PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 5, 5 June 1874, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Thursday, June 4. The Speaker took the chair at 5 p.m. PAPERS, Mr Jollie laid several papers on the table, GAOL RETURNS. Mr W. C. Walker asked, without notice, whether the Government would lay on the table returns from the chief gaoler respecting the gaols of the province. Mr Jollie said the usual returns would be laid on the table. departmental papers. Mr Maude laid on the table a number of papers relative to his department, TIME TABLE OF THE RAILWAYS, Mr Knight moved—“ That this Council is of opinion that the time table of the Canterbury Railways should be so arranged as to allow the first train to reach Christchurch not later than 9.30 a.m." They were not, it appeared, to pay so much regard to the railway paying as to its convenience, and there* fore he thought it was only right that the time table should be arranged so as to give the public every convenience in its use. The northern and southern trains did not arrive in Christchurch until after 10 a.m., so that really the trains were of little use to men of business, who required to be in their offices at 10 a.m.—they should also look at it from a sanitary point of view as it must be very pleasing to see that merchants were living out of town, instead of in the very badly drained city. A further reason wan that they gave tickets for children attending schools at £2 per annum, but it was like holding up a sweetmeat and saying “you shall not have it,” as it was well known that the various schools opened at 9 a m., without wishing to ask that the time table should be arranged so as to meet this, he had fixed the time at half past nine. He trusted the Government would see their way clear to grant the motion. (Hear, hear.) Mr Maude said the Government were only too willing to make the railway as much a convenience as was possible to the public. The question of the time table was under consideration, and there would be alterations made therein. (Hear, hear.) The motion was agreed to. MANDEVILLE AND RANGIORA DRAINAGE DISTRICT. Mr Dixon moved—“ That the papers laid on the table relative to the formation of the Mandeville and Rangiora Drainage district be printed.” The motion was agreed to on the voices. OPENING THE MUSEUM ON SUNDAY. Sir {Craqroft Wilson moved— “ That the resolution of this Council passed on the 2nd June, 1874, with reference to the museum, be forwarded to his Honor the Superintendent, with a view to its being laid before the governing body of that institution.” This was contingent on the resolution carried the other evening by the Council. The Speaker said that the hon member was not aware that the resolution had been forwarded to the Superintendent. It would be necessary therefore that the wording of the the resolution should be altered. The alteration could be effected by striking out the words “ with a view to its being” after the word “ Superintendent,” and inserting ip lieu thereof the words “ to be.” The resolution was amended in accordance with the suggestion qf the Speaker. Mr Andrews said he desired to say a word or two on this matter. Referring to the resolution passed by the House the other evening, he hoped that the Trustees of the museum would be in a position tq state what what course they were prepared to take in reference to the resolution before the present session ended. Mr Webb said that the museum trust had not yet been handed over j there was however a meeting on Saturday next, but it might be a week or two before the matter came before the new body for its decision. Mr Montgomery said that it wpuld probably be very near the eqd of the session before the museum trustees met to consider the matter. Without giving any pledge on the matter, he would remind the hon member for Christchurch that when the estimates for the museum came on for discussion, it would be open fo him to take any course he might deem advisable. [Hear, hear.] The motion was then put as amended in accordance with Mr Speaker’s suggestion, and carried on the voices. LAND SALES SOUTH OF RANGITATA. Mr T. S. Tancred moved—That there be laid on the table a return showing the area of land sold south of the Raogitata for the twelve months ending March 31st, 1874; together with a statement showing—lst, the area surveyed and plotted since the 31st March, 1873 ; 2nd, the area surveyed and plotted under contract, and the terms of such contracts.” Mr Maude said that the return asked fqr would be furnished as speedily as possible. The motion was agreed tq. RETURNS, Mr W. C. Walker moved—“ That there be laid on the table a return of land sold up to May 31st, 1874, in the Ashburton, South Rakaia, and Mount Somers Road Board districts ; and for a return of all moneys paid to each Road Board up to same date.” Mr W. B. Tosswill moved as an amendment that the words “ Ashburton, South Rakaia, and Mount Somers Road Board districts” be struck out, and the words “ In the various Road Board districts of the province” Inserted. Mr Maude said the Government had no objection to supply the return asked for up to 31st May, in continuation of former returns already laid on the table. Several amendments were proposed during a soipewhat lengthy discussion, but ulti* mately the resolution passed as follows : “ Thaf there be laid on the table a return of land sold np to May 31, 1874, in the Road Board districts of the province; and a return of all moneys paid to such Road Boards up to the same date." supply. Mr Jollie said he would move that tha notice of motion for going into supply bo postponed until alter the debate on the Executive Council Ordinance. The motion was agreed to. EXEQUTIVE COUNCIL ORDINANCE. The debate on the second reading of tha Ordinance was resumed by Mr Kennaway, who said he must express his regret at the way in which the hon member at the head of the Government had introduced it, as in bringing in so great a constitutional change as this, it was only to be expected that the hon member would have gone more into details. His not havieg dona so, made his (Mr Kennaway’s) task evenmora difficult than it would otherwise hava be«o|,

