THE BANKING COMMITTEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2209, 2 July 1896, Page 30

THE BA NKING COMMITTEE.

"THE DEBATE CONTINUED.

Wellington, Juae 30. On the Houte of Heprt<Bectaf.ivt-^ meeting at 2.30 p.m., Mr W,. KELLY remnued the debate on the motion for the appointment of a select committee to examine urni report on the. position of " fche Bnnk of Ntw Zealand, Batik of New Zealand Estate Company, Auckland Agricultural Company, and OoloDial Bank of New Zealand. He s<ud he had no intention of speaking at length on the motion, but he deprecated the suggestion made by Dr Newman -that a Royel Commit flion should be appointed. Bethought a parliamentary committee was .the proper body to make the inquiry asked for, The Hon. Mr CADMAN moved ao an amendment that an inquiry should be made into the "nffftirn" of the bank instead of the "position "of the bank. , . . . " * ■ Mr J. W.. KELLY moved an amendment tD 1 the effect that- a Eoyal Commission be aip- 1 -po:ntedinßtead of. a seleot oommitbee. The SPEAKER raled that Mr Kelly 's.amend- 1 "tnent was* too late. Considerable disenssion took place as to the manner of proceeding with the motion, several members expressing the opinion that muoh uncertainty pttvatled. with respeot to the wording ot tbe motion and -amendments. Mr G. W. RUSSELL, then moved that instead of '" position of the bank " &c. being ' inquired into there be substituted the following amendment :— ".lmmediate oiroiunstances leadang to the two miili&n guarantee to the. 1 Bank of New Zealand in 18®C and especially as to the information x upqn which the Government nrged Parliament to give that guarantee. (2.) -All matters relating to, the appciotmtut of ilr W. Watson as president and "of Mr H. Mackenzie as general manager of the Bank of New Zealand. (3) All matters relating to the proposed amalgamation in 1894 of the Colonial with the Bank of New Zealand and the purchase of tue Colonial Bank ■in 1895, and • especially as t<> the correctness of thd balanbe sheets of the Colonial Bank, the'-a-moont paid to that bank as goodwill, and the basis on ■which inch alleged goodwill was ameaied. (4-) To deal with all such other .matters as the committee deem necessary or expedient in the , premises." Mr FRASER protested against a matter or this kind being dealt with hy a parliamentary, committee, and contended that a Rojal Commis'iiou was the proper tribunal to deal with it. He referred aj^Bomt* length to the' .^whole position of tbe Estates Company and the Agricultural Company, and quoted from the balance sheets of those companies. He hoped if the committee was set up the auditors' reports wonld come up before the committee and be duly investigated The auditors of the hank and Ihoae of theEst»tts Company had differed widely, and it was necessary that the committee, shonid go into" the whole position of the properties held by the Assets Company .\He also took exception to the statement made by tfee treasurer that the Bank of New Zealand was a, department of tbe State, and , pointed ont that the House— "Wisely, he thtught — Bet its face last year' against it being 4 State bank. — <Mr' J.W. Kelly : "It will be a State bauk^ before long.") Well, it might bi, but he hoped • the House would continue itß refusal to make the bank a State department. There was. no truth, he nubmitted, in the statement that the Government bad directed the bank directors to appoint any officer. That would come before the committee, and when it was found that the l Government had given such directions that would be the time to judge them. He (Mr Fraser) wanted to' be perfectly fair in this matter, and he cared not -whether statements of this kind came from his own iide of the , House or the .Ministerial side,, he, should refuse to believe' -teem till they were proved at the inquiry about to take place. He again protested agaiusi the proposal in the- Premier's motion to inquize into the private accounts of individuals, and those who voted for that would do so with the deliberate intention of destroying the bank. Mr M'LACHLiN bad tho.ught when Mr Fraßer tose that he did so as an apologist for something that h»d been done by the Assets Board, but he was glad to find' that was not the case. He failed to see why certain people should do all in their power to decry the purchase of tbe Colonial Bank by the Bank of New Zealand. He did not think conduct of that kind justified. Mr CROWSTHER hoped this matter would be simplified, as at the -present they did not know " where they were.", The SPEAKER explained that Mr Russell's .amendment *»• before the House as well as Mr , Qadman.'s. Mi; CROWXHER continued that a Royal Commission shoa'd certainly *be appointed, and lie should support a .