that Parliament had in the past failed to govern the / railways satisfactorily, and there was no reason for the change proposed ; but even parliamentary control would be much preferable to the present bill. There was only one good proposal in the bill — namely, that for a board of appeal for railway servants ; but that was greatly interfered with by the power of veto given to the Minister over the board. Until this bill was introduced he bad been of opinion that Ministers were greatly overworked ; but the Premier evidently did not think so, for he wanted to add railway management to his •other multifarious duties. He condemned the Premier's propensity for power and patronage, and said that in his official capacity he controlled no less than 50,000 people, and yet he still wanted to control 4000 railway servants. JHe defended the commissioners from the •charges of tyranny which had been brought against them by various members, and said it maa largely due to subordinates who were put 'Over the railway men, and not to the commissioners at all. The effect of a bill of this kind would' be to absolutely undermine discipline in 'railway management, and the reason he opposed it was because he thought it would do infinite harm to the country and the Government. Mr WILLIS conld not sgree with the remarks of the last speaker, and he thought his statements as to the evil effects that would follow this bill were entirely without foundation. Mr Mitchekon had stated that no local industries were injured by the commissioners, but he asserted large sums of money were lost •owing to the commissioners having refused to assitt tha important white pine industry. It had been a great puzzle why the commissioners had refused to reduce white pine to the same level as firewood. He held that the railways should be managed so as to open up communication in a way that would foster our local industries. He had specially referred to the white pine inAutrxi J>ut be wished to a»j that was only gne

article that was brought before the commissioners and which they refused to encourage. Mr MORRISON did not desire to be personal in his remarks, but he wished to attack the system of railway management. He held that they had had no control over the commissioners in the past, and said the representatives of the people had no idea when the bill of 1887 was passed that the commissioners were to be appointed inside the colony, instead of hiring railway experts from the old country as they were led to expect. He regarded Mr Buick's speech aa_a carefully- compiled gillery utterance, and said there was nothing of argument in it. His idea was that two commissioners should be appointed, one from the North and one from the South Island, with the Minister in charge, who would insist that the commissioners should carry oiit the policy laid down by the Government. He admitted that the commissioners had done their duty fairly well, although they had not been an unqualified success. But it was the duty of the House not to put any board into a false position. They should be told to have more regard to the settlement of the land than whether or not the railways would pay 2 or 3 per cent. He deprecated the system of petty economy which had been - allowed to govern the railway management in various directions, and to carry out the policy that the railways were to be made to pay no matter who Buffered. He had no knowledge of any such black list as Sirß. Stout had referred to— in Otago, at any rate ; and he feared Sir R. Stout must have been imposed upon by somebody, as he felt sure neither past nor present commissioners would lend themselves to anything of the kind. Under the bill as at present drafted the commissioners would be simply a buffer to the Minister of the day. He alleged that several of the railway bridges in the south were not properly attended to and were neglected for years past, and that was because of the false economy that had been practised by the commissioners during their term of office.

Mr COLLINS said the principle underlying this bill was essentially democratic. He had nothing to say regarding past management or mjimamtgemtjti, ana tbOjgbl jBWfcWMC ™H™Xl

compared very favourably with those of other colonies. The question was, however, whether that management could not be improved. He believed it could, and he thought the time had arrived when a decided change should be made. There was no denying also that the people demanded a change, and that should be snfficient ground for the change being made. He failed to see how Mr Buick's statement that the Premier would dominate the whole railway service agreed with his other remark that it would not secure political control. They had been told the railways had been worked economically, but he held it was quite easy to do that when the commissioners had reduced the working hours per week, had employed boy labour, and had made reductions in various other ways. He would support the second reading of the bill, but would reserve his right to make certain amendments. Mr MILLS said the bill provided nothing more than was allowed in all local bodies— namely, giving the chairman a deliberative and casting vote. He asked the House whether there were six members in it who would allow three irresponsible men to manage a property worth 16 millions of money. There was scarcely a man in the House who would agree to it. He regretted that Mr Buick had used expressions in this debate that were to his mind unjustifiable. Mr J. W. KELLY was in favour either of political control pure and simple, or control by commissioners, and he should therefore vote for Mr Pinkerton's amendment. If there were commissioners, he thought there should only be two with a Minister having a seat on the board. He regretted very much to see that Mr Buick departed from his usual custom in speaking on this bill. The whole of his speech was a tirade of misrepresentation of the Premier, whom he accused of wishiDg to get the railways into his hands for the sake of the patronage they would bring, at the same time alleging that the Premier already held too many portfolios. The Premier had stated that he did not intend to be Minister for Railways, and he thought Mr Buick should have accepted thab statement. Referring to Sir R. Stout's black list, alleged to have been prepared with respect to the dismissal of certain railway servants, he (Mr Kelly) had information to the effect that there was no foundation whatever for this statement, and the Railway Union in Christchurch had courted inquiry into it. He should vote for the second reading of the bill, but would support Mr Pinketton's amendment. Mr O'REGAN did not desire to say anything personal about the commissioners, but he held they should be abolished altogether and the railways be solely under political control. He should vote for the second reading of this bill, but would move in Committee to substitute two commissioners for three. It seemed to him a curious thing that Mr Buick, who had held the positions of Government whip and organiser of the National Liberal Association, should hold such a poor opinion of the Premier as he had given utterance to that afternoon. T If he (Mr O'Regan) .held such an opinion as that about the head of the Government, he should go into Opposition at once. Although he (Mr O'Regan) differed occasionally from the Government, he refused to believe that a Minister could not be trusted to occupy a position on the railway board.

