WELLINGTON.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2999, 25 September 1878, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

Tuesday. : IMPBKST SUPPLY. In the House this afternoon the imprest supply of £250,000 was granted, making a total of one million. Major Atkinson complained that the Government had failed to keep the promises they made of reform in respect to the early passing of the estimates to avoid grants by impreit supply. I Mr Stout excused the delay by the lateness of floating the loan having put back the session. The Government would try to introduce ■ a change during the recess* \ COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—BAIIWAY CON- ■ TBACTB. ;• , • " : In committee of Supply Mr Richardson moyed that in view of the large* expenditure of public works now going on, in future no contracts should be entered into by the Government until after the money has been appropriated by the House. He admitted tje Tapanui contracts had called forth the resolution, but disclaimed any wish to have a vote of censure implied, because he thought the '•ontract quite defensible. -The resolution was a safeguard of public money only. Mr Macandrew quoted the San Francisco mail service as a precedent, and defended the course; adopted as being in the interests of the colony and in pursuance ot the custom of the House.

Mr Bastings defended the contract, because it would leave a profit, and would benefit small holders, and the whole cost and interest would only be £4,700. Mr Bowen said the question was not whether the line was a good one, but whether the House should have the control of public expenditure or not. Mr Wood thought the House would have to decide later on. He would oppose the resolution. Mr Saunders called the contract an excellent piece of good generalship for Mr Macandrew's end Mr Bastings' constituencies. ■••■■• Mr. Pyke said the appropriation was made only in land, hot in money. Mr Stout admitted the principle of the resolution, but thought the particular case justified the expenditure. WaipahiTapanui line applied to the township and the district both. ... Mr Eolleston said the precedents quoted all contained provisions which required the consent of the House to ratify the agreement. Mr Barton defended the contract. Mr Turn bull thought the resolution unnecessary, and blamed the House for leaving the question on an uncertain footing. Mr Carrington opposed the resolution. Mr Fitzroy thought the House was

asked to legislate for the past instead of for the future.

Mr McLean objected on constitutional ground to' contracts laid on the table at Dunedin on July 30th in such haste when the House was sitting: He approved of the line, and favoured the resolution from no party.

The motion was interrupted by 5.30.