-proposal of that Mnd. There was no doubt ' that' the finding of any parliamentary committee would be more or less of a party ohar&eter and would not give sxtisiaction to, tbe public. Sir G. W, Russell's ■amendment was then put* »nd lost by 39 to 20. - ■ •■.. . Q he following iß>the division list .•— Ayes (20).— Mtssrs Allen, Buchanan, Collins, Crowther, Duthie, Eanlshaw, Fraser, Green, J. ■ "W. Kelly, Lanff, Lewis, Masney, Montgomery, ' Newman, Wraui, 6. W. Rusßt-U, W. R,- Russell, G. J. Smith, Stout, Te Ao. Noes (SB)— Buddo, Buick, C'adman, Carncross, Caroell, Duncan, Flatman, Graham, Guinness, Hal), Hall-Jouos, Harris, Hogg, Houstoc, HutchiBon, Joyce, W. Kelly, Larnnch, Lawry, Maalin, Mackintosh, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, R. M'Kenzle, M'LachUin, M'Nab, Meredith, Millar, Mills, Morrison, O'Regan, Pavata, Seddon, Stevens, ' Steward, Tanner, 'R. Thompson, T. Thompson, Willis. " Pairs.— For the amendment": Messrs T. Mackenzie," Heke," M'Guire, Wilson, Bell: -. Agaiiut the amendment : Messrs Ward, Pere, E. M; Smith, Carroll, jjinkerton. ' , Mr G. J. SMITH moved a further amendment relating to the position of the bank in 1893, .and the appointment of officers of the bank. He depreciated strongly tho proposal to inquire into the private accounts of individuals, and said if an' inquiry of thio kind was permitted for the purpose of flinging ttud at some persons who were dead and others who were living, thiß Parliament would deecend to a lower level than aDy preceding one. He said they wanted to find out what the position of the Bank of New Zealand was before the banking legislation of 1894 and 1893 was introduced, whether Ministers were deceived 68 to that position, and who was relponjrible for giving such false representation to the Govercment. They nlso wanted to find out about the appuinttxuuiG o( tho officers of the hank, and whether they /era political jobs or not. They should further find out why such a large amount waß given for the goodwill of ths Colonial Bank when tha^ goodwill was worth nothing. Ho- thought his amendment, wonld give the committee full scope" for inquiry, and would not allow individual accounts to be inquired into. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he only spoko cow for the purpose of denying thj} imputation

that his motion meant to rake up' dead men's accounts. There was quite sufficient for the Houße to inquire into without doing that. He felt sure, however, that public feeling in. the colony would never l)s settled unless there was & drastic inquiry into the whole matter, and if I the power of <jbe oomtnittei was limited to 1896 I Ihe inquiry would ht- a uiere sham :vud no good would ttsult from it. The allegation bad been made inside and outside the House over this affair, and it was absolutely neoessary that there should he the fullest inquiry. He objected to one act of officers being treutod differently to another set, as both sets were now managing the affairs of the Bank of New Zealand. It was lately stated that false balance sheets had been prepared by the Bank of New Zealand in the past, and that they should find out who were responsible for that. In so deing they would probably be able to dear the memories of those who were said to be t&sponsible. It was their- duty to see that the inquiry was as completeas possible. As to Mr ■•Smith a amendment to.- limit the inquiry to 1893, it would entirely, baulk the inquiry, and be said that advisedly. His opinion was that 4he Ba.uk of New. Zealand was at the present time the strongest financial institution south of the Hue, and he he'd that the Government had a perfect right to ac!