and would render it necessary for him to occupy the time of the Council for a longer time than he should otherwise have done. But this could scarcely be wondered at, as the hon member now came forward to destroy—-for the mutilation was destroying it—a child ot his early political career, and now he came down to the Council and asked them to help him to destroy it. The hon member came down to the Council and said that his Government would resign if they could not agree with the Superintendent. Mr Montgomery— l said I would resign if the Council was in session. Mr Kennaway said that anylxecutive who. having the confidence of the Council, resigned, went quite against the spirit, of the Executive Council Ordinance. The hon member came down, and, under the present Ordinance, was prepared to stick to oni.ee, and his action in 18615 was quite opposed to the action taken by him during the past few months. He (Mr Kennaway) would briefly look at the proposed changes in older to show what the legislation of the Council had been with regard to the constitution. In 1858 a Bill was passed authorising the appointment of four as an Executive, not more than three of them needing to be members of the Council, thus giving the Superintendent power to appoint one outside the Council and thus to some extent depriving it of its control over the Executive, Changes were made in 1864, but in 1868 an important change was made, notably that all the members should be members of the Council, and also should not be removable except by a vote of want of confidence passed by the Council. Both these were very important charges, tending, he might point out to the House, towards giving the Council more power over the Executive than it had ever possessed before. The Constitution of New Zealand was different to any of the other free nations of the world. Take America : there the President had not nearly the power of the Superintendent of provinces, he had merely a suspensory veto, not a final one as was the case here. Let them look at the General Government, and the Municipal bodies, they were merely executive bodies, and the chairman of the latter had merely executive functions. But what was the case with regard to the Superintendent? He was elected by the people, and it appeared from the aspect assumed by those who had filled that office that they considered he was responsible to the people who elected him to take an active part in the conduct of public affairs. He went through these details to show that the whole of the complications had arisen from having two bodies with active tendencies, and the result was that they must clash. The Superintendent was perfectly irresponsible to the Council, while the Executive was responsible, and they would not be true to themselves as a Council if they gave up any of their privileges. Several points had been debated to do away with the difficulty. Amongst others it was proposed that the Superintendent should be a nominated one, taking exactly the position of a limited monarchy, seeing that the laws were carried out and acting of course by the advice of the Executive Council of the day. At the second contested election for Superintendent, Mr Joseph Brittan’s address to the electors was so straightforward and decidedly constitutional that his words deserved to be framed and hung up in the Executive Council Chamber. He said, “ I take it that the Superintendent in "his executive capacity is simply the head of the Government and not the Government itself, an officer charged with the execution of certain duties committed to him by law, and for the most part defined by law ; and that in all original and discretionary aets of importance he is bound to proceed in conformity with the advice he may receive from his Executive. I accept this view of the office as much from choice as necessity. No consideration would induce me to undertake it if the responsibility were not shared in this way.” That gentleman was not elected, and his opponent, in his opening speech to the Council, expressed himself in the following terms “Among other things your opinion will be represented as to the expediency pf altering the present system of Executive Government. I incline to a very prevalent idea that great waste of time and power, both in the cage of the governing and the governed is involved in the present scheme of responsible Government. However responsible the Executive Council or Ministers may be, it appears to me, at any rate, that the responsibility of the Superintendent is of a very mythical prder, excepting in so far as he is responsible at law upon breaches of certain statutes made expressly on his behalf. In fact, under the existing order of things, the Superintendent has none, except a merely nominal political responsibility,” Tfiere the Superintendent, like all Superintendents,' had determined to get all power into his hands, and carry on the Government of the province by himself. The Council, however did not agree with him, and shortly after a new Executive came into office. The Superintendent sent over a lengthy memo on the subject, urging the necessity for a change. 