REFORM OF THE COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1563, 5 October 1912, Page 6

REFORM OF THE COUNCIL.

THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY.

' EXPOUNDED BY THE PREMIER AND ■ ERR. ALLEU

AFFIRMED BY THE HOUSE.

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL: VIEWS OF COUNCILLORS

Ho was of opinion that this was the wrong way about. The conference should take place before the dissolution. (Opposition hear, hears.) Mr. Wilford: Better to have arbitration before the strike. . .

•.'' -The House.of' Representatives spent 6 H four's- yesterday in discussing the pro- w: JWSals of the Prime Minister for the re- t? form "-of the Upper House, which were sl brought. down in the form of a resolu- D( tion containing six clauses. The debate was' continued- until midnight. After- pi wards half an hour was spent in voting. '" i Wn amendment moved by the member for "' ;• Avon was defeated on the voices and Vl the Prime Minister's resolution was car- ta ; ried, -clause by clause. Divisions wcro of i ealled for upon two of the clauses, tho ™ Government majority in one case being j[ -82 votes, and in the other 23. tl: PRIME MINISTERS PROPOSALS. t ."PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. ™ The Hon. W. P. MASSEY (Primo cc Minister) opened the -debate by irfov- cc ing:—(l) That- it ■is essential that cl an alteration .in the constitution of tl the Legislative Council shall bo effected cv ,- - by. an Act to be. passed bv the present re I 'Parliament 0(2) that such alteration shall p: ' 'be .from the' existing method of appoint- ol ' rnant by the Governor to election Indirect vote at the polls of the electors tl qualified to vote, for members of this House; (3) that such election shall be pi upon the proportional system, and therefore by large electoral divisions; (4) that ; i the number of ('elected members of the Council .(other ' than Maoris) shall be forty, of whom twenty shall be elected' at : each general election for the House of |. 'Representatives, every such member to f 0 ;' . sit for the period of two Parliaments; (5) jj i that an electoral division for election to 0 , t the Council shall bo coterminous with the ft] ; aggregate of.a,number of existing elec- ti torates for this House; and (6) that pro- u '• vision be made similar to the provisions 6 ; of the constitution, of the Commonwealth r . of Australia for preserving .to this House /; exclusive control in all matters of finance, and also for, cases where tho Council and L this House ultimately fail to arrive at ■ r agreement on any. proposed legislation, p iffe said it was.not necessary in his opinion i, to discuss, the subject-matter of tho motion „ —the method of appointment of members c-f the Legislative Council had been u, I .spoken' of by every candidate for Parlia- t ': ment at the hustings, and certainly by „• i. 'every member of Parliament. The great )'?.■ ! .pro-consul, Sir George Grey, when he f drafted the. constitution of New Zealand, ft had intended.that.the Legislative Council ,p should be elective, tut his. wish was .not „ igranted' and ; the nominative system was "1 t affirmed.- And it was only fair to say that V ■ some of tho wisest legislators' this coun- if try had ever known had been appointed ]\ under the nominative principle. In 18'Jl (l , .nomination for life was superseded by lv l "Sominntion for a term of seven years. He 55 ;' was one- of those who believed then that L ' the change was a good one, but he had *", i had reason to change his opinion. The , , 66ven years appointment had not tended t l , to-make tho Council more independent— rather tho reversed -He .wislied it to be Bt understood that ho was not reflecting u ! -upon, members of the Council. There were v members of the Council for whom he had i the greatest respect. Now, however, re? C ■ form of the Legislative Council was a 1> i < burning question in the country, and no U question had been more prominently be- s; : ,-■" tore the electors nt the last election. It ,n had been one of tho principal planks of b |. the Government party's platform. Now- r< .-.-■ they had put their hands to-tho plough ~ and they did not propose to look back ri ■until tho furrow was completed, and the ; ' reform was given effect to. Ho admitted Ii that it would not be possible to get a Bill a] through Parliament this session. He b 1 scarcely heed remind honourable members p ! what took place when the Bill was intro- sl duced in the Legislative Council. The b opportunity was given to the Council to ti ! reform itself, and he was glad to be able q to say that a majority, of the members o , approved of the elective principle and tl .voted for the second reading of the Bill. T. Xj In doing so they also expressed disap- n provai of the present system: The Bill, c; however, had for various reasons been n laid aside, and it became tho duty of the J ; Government to ask members of the Houso. t of Representatives to affirm the principle, t '-,-■ One of the main reasons for the laving 'c / aside of the Bill in the Council was that I the House had never expressed an opinion a on the subject of direct election by tho b people ..of members .of the Legislative I. Council. .The Government's proposal was r that the Council should bo elected on o the same franchise as. the Lower House, t The duties of the two Houses were simi- r ' lar in the main, except that the Upper n House could not initiate legislation dealing jj with finance, and he believed that tho i ; men who made tho laws for tho people e ! , . should bo elected by the people them- ■« selves. He quoted the opinions of other ~ j ~ great thinkers in New Zealand who had s I expressed his belief in a system-of elec-' .j tion of members of tho Legislative Couu- .), cil. Amongst. those whoso "opinions he J quoted were Sir Frederick .Whitnker, Sir s David Munro, and Mr. John Robert God- i ley, who all used strong terms .in their s - denunciation of tho- nominative system. s . Large Electorates. 5 He mentioned -that the Government t stood for proportional representation iii j two electorates, But ho' was nob wedded i to the two'electorate proposal. It might 'j be found necessary to divide the country f i into four or five electorates. :. 1 Mr. G. Witty. All tho rich men will * . get in. 0 | Mr. Massey said that this had not : . been the experience in Australia. Quite 1 the reverse would happen, aud the men ' to get elected would be 1 those who had tho ! ! . confidence of the 'workers and the small I men in the community. He assured hon- ■ 'ourable members that the system of proportional representation was by no means \ a complex or difficult system. It would [ have, he believed, a good effect on New ' Zealand polities. ! . Mr. Anderson: It would do away with | ,-. tho professional politician. - Mr.'Massey: It would do away with the parish-pump politician; it would banish parochialism in politics. Mr.Wilford": Do you think it would do away with the professional politician? Mr. Massey: Yes, I do. Ho added thatIt would prevent members fnom making i personal canvass of their electorates, for this would be physically impossible, whatever the length of their purse. ! It was intended that there should bo two representatives of. tho Maori race. These members could not be elected by proportional representation, but ho saw no reason why the members of tho Maori race Should uot elect one representative every three years. One of the most important proposals was that i provision be made similar to tho provisions of the constitution of tho Commonwealth of 1 Australia for preserving to this Houso exclusive control in all matters of finance, and also for cases whero the Council and this" Houso ultimately fail to arrive at'agreement, on any proposed legislation. ' Under in force in Australia tho Upper House had no power r to initiate legislation connected with expenditure.. ' i . . . : Mr.-Russell: Why should they not? Mr. Massey said that the.Council was elected for other purposes than the House of Representatives. Its principal function was to revise legislation. ' It was intended to be more independent of tho people, i •• and it was not considered desirable that ! it should be mixed up with financial mat 7 tars. Mr. Massey went on to explain that in Australia when a disagreement took place between tho two branches of the Legislature, a dissolution could be ordered. If the disagreement continued after the subsequent, election, a conference of tho--tw.o Jis>ws'.£mA bj.^eldj