> as they had acted in the whole affair. If the inquiry asked for by his (Mr -Seddon's) motion was made, he was sure they would be able to ascertain what the position of the bank was and what led up to the legislation brought down by the Government. :.. Mr G. W,JRUeSBLL Baid ,the only difference hetwet-n the Premier's motion ancf his (Mr Busiiell's). amendment was as .to writing off accounts and the going back of the inquiry. I? - the Premier ,gave way on these points he should he satisfied. He pointed .out that the Premier had done him the tionotir -»f . c *U;ng a caucus, and practically embodj in^ t.tv vboits of his (Mr Bussell's) amendment iv a ha'ies of resolutions brought down. As the result of the caucus the Premier had told them his phief object was to clear the character of men who had passed away, but be had never heard the character of 'these people assailed in tha,t way. Could anyone suppose that the report of the committee asked for by the Premier, containing ' several of the strongest supporters 0'! the Ministry, would satisfy the -country? He, thought not, and -the report -would be worth very little. ■ > Mr T. MACKENZIE, pointed out that the Premier on a former aooaeion, when the House was asked .to guarantee two millions of money to the Bank of New Zealand, would not permit the slightest -investigation. ■ The Government had committed the colony to nearly five millions of money, and the only objeot they now had 'in < appointing this comraittes was to make political , capital hy dragging, up the private affairs of gentlemen who had long passed away. There' was no one in the House who had more relentletiftly pursued the late Sir H. Atkicson, Sir F. Whitaker, and another gentleman than the present Premier did, and he wished now to unearth their .affaars.'again. H« .(Mr- Mackenzie) was .convinced that if the Premier's motion was carried it would do more harm to the bank than its worst enemietfwouia do. Dr NEWMAN-asked .why they should not inquire into the accoutts that were now- run* ning'at the bank as well as those of the past. JVhaVthey should "find out'w»s why they were ' "asked to vote in a certain way qn the banking legislation. They would fiud when.thß report t of the oammittee~was brought down (hut one «et of men would tie carefully excluded from I blame and another set would be included in the report; He referred to the appointment of the bank officers, and said that Mr Watson,was 8 particular pal of the lftte Colonial Treasurer. Tie challenged the Premier to s*y that) he and Mi Henry Mackenzie were not appointed by the Government; — (Mr Seddw : "No.") Well, he was convinced that Mr Mackenzie was appointed owing to the direct influence of. tihe Government, , \He. thought, no real inquiry .would be made by this o.ommittee, A proper inquiry would be baulked, an J d ( when .the report -was .brought down the public would have no idea who was responsible .for giving the bank a very large amount of money. The Hon. J. M'JSENZIE said Dr Newman made several inoqnrct statements. The Government of course appointed Mr Watson president of the bank, as it was their duty to do co, but they had from first to last nothing to do with the appjintment of the mantger of the bank. 'J he member for Clutha had stated that the inquiry should have been made in 1894, but that could not have been done at that time, as the hank would have closed its doors. Mr Mackenzie knew very well that any inquiry held that night would have been useless ; .the bank wonld have gone down on the following Monday. What would be the position of the country if the bank had fa'l?n ?— (Mr T. Mackenzie .- "It would have saved five millions.") Yen, and the people of the colony would probably have lost 20 millions, and a' great many, would have been made .poor. men. He corroborated Mr Seddon's statement as to the' present position of .the Bank of New Zealand, and sad it' was now a strong financial iantitution. He referred to ,Mr Praser's remarks reacting the Auditors and the Assets Company, and calculated that was a proper subjcob for inquiry,.. There waß a sum of £207,000 difference between the two. auditors (.Messrs Smith and Kember) and the Bank auditor. The inquiry would prove who was right in that matter. The inquiry asked for .by the Govt-rnment would throw light upon the whole circumstances of the bank respecting the guarantee and other matters, and it -would do no harm to people doing business with the institution. So far as the Government were aware-, the president of the bank had never used his veto, and he had never consulted the Government as to using his veto. 1 He (Mr M'Kenzie) scarcely knew the directors k of the bank, aud tney never cams near him. Mr BUCHANAN said the Minister for Lands had challenged • Djf Newman's statements