Mr HALL instanced several cases of what he regarded as railway mismanagement, and said the railway servants were everywhere grumbling that they were overworked and received no consideration from the commissioners. He should vote in the direction of giving the State full control of the railways. Mr MASSEY saw no particular objection to the commissioners, and thought they had honestly done their best to manage the railways of the colony efficiently. With all their drawbacks, he thought the commissioners had been fairly success! ul, and had made the railways pay for the cost of construction. He could say that in the Auckland district the permanent way and rolling stock were in good order. The proposal to give the Minister a dual vote was a dangerous one. He should oppose the bill. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said so far as the debate had gone he was very pleased with it, and, with one or two exceptions, it had been very creditable. He held that very little had been said to induce those who favoured political control to change their views. He had been twitted by Captain Russell with having made a faltering speech in moving the second reading of the bill ; but he held that Captain Russell's own colleague's (Mr Mitchelson) speech that afternoon was full of special pleading, and advanced no arguments whatever in favour of continuing the commissioners. He had frequently stated that he had no personal objections to Messrs Maxwell and Hannay, but as he had objected to the principle from the first, no commissioners that could be appointed would have satisfied him. Now. however, that those two gentlemen had left office he saw no reason wby he should have attacked their administration in his opening speech on the bill. Some of the provisions in the bill were copied from the Victorian act, and were the result of the experience of that colony. He denied that the farmers of the colony were protesting against the proposed change, and said that the users of the railways wanted a change. Towns also had the right to be considered, as they used the produce conveyed by the railways, and they materially helped the revenue by the various excursions that took place, which excursions should, moreover, be of more frequent occurrence. He referred to what had been stated in the debate by Mr Carncross and other members respecting the condition of bridges, and said if a report was kept back on this subject it was a serious matter, and would have to be fully inquired into. With respect to Sir R. Stout's charges against the commissioners in dismissing certain men at the instigation of the Railway Union, he said he had communicated with the commissioners that day on tha subject, and had recaived a reply to the effect that the commissioners had had no communication whatever from outside persons as to the reductions in the service, and that any reductions that had been made was the outcome of deliberations with the heads of branches. He regretted Mr Buick's remarks on the bill, and hoped that en reflection he would regret having made them. As for the bill itself, it was simply intended to give back to the people rights which never should have been taken from them. The motion for the second readiDg was carried by 45 to 13.

The following is the division list :—

Ayes (45).— Messrs Button, Carncross, Carnell, Carroll, Collins, Crowther, Djncan, Earnshaw, Flatman. Graham, Guinness, Hall, Hall-Jones, Harris, Hogg, Houston, W. Hutchison, J. W. Kelly, Larnach, Lawry, Mackintosh, M'Gowan, J. M'Keozie, R. M'Konzie, M'Lachlan, M'Nab, Meredith, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, Newman, O'Regan, Parata, Pinkerton, Pirani, Reeves, G. W. Ruasell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, G. J. Smith, Stevens, Tanner, Thompson, Ward, Willis. Noes (13). — Messrs Allen, Bell, Buchanan, Buick, Fraser, Green, G. Hutchison, Lang, Massey, M'Guire, Captain Russell, Saunders, Wilson. Pairs.— Ayes : Messrs Buddo, Joyce, W. Kelly, Cadman. Noea: Llegsrs T. Mackenzie" Puthie, .Te Ag» Mitchelson« v

Mr THO "SON said the bill was a mockery, and the Wew Coast would reap all the advantage under it. He suggested that the bill should be withdrawn until a scheme of local government was brought down next session. As the bill was not intended to come into operation until after March 1895, he asked what good could come of it.

Mr BELL supported Mr Thompson's contention, and aaid the West Coast would receive by far the largest amount by this bill.

Dr NEWMAN took a similar view, and said that whereas all other districts were taxed the West Coast would get all the money. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said members were forming a very erroneous conclusion over this bill. Mr Thompson had been very persistent in asking the Government to provide roads for the north of Auckland, and when a bill of this kind was brought down to enable roads to be made he opposed it. The bill was intended to help outlying parts of the country, where there were large areas of Crown land, and where roads had to be constructed by a handful of ratepayers. If local government were to live at all a measure of this kind should be supported. It was to help local bodies that the Government had brought the bill forward,

Mr G. W. RUSSELL said he came from a district where there were no Crown lands, and the bill would give no benefit to that part of the colony. It was a one-sided measure altogether.

Mr HOUSTON regarded the bill as a delusion and a snare. He represented five local bodies, which wonld not receive £100 by the bill, and he was compelled to oppose it.

The Hon. J. MacGregor, M.L.C , publishes • lengthy reply to Bishop Cowie's (Auckland) statements in his pastoral and sermon against the Divorce Amendment Bill. The Herald, commenting on the letter, says :— " It is ebriouß ]fr MscGregor has made a careful studyof the subject, and is master of the entire argument. Hit plea for the bill merits consideration. It is able Mid temperate, and fhirka do v aifficulfcxio