Mr. Isitt asked why tho Prime Minister proposed to apply 'proportional representation to the Upper House before it was applied to the Lower House. The Prime Minister. said that the timo would come when proportional representation would be applied to both branches of the Legislature in New Zealand, but he did not propose to attempt too much at one time. He was asking Parliament and the people of this country to assist tho Government in doing what ho believed to be right and proper in,the circumstances. The Government had promisedto reform the methods under which tho Lower House was elected, ; and the promise would be carried out before the next general election. A change was demanded bv tho people of- this country in tho constitution of the Upper House, and a change was approved by the members of that Chamber themselves. He gave them every credit for it. -He-thought that the resolutions he had proposed would be passed by a huge majority in the Houso of Representatives.. Mr - . Davey. Do you propose to increase tho honorarium? Mr: Massey: I am not touching it at present. • AN AMENDMENT. ELECTION OF THE HOUSIi. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) moved the following amendment, .first of all stating ihat he did so in no party spirit:—"To omit all the word 9 after the word 'that' and to insert the following words in lieu thereof: 'In tho opinion of this House it is desirable that, the Government 6hould state its proposals for electoral reform of tho House of Representatives (as indicated on page 15 of the Budget; prior to the discussion of v the proposals for alteration' of the constitution of the Legislative Council. now on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, the two questions being inseparably connected.'" '