as to the appointment' of Mr Henry Mackenzie as general manager of the bank, and wanted to kcow where Dr Newman obtained his information. He (Mr Buohanan) would now atk the Minister himself to tell the House where he got the information which caused him ■to state in the House last session thart certain persons had had large sums written off their accounts, and which statement he had afterwards to withdraw. He expressed the opinion that the Government were doing their best to ruin the Bank of New Zealand by the aotion they now proposed .to take,' and he condemned the. Premier's motion. Mr M'Kenz : e knew very well that what he (Mr Buchanan) objected to was not an inquiry into the action of the bank officers, but an inquiry into the private acounts, which must seriously damage the hank. • The House adjourned from 5.30 to 7 30 p.m. On rexuniing, Mr BUCHANAN continued speaking. He held it was idle for-the Premier co gay a- Royal I Commission would not be a preferable inquiry to that of a parliamentary oommitte9 comprising seven Government supporters against four of the Opposition. A committee of that kind would command no confidence in the country whatever. Mr BELL pointed out that when in inquiry was demanded previously, the Govemaieat

had declared that no inquiry was necessary. It was the disclosures which had occurred in ; Dunedin which had prompted the inquiry. It , was that which made the country demand an I inquiry. It web not necessary to go into the accounts of past years, but as to how it came ! about that the Bank of New Z^a'atid purchased the business of the Coloui&l Bank, aud as -to whether the Government were decoived by false representation before they brought their banking legislation down.- The Premier had told them that the Bank of New Zealand was the strongest bank in the colony. It was the strongest in one way and the weakest in another. It w&b strong inasmuch as the colony placed two millions .behind the depositors, and it was weak because the bank had to earn an enormous sum to pay- interest and profit? and to show a solvent balance sheet to its shareholders. The bank should not he allowed to carry on unless Jt showed a profit, and it oould not do that so long as it was treated in the way proposed by the Premier. He was convinced that those members who stated that people were considering the advisability of removing their accounts from the Bank of New Zealand spoke no more than the truth. He himself knew of at least two such .instances. It was simply impossible for the bank to show a profit if its • private accounts were to be inquired into as proposed by "the Premier, and he held that the matter which w&s necessary (should be inquired into did not involve the kind of inquiry which the Premier, proposed.. - He made, no imputation at. all ogainst / any bank officers, but grave imputations were being made m matters uffeefcing .the president, and the intentions of the Government, he believed, were to begin at the .beginning and, never reach the end. He should vote against ,the exticndon of the inquiry beyond nutters which the country demanded should be inquiredN'nfco. Mr HOGG had listened to the speech of the members, and the whole of the declarations consisted in "Don't touch the bank." Its accounts are. not to betouohed bat co be held s'aoced, and an institution which had been so *lar«ely upheld by the colony was not to he examined into. He held that every man, woman, and" child in the colony were deeply interested in this bank, and it was a monstrous thing that its affairs were not to be'lnve&ti' , gated. ' He referred to the time when the bank governed the country and when it contained millions of money as the Government bank. It was. stated that even 'in 'that Howe there were 1 formerly gentlemen deeply interested in that bank, and he said it w?s only, since the Liberal party came into power thai. a ( > •• quiry was desired into the affairs of the binii.* 'l*be Liberal party wwe not responsible for t-he position- of the bank, which had oppoßod them on every side, and they had no other oaurse to pursue than to assist the hank on representation being made that assistance was ab <olutely necessary. It was reported I'hat thousands — ev«n millions — bad been written off the bank 'books, and if the Government refused to make this inquiry the sooner they, were turned off the Treasury benches the better.