'At this time it might be remembered •then seemed to be a sort of agitation for a change. People seemed to be iu favor of sweeping away the provinces, the provincial institutions were called cumbrous, but he never saw any that proposed to take its place. The memo was as follows; —“lb would be well for the Council to consider the present scheme of Executive Government and determine whether any alteration shall be now made. It appears to the Superintendent that his present position is practically divested of what is commonly understood to be political reponsibility, that is to the people, though tfie Provincial Council. He capnot act in any material particular except under the advice of a legally appointed Executive having the confidence of a majority of the Provincial Council, If the measures of his Government are rejected, he does not retire with his advisers from office, but he acts as a matter of course on the advice of succeeding politicians, holding opinions opposite to those held by bis late Cabinet. A clear apprehension of the incidents of this question would prevent a Superintendent from identifying himself personally with the policy of advisers—here to-day, and gone to-morrow. He must be no party politician in a provincial sense ; but under the existing state of things is clearly bound to übstam from any indication of individual feeling or opinion, because it is impossible to say what may be the variety of counsels he may be called upon to accept and act on during even one year of office. If he advocated particular policies in his Cabinet, there would be no guarantee that always during his ordinary term of office he would not be in a minority of the Executives of which ]ae was nominally the bead. It is

in the highest degree interesting to the public to know the exact spot wherein political responsibility resides. Responsibility bv the foregoing plan would rest unmistakeablyon the Superintendent’s Ministers ; and the Superintendent’s care would be to protect himself and the country, by restraining breaches of constitutional law. The Superintendent conceives that a simple vote of a small honorarium to the Superintendent, and a resolution that ho is not responsible except as above meniioned, would bo all the action required to bo taken by the Council as regards the office and functions of the Superintendent, Hut ns regards the responsible Executive, they should bo paid in proportion to the labor and responsibility east upon them. One great advantage of this arrangement would bo that political misunderstandings between the Superintendent and the Provincial Council and party leanings by the Superintendent would be a 1 most unknown.” The resolutions of the Council, however, were to the effect that the Superintendent should be elected by the Council, and be responsible to it alone, thus showing that the tendency of the Council was to keep all the power as regards Executive control in its own hands. He (Mr Kennaway) addressed the House at the time, and he would quote it to show hon members that he was perfectly consistent in the position he now took up. He then spoke as follows : —“ Mr Kennaway said that the House should treat with some consideration the first part of the Superintendent’s message in which his Honor dealt with the changes which they could themselves carry out. The first part of that message affected the question as to what had been the reason of the failure of what were called provincial institutions. Their failure seemed to him in some respect to be owing to the uncertain connection of the Superintendent with the Provincial Council and the Provincial Council with the Superintendent. The root of the evil consisted in the divided and uncertain responsibility which the Superintendent held, and which his Honor evidently felt, as it appeared from the message he had sent down. He asked them to put him on a more certain footing—to tell him whether he was solely responsible or nominally so. In considering what system was to be carried out in respect to Superintendent’s and Provincial Governments, he did not think the province would consent to the Superintendent being solely responsible. He (Mr Kennaway) felt strongly inclined to support the proposition contained in his Honor’s message, that he should occupy a merely nominal position and receive a nominal salary.” He still held these views and had always enunciated them, viz., that the Executive of the day should hold their seats so long as they retained the confidence of that Council. [Hear, hear.] It was very obvious that if the Superintendent was allowed to carry on the business with an Executive outside the Council, they would be very much at his mercy, as they would not have the experience which would be gained by taking part in the business of the province, and they would be divesting themselves to a great extent of all their power. The Superintendent would in this case take up the position of being both an active and an administrative officer. The Council of the day saw this, and declined to do so. In order to show that the tendency of legislation was to increase the power of the Council, the General Assembly legislation was to the effect that the acts of the Superintendent should be done by and with the advice of his Executive Council, which shewed plainly that the powers of the Council should be conserved. Referring to the Bill