Mr. Russell said that the Government had stated in the Budget that it considered the repeal of the second ballot desirable. Yet the Government was anticipating >ts scheme for the electoral reform of the Lower House by proposals fur the electoral reform of the Upper Housk. These proposals might better have been applied to. tho Lower House in the first place. Mr. Russell.commended the.Prime Minister for refraining from criticism of tho personnel of the Upper' House. Ho (Mr. Russell) said that tho party to which ho belonged had reccgnised for some years the necessity of Legislative Council reform. A nominative House empowered to reject the legislation of an olected Chamber was an anomaly. Ho had himself introduced a Reform Bill, and the Ward Government had proposed to sacrifioe tho nominative principle. Why Keep a Second Chamber? It was a question whether a Second Chamber was neoessary. Tho Labour party fa/ottred abolition of tho Upper House, and many Liberals were of,' the same opinion. The Prime Minister had not shown that, the Legislative Council had ever acted os a brake or had been required to prevent panic legislation. Hon. Mr. Fisher: How would you get rid of the Council?

Mr. Russell said that the Imperial Parliament jvould have to. pass a statute. • He agreed that there should he a Tevisory body. The .Constitution Act of 1882 had provided that the Legislative Council should consist of apt less than ten members. Tho quorum fixed by the Constitution Act was 5. It would .therefore be quite possible to set up a revisory body of ten or fifteen members. In his opinion, these members should be'elected by the House of Eepresentatives, half of the members of the Council being elected by each Parliament. There . had been too much apeing of Old World procedure in New Zealand. It would be better to take the London County Council as a model .than the House of Commons. He'was inclined to. agree with all that the Prime Minister had said about the advantages of proportional representation, but tin's system should be applied to th* Lower House. He thought proportional representation was the only right system of election. ■ He agreed readily enough that in all' Mr. Seddon's regime the Opposition party in the country was not adequately represented in the matter of numbers in Parliament, and if it had been in force at last election the present Government would riot now occupy the Treasury benches. Furthermore, if all elements of .public opinion were fully represented in the House there would bo no need for a . Second Chamber to prevent hasty legislation. '-.. Ho. asked tho Prime Minister to say why the House of Representatives should not bo elected by the better form of representation. It was surely , fair. ' that " the Prime Minister should say when he proposed to allow the better form of election to apply to the Lower House, before ho asked the House to sign a blank .cheque by simply nffivming the principle.' He suggested members of the Council could be elected on n pro- ■ portional basis by members of the House, and still ensure that public opinion would be truly mirrored by the Upper House. Not An Abolitionist. ■ Mr. T. K. SlDEY'(Dunedin South) seconded the amendment, and he said ho did so without any feeling of hostility to the motion moved by the Prime Minister. He agreed that the Government proposals for electoral reform of the Ho'uso of Representatives should be made known before the House decided what should be done with the Legislative Council. He did not support abolition of the Council, but ho was bound to say that sinco he had been in Parliament he could not remember a single instance of proved need for a Second Chamber. He was content to follow the precedents of other countries in this respect, and no country of any importance was now governed by any other than a bi-cameral Legislature. Ho objected to any proposal to make .the Upper House even partly nominative, because politics in this country "were so dominated by party that no nominative system would bo. advisable. RET.ORM UPHELD.

THE HON. JAS. ALLEN HITS OUT. The Hon. Jas. ALLEN (Minister for Finance) continued the debate after tho dinner adjournment. Ho said that neither the mover nor. seconder of the amendment had raised any serious argument against tho bi-cameral system. Neither had they said a word against proportional representation. The Government had asked the House to declare that tho Upper Howse 6hould bo ejected by the people upon the proportional representation plan. Ho would accept tho word of the member for Avon that he did not intend to make his amondment a party question. Nevertheless, members would see that the amendment was an indirect challenge of a policy proposal by the Government. 'Hie device proposed by Mr. Russell was not only an indirect challenge to tho Goycrniment, but a challenge to every mombo'r of tho Ivowcr Chamber who believed in proportional representation as applied to tho Upper I'-us". Mr. Tjitti Th»t is not a fair interpretation. Mr. Allen: It is a fair interpretation. Jl£mbara_ivfeo so. into.' .ftftJobJi^,Tith^tlie.