Mr PIRANI hid some doubts at first whether the course praposed. /by the Premier was the right one, hut when lie reme'aibered that the Minister for Public Works had stated that tho' Government were not -to be trusted in this quertiog Wb douitn were dissipated. He referred to 'tlie uiH-nntr in which the Premier ; had altered his-motion so frequently, and said ! if he did not secure a majority on his motion ■ !he would be prepared to ' alter it again. He referred to the appointment of bank officers , by 'the present Government, and said they now proposed to make inquiry into the conduct of the president of the batik appointed by them.selves. They bad also appointed two auditors to inquire into the audit of their owu auditors. He very much doubted the sincerity of the , Government over the whole matter 1 Tb'ey had backed 'down over -their own' proposal, and , owing to * the attitude' of the Liberal party ware endeavouring by a side wind to get what ■'thfcy knew a majority of the JJpuse objected to. Ths committee would have t» inquire whether M.r Wiu'd knew his own position in connection with the Colonial Bank when he "appointed- Mr/ Watf on president of the Bank of New Zealand, : as that waea most important consideration. He thought the best inquircwas a Royal Commission and not a parliamentary committee which would be influenced by party considerations. He hoped the s?ood sense of the House wonld not consent Ito the main issues of the question being obscured by the Government, as the credit of , the colony itself was at stake mere than tint of I individuals.

Mr WILLIS said the Opposition were determined to make the setting up of this committee as difficult as possible, while the Left Wing of the Liberal party, oompoßed of disappointed politicians, also opposed the Premn-i'a motion. He saw no reason why people should withdraw their acoount from the Bank of New Zealand when the objeofc of 'this inquiry did not concern them at all, and the inquiry was only to take plaoe into losses causad by ' the bank. His was that the bank's business was not falling off ; on the contrary, it was doing more business now than nit the other biulcs put together. They were ** told th&fc dead men's accounts were to be inquired into. Bub there were very few dead men ; and fcvan iE there- were, he felt sure the cammtttee would not be actuated by unworthy motives. He held thafc the purchaoe of the Colonial Bank by the Bank of New Zealand was a splendid transaction, and the bank's business was steadily increasing. " As proof of this he instanced his own to am (Wiuganui), where formerly one teller was sufficient, but now two cjuld hardly overtake the- work. They were told that if the part of the motion relating to private accounts was struck out the motion would ba accepted, but he hoped that part wonld be allowed to remain- ip as he wanted the fullest inquiry. Mr GRAHAM oould not understand the position taken up by the Opposition over this matter, as when it first came before the House in 1894 their whole cry was for investigation. The position was now far from satisfactory, and au opportunity was afforded of ascertaining who were responsible for the present state of things. He strongly deprecated dragging out private .accounts by the committee, but he believed the Opposition knew of something which should not be inquired into as proposed. Who were responsible for the enormous losses which had swallowed np .the whole of the capital of the bank and the money of the shareholder* ?" Why, the managers and directors of the bank in the past, and it was necessary that the fullest scope should be given for the , inquiry to fix the 'responsibility on the right people. He hoped the House would set up this committee. TEe country wanted an inquiry and it wonld mark the men who voted ugainst it. Mr DtJTHIE deprecated the question of being implicated by this wide inquiry which could not be poasibly carried out in the lime. The real issue before the country at the present, time would be lost sight of. - The assumption of some of the speakers in the debate seemed to be that the Opposition dreaded investigation, but they had nothing to fear in that respect whilst he saw a gentleman on the o£her side of House who lost £90,000 by a certain institution.