member for Avon will vote against tho proposal that the Upper House should lie elected by proportional -Tcprpi-enlntion. No side issue could remove the direct issuo beforo the House; members must vote for or against proportional representation. Hon. members knew perfectly well, so did the House, and so did the country, 'that before tho end of tho present Parliament a Bill would be 'brought down to deal with methods of election to tho Lower House. The Prime Minister had promised that this would be done. Was the word of tho Prime Minister accepted or not? This anlendnient was a direct challenge of the word of tho Prime Minister. Mr, Russell: Not at all. A Long Campaign. Mr. Allen continued tliat the position at the present moment was that tho House had entered into a conflict with the Upper House. Tho Upper House had been given a chnnoo to reform itself, and after passing the second reading of a reform Bill, had thrown the Bill out. It would probably bo several years before the campaign between., tho two Houses was fought out. An essential preliminary was to reduce the number of years for which men were appointed to the Upper House. Tailing this, the Government might be compelled to appoint additional members for a term of seven years, in order to carry its reform proposals through the Upper House. The Upper Houso had started a fight that would have to bo taken right through. The issue was whether an. Upper House or the people themselves should rule in regard to the constitution of Parliament. Ihe member for Dunedin South had suggested that it would be easy to pass a Bill doing away with the Upper Chamber. He did not think that it would be so ea«y. It was part of tho Constitution that there must be a Second Chamber. Unless the Constitution Act was altered Sir Joseph Ward: You can do it. Mr. Allen: We cannot We have taken advice on tho matter, and the advice is that wo cannot do away with the Upper Chamber without an alteration of the Constitution Act. Mr. Russell: You mean complete abolition? Mr. Allen said that that was what some members had suggested. No passing of a Bill by the Lower House would do away with the Upper House.' He did not think that the time had come, if it eyer would come, when the Upper House should be done away with.' The member for Avon had said that an amendment to the law should have been made before the Egmont election. The hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that tho Second Ballot Act, if repealed, must be replaced by another measure, and that such a measure could not possibly have been passed prior to the Egmont election. The member for Avon had also hinted that because the Upper House was full of Liberal party nominees the Government was afraid to submit its legislation to the Upper House. • The Government had no reason to doubt that'its measures would be fairlv dealt with in the Upper House. Mr. Russell had admitted that a nominated' Upper Chamber was an anachronism, and admitting that he could not logically oppose the resolution before the House. It' was a direct part of the policy of the Government to restrict the powers of the Upper House in regard to financial matters. Mr. Russell: More than at present? Control of the Public Purse. ; Mr. Allen: In the same degree as at present. This House would retain control of the public purse, Tho Lower House would bo elected for three years. The Governor had power at any time to dissolve it and the House might at any time be brought into direct contact with the people in regard to financial matters. The members of the Upper House would be stationary in office for the term of two Parliaments, six years in the : ordinary course of events. Therefore, they did not come into that close contact with tho people that tho Lower Chamber necessarily did. The member for Avon wanted the Upper House to be elected by the Lower House.

Mr. Russell: The Lower Houso having been first elected by proportional representation.!

Jlr. Allen said th.lt the hon. gentleman was not in favour of proportional representation. His (Mr. Russell's) Bill was in tho hands of the present Government, and it proposed tho single electorate and the transferable vote. That.was not proportional representation. Mr. Russell: I am not committed to that (the Bill).

Mr. Allen said that the hon. gentleman had committed himself to it that afternoon, when he said that ho favoured the single electorate and preferential voting.

Mr. Russell: I said' that was an alternative. Mr. Russell asked whether the Bill mentioned had ever been submitted to the House.

- Mr. Allen; No, the hon. gentleman did not have an opportunity and it is a very food thing that ho did not.. The memer for Avon, he continued, wanted the members of the Tipper House to be elected by the Lower House for a term of six years. This might be done in the dying days of a Parliament. The Government 6aid instead, "trust the people." Trust the People, Mr. Glover: I always trust the pooplo. Mr. Allen: So do I, and because the hon. gentleman trusts the people he will no doubt go into the, lobby with tho Prime Minister. The member for Avon, Mr. Allen continued, had accused the Prime Minister of asking for a blank cheque. "What for? Mr. Russell': Electoral reform.