What possible good oould"bej;ained by inquiring intoprivate acoounts in the past. Those who had made losses were in many cases absolutely ruined, and what was the use of raking it au up again. The fact was Mr Seddon bad raised this as a ' side iseue to cover up his own marirtgemout and to obscure the real iseue respecting the connection of the present Government with the banking legislation they had brought in for the last two years. The Opposition wanted an inquiry into the whole matter; but not suoh a one as that proposed by the Premier, which would only prove abortive, and would not accomplish the object desired by the colony at the present time. He did not wish to say a word against this bank. He only wished to make the bank stronger and to pro- . teot the oolony, wbiob was committed to such j an enormous extent to it. The proposed inquiry, however, wonld not -strengthen the bank, but would have the opposite effect, Mr R 11'KBNZIB had no desire to go into dead men's aooouuts, bat if it ceuld not be avoided it must ba done. Personally be favoured a Royal Commission, but.if an, inquire was to he held at all it must be held spee<<ih, and for that reason a parliamentary committee was the most desirable tribunal under the oir- j oumstances. He thought, however, it should i be an independent committee, and that the j Opposition should be well represented on it, as { it was not a party question. , ; Mr MILLS had every confidence in tho com: mittee ohosen on a former occasion to investigate banking transactions, and he should be perfectly contested for the same committee to act at the present time. Captain 'Rubboll had expressed himself in favour of a Royal Commission, but they must all know that an investigation should ba made as quiokly as possible, and for that reason a parliamentary committea waß most desirable. He ridiculed' tihe contention that the Government were on iheir trial in the matter, and he looked on it as purely * business question, apait altogether from ptu- .> consideration. ' 1 Mt HEKE said that as far as he oou'.d ' gather tbere ■was no exoeption to an inquiry ' being made from 1888 if the inquiry wa* won- ! ducted by a Roy*l Commission aided by a judge of the Supreme Court, which he held h as a proper tribunal. Mr MILLAR said he had listened to the arguments of the Opposition, and failed to sea •why this motion should not be carried. They were,, all aware that the reason whyjihe colony had come to the assistance of the bank was owing to the large sums that were written off in the past. He" askedwhether a Royal Coramission could do better than a parliamentary - committee. — (Captain Russell : •• Yes.") *Well, the other day a Royal Commission was condemned in the House owing to its being composed of civil servants. They on the Government side of the House were desirous of the fullest inquiry, and he should support the motion.

Mr MASSEY rtsanted the imputation that the Opposition wished to burke inquiry. They .did not .desire to do so, but they wanted a ! Royal Commission in preference to the committed asked for by the Premier,, as the committee cou'ed not make a satisfactory inquiry. They all knew well that the reason for .the 1 Government pressing t'beir motion was in order to go into the affairs of ctr.bam public men for years past in order to make political f»pital. He hoped, whether tbe inquiry was ma by a commifsion or a -committee, that the date on whiohcertain Ministers said their shares should be ascertained, "and also the date on which negotiations <f or the purohtse of the. Colonial Bank first took place. He was of opinion that no bank could prosper if its privateaocountswereto.be brought up on the floor of the House. ! Captain RUSSELL thought it was a great misfortune for the House that there was uo opportunity afforded for testing the question of & Royal Commission as opposed to a com■raittee. They were told by Mr Millar that the Opposition used no argument and .accused the Government of insinoerity, but ho pointed out that"- the speeches of several members on the Government side that night were distinctly party npeechei. He had invariably found that parliamentary oommittees could nob divest ! themselves of party feelings, and he was convinced that the