Mr. Allen said that the Prime Minister's cheque for electoral reform was signed and sealed. IHO did not know where the signature, of the member for Avon was. The Prime Minister had promised that a measure for the electoral reform of the Lower House would bo brought down, and put through before this Parliament ended. He believed that members who were in favour of proportional representation would' not be caught in the trap set by the member for Avon. There was time enough before the Parliament came to an end to put a Bill on tho Statute Book for reform of tho Lower House. There was not the same time available for reform of'the Upper House. Mr. Russell stated, in personal explanation, that ho had expressed. himself in his speech as being in favour of proportional representation. The Bill of which Mr. Allen had spoken,was one that had been prepared by tho Registrar-Gen-eral. It had never been before Cabinet, and to identify it with the policy of the Mackenzie Government or with the policy of the member for Avon was not playing tho game. . • Mr. Allen said that if the hon. gentlemen read a little further, into his "Hansard" proof he would find that he had committed himself to single electorates. Mr. Russell said that his proof was not complete. ' If he found later that the Minister for _ Finance was comet' he would admit it. j

MEMBER FOR AWARUA,

that tho Legislative Council might bo abolished by tho Government refraining from appointing now members until there lias no quorum.

THE MINISTER FOR MARINE. In Favour of Big Electorates. Tho Hon. F. 31. B. FISHER (Minister for Marine) pointed out, however, that oven it' tho Legislative Council could not meet, it would still exist, and further that under the constitution legislation to be effective must bo passed by both Houses of Parliament. No resolution of the House could do anything to amend tho constitution. In answer to tho contention that, big electorates would be won by rich men only, he cited tho case of Australia. There in last elections to tho Senate, whero each. State was an electorate, all the seats had been won. by Labour men, and ho would not venture to guesa what sums of money were used against them. Tho smaller the electorates tho greater the influence of money, nnd small electorates prevented freo thought in politics. The man who thought nationally, had a mighty poor chance of being elected for a.small electorate. Small .electorates gave riso to the parish pump politician. Ho was surprised to see that thero was one member of the Labour party who was opposed to proportional representation. Mr. Veitch: There isn't. 3tr. Payno: Yes, there is; and I represent 20,000 people. That's more than you do.

Jlr. Fisher: The honourable gentleman may misrepresent 20,000 people, but he misrepresents 100,000. He did not think it was' fair, he continued, to ask this Government now to commit itself to a measure for proportional representation in all elections. It was said the Government wanted to get its own. supporters into the Upper House, but if they really wished to do that they could continue the old nominative system and appoint almost any number. But what would be the good of continuing the nominative system when they did not believe in the principle. OTHER SPEAKERS. CRITICISM AND SUGGESTIONS. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) "said he was suspicious of the Bill because the Reform party introduced it. They wanted representatives of their own Tory party to be elected. The big electorate plan meant pandering to motor-cars and money bags. - Jlr. J. A. HANAN, (Invercargill) disapproved of the scheme for having the Upper House elected differently from the Lower House. It was suggested that it would lead to the members of the Upper House being more independent. Independent of what?—the will of the people. And that was an undemocratic proposal. Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Otaki) thought there was no need for an Upper House, and that there was danger in allowing tho Upper House to be "&cted on a broader basis than the Lower House.

Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) accused the Government of having embarked upon a fishing expedition. Ho stated that he was opposed to proportional representation and to large elec-toi-ates.

Mr. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) thought the Upper House should be elected- by tho House of Representatives.

Mr. H. ATMORE (Nelson)Vaid he believed that a House of Representatives of 80 members, with a revisory boajd, was all that the country required. Proportional representation was objectionable in that it would perpetuate the tickec system, and big electorates would entail more expense upon members. Dr. A. K. NEWMAN (Wellington East) 6aid'he did not think thero was so much in the cry against big electorates as had been represented. Candidates would not have to do.any more work, and he did not believe they would need to incur any more expense. He believed that tho country still wonted a Second Chamber, but he believed also that Upper Houses would eventually be abolished in all countries. Ho considered that proportional "representation would bo a leap in the dark, but ho did not believe in the election of tho Upper Houso by the House of Representatives. What the country desired was an olectivo Upper Ho.ise, and tho country did not want any fancy franchise whatever, wis own opinion was that tne upper jiouse wasan unnecessary expense, but"as there must be an Upper House for a little time yet, it v must be elected by the men and women of this country. Jlr. G. WITTY (Riecarton) thought that big electorates, especially in the country, would give too great an "advantage to the wealthy candidates with motor cars. Mr. W. A. VEITCH (Wanganui) said that he approved entirely of the Government consulting the private members of the House by resolutions. Ho did not believe there should bo an Upper House, but if there were one it should be elective. He supported the motion. Mr. It. M'CALLUJI (Wairau) said ue would support the amendment. PRIME MINISTER IN REPLY. NO FISHING EXPEDITION. The PRIME JIINISTER rose to reply ,at midnight. He said that upon the whole the proposals had met with a very' favourable reception. Only a few antediluvian members were in favour of retaining the present system. One or two members had said that the Government was out for a fishing expedition and an- analogy had been drawn between this occasion and one i some years ago when resolutions were brought down prior to the introduction of a Gaming Bill. There was no analogy. The Government on this occasion had first of all brought down its Bill and laid it before the Legislative Council in order to pave the way for reform from within. The Bill contained the Government policy, by which it would stand or fall.

SOME SUGGESTIONS. Sir JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) said the measure was a very important one, but he did not think the Minister,was born who could formulate a constitution of the two Houses of Parliament which would give satisfaction tor very long. He questioned, tho wisdom of the Government's action in submitting n series of resolutions. There was no need for it, beeauso thoro could be no conflict between tho two Houses, as bad been suggested, until tho House of Representatives had passod tho Bill and tho Council had rejected it. Tho Council had, in fact, rejected the Bill because the House had not definitely expressed an opinion on it. Ho suggested to the member „ for Avon that he should make his amendment an addition to tho Prime Minister's motion, and not a substitution for it. Ho suggested that tho addition should bo: "And that tho system of election for both Houses be proportional lopresentation." This would give 'membors of the Houso an opportunity of saying whether thoy wished to be elected by proportional representation or not. Ho thought the system of big electorates for tho Legislative Council would result in that Chamber Being the dominant branch of tho Legislature. This would certainly cause trouble in the event of a deadlock. Ho thought the sclieme would fail, and he urged that the best system would bo to allow a small number, pay ten, of the members of the Tipper House to be. nominated by the This would ensure that a fair proportion of the members of the' Second Chamber would be legal men. If he could not get tho system introduced which whs foreshadowed in the policy i.f. the Ward Government in the T'ebriiary session, he would vote fov proportional representation for tlie Upper House, and

The amendment proposed by Mr. Russell was negatived on the voices. , The six clauses in the resolution pro-, posed by the Prime Minister were put to the House seriatim. Clause 1 was agreed to on the voices.

A division was called for on Clause 2, which affirms the principle of election by the people as against that of appointment by the Governor. The clause was approved by 39 votes to 17. Following is the division list:—

Ayes (39): Allen, Anderson, Bell, R. F. Bollard, Buchanan. Buick, Clark, Davey, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Hunter, Lang, Malcolm, Massey, Myers, A. K. Newman, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Pearce, E. H' Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Robertson, Scott, Sidey, F.-H. Smith, Stathara, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Veitoli, Wilson, Young. Noes (17): Atmoro, Buxton, Colvin, Ell, Forbes, Hanan, Lanrenson, M'Callum, Macdonald, M'Kenzie, Ngata, Payne, Poland, Russell, Seddon, 'Ward, Witty. Following were the pairs (ayes first): Messrs. H. J. H. Okcy and J. W, Brown; Hon. Dr. Pomare and Dr. Te Rangihiroa; Messrs. E. P. Lee and J. Craigio; C. A. Wilkinson and J. C. Thomson; F. Mander and Sir J as. Carroll; Messrs. J. Q. Coates and A. E. Glover. A division was called for on Clause 3, but at the second call the clause was carried on the voices. Clause i, providing that there should be forty elective members, other than Maoris, ires carried, on a division, by 40 votes to 17. • The additional "aye" in this division was' Mr. ,1. H. Bracbey. - Clauses 5 and 6 were agreed to on the voices. The Primo Minister asked members of the Opposition to let him move the- second reading of the Legislative Council Bill, but objections were raised. Mr.' Jiassey then moved the adjournment, and tho House roso at 0.35 a.m.