only proper tribunal for this matter was a -Royal Commission. He should have moved, if he had had an opportunity, an amendment to tbe effect that a Royal Commission >w appointed — with a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman, and two geutlemen unoonnecl-Mi with Parliament, — which ohould inquire into what led to the legislation of 1893, 1894, and 1895. That, he thought, would have heen a bct;er proposal than the one now before the House proposed by the Premier. He referred to the oommittee of last year, aud said that although tbey bad worked hard ana long the report was not so exhaustive as it should have been. Were they to be told now that a committee could report on the affairs of the bank for years past ? He held it would be absolutely fatal to the success of the bank if the private aeoountft of people were liable to be raked j up as was proposed. This committee J could not be an impartinl one owing to its "composition. • They were told by Mr Graham that the puroha'e of the Colonial Bank was not creditable, and yet two Ministsrs who were directly responsible for that purchase were oa the Premier's committee, and would, therefore, sit in judgment on their own conduct. He (Captain Russell) also held that the l.ite Colonial Treasurer at the time the negotiatiouß took y>\*c". for the purchase of the Colonial Bauk muss have kuowu that tbe J. G. Ward Farmers' Association was practically insolvent, and that the position of the Colonial Bauk was seriously jeopardised by that circumstance. As the Government took the responsibility for everything done by their late colleague, how was it poss ; blo for matters of thin kind to be impartially gone into by a committee comprising two Ministers. He thought Ministers would do well to give an opportunity to the House of deciding whether it would have ia Royal Commission or the committee proposed by the Prenver. Mr HALL said that when Captain RusseM referred to the last Royal Commission that was appointed he did so ia a slighting ma mer, and now he wanted a commission to investigate this matter. He . thought it .unfortunate thafc . members should have made speeches of such v character as would prejudice the commission' or committee, whichever it might be. .For his part he thought the men who were proposed for this committee were men who would make a thorough and impartial inquiry into the matter. Mr FLATMAN thought the Opposition had been talking t<s their constituents, and said if the Government had proposed a Royal Commission the Opposition would probably have advocated a parliameutArv committee. Mr R. TBO'MPSON said what th«y really had to go into were tho causes which led to- tbe 1 purohase of the .Colonial Bmk last year. He did not wish to blame Ministers, as be believed they were misled, but he asked whether it was likejy that the, two Ministers sitting on that committee would' bring down a report condemn- ; ing themselves ? Why, the whole thing was a perfect farce, aud he would attach no importance whatever to a report brought down by that committee. It was bound to be a party report;. '

The following is the division list :— , Ayes (24). - Mesan Allen, Sell, Buchanan, Collins, Growther, Duthie, Earnshaw, Eraser, Heke, J. W; • Kelly* 'Lang, Lewis, Maßsgr. M'Gtrire, Montgomery, Newman, Piranl, Xk~W. Russell, W. R. Russell, Q. J. Smith, Stout, To Ad, R. Thompson, -"Wilson:' NOEB (38). -Messrs Btrddo, Buick, Oadmau, Oarncross, Carnbll, Duncan, Flatwan, Graham, Guinncts, Hall, HalWones. Harris, Hogg, Boaston G. Hutchison, W. Hutchison, Joyce, 17. Kelly, La wry. Mackintosh, Maslin, M'Qnwftn, J. M'Kouisie, R. M'Kenzle, M'Lachlan, M'Nah, Meredith, Millar, Milla, Morrison, O'Regan, Parata, Piulyerton, Soddon, -Steven* Steward. Tanner, AVilliß. Pahis —For -the amendment s Messrs <L Mac konzie aud Green. Against : Mes-.vn Ward and T. . Thompson. j Mr Q J, Smith* amendment was lost !by 38 to 24. The first olauee of the Premier's .motion was then carried ns follows :•— " To examine and report upon the affairs of the Bank of .New Zealand, Bank of New Zealand .Estates Com* pan; (Limited), Auckland Agricultural 'Company (Limited), and the ■Colonial Bank of New ' IZeahcnd in so far as the same relate to the banking legislation of ia93, . 1894, .and 1895, vith special reference to all the circumstances j leading up to that legislation or ■which h*?e since transpired ; the fulness and accaraoy *f j the information then disclosed by the directors, I officials, -and agents of those institutions and j their conduct and fitness." I The second clause was then, put as follows :— < " To ascertain what aeaountf have been written ofi since the Ist January 1088 and what led to each writing-off, and to deal with »)) snob other matters as the committee deem* necMsiry.pi expedient; provided that th» eonunHteo ihall not b6 empowered to inquire -fato the ordinary Ijusuiess of persons' or .companies doing buiijiessiwifch theTJaukof New Zealand, excepting so far as relates to such writiug off asd what ■led to the same." Mr- ALLEN\asked the House to oocsiflsr what this clause meant.-- It was really a test , question. It must be apparent to every I member of the House that if an inquiry i were to take place into the pri rate account! of j people doing business with the bank, it meant ' serious injury to the institution. It lookod to bim as if it were really intended to do harm to the bank. The clause was carried by 33 to 28. . The following is the division list on the retention of clause 2 :— Fob the Clidsb (33).— Messrs Buddo, Cadman, Carncross, Cornell, Duncan, Flat man, Graham, Guinness, Hall, Hall • Jone?, Harris, Hogg, Houston, "W. HutcliifOD, W. Kelly, Mackintosh, Liwry, *i Gowau, J M'Kenzie, R. -M'Kenae, M'Lachlan. Meredith, Millar, MUI», Morrison, O.'Ee»an, Parata, Pihkerton, Seddon,' Steven*, Steward, Tanner, Willip. Against the'Cuusb (28).— Messrs Allen, Bell, Buchanan, Bui k, Cullins, . Crowtber, Dnthle, Earnehaw, Fraser, Heke, Joyce, J. W. KeHy, Lang, Lewis, Mailin, Massey, M'Gniro, M J K»b, Montgomery, Newman, Pirani, G. W. Russell, W. -R. Ru-sell. G. J. Smith. Stoat, Tc Ao, B. Thompson, Wilson Pairs.— For the clause: Messrs Ward, 'X. Thompson. Against the clause: Messrs T. Mackenzie and ■Green. Clause 3— "Tee appointment of president and general manager of .the Bank of New Zealand and their coqueotion with the- Colonial Sank." Mr-J. W. KELLY moved* an addition torthe clause — "Aud their connection wibh anyof ithe constituents of- the Colonial B ».k and with the banking legislation of 1893, 1894, and 1895." ' The Hon. Mr SEDJJQN accepted the adfli* .tionio the clause. The clause was carried. ' Clause 4~ *' Any negotiations which may at any time have taken place 'between the Colonial Bank and the Bank of- New Z~*Und and the Ministry, or any. member t -r-oT, with a view to amalgamation or purobuse "— Oatried. Claus».-s— "Purchase of the Colonial Bank by the Bank of New Zealand, with special reference to (a 1 the position of the Colonial Bank at the time of the first' proposal foe amalgamation or purchase, and subsequently '^>) ■ tlje accuracy or otherwise of the representations made to the B*Dk of New Zetland, the Qo**rn- ■ ment or any member thweof, with reference to such amalgamation or purchase; (c) the amount paid for the goodwill, bow it waR ariived ad, and the correctness or otherwise .of the estimate."— Carried. Clause 6— "lnformation touching the premises in possession of the Government or any member of it .at the time of the banking legislation of 1893, 18S4, and 1895, and since that time."— Carried. The Hon. Mr SEDDON intimated thac Messrs Houston, Lang, and Collins wished to withdraw from the committee. These names were struok off. Captain RUSSELL and Mr BUCHANAN also withdrew from the committee. The Hon. Mr SEDDON then stated that the names of those who wonld remain on the committee were: -Messrs J MKcnzie, Graham, Montgomery, M 'Go wan, aud ths mover. , He should -later on give notice of additional names for the committee in place of those struck off. The motion as a whole' was then carried by 44 to 17. - , The Hon. Mr SEDDON then gave noMde to move that the names of Messrs Geor#e Hutchison, Tanner, Maslin, Guinness, and Steward be added to the committee. - , 1 Mr PIRANI gave notice to move ss an amendment that the names be added of Messrs Mills, 'Harris, Mackintosh, Willis, and Carnell. Mr W. HUTCHISON gave notice to move that the preccedings of the committee be .open to the press. The House rose at 12.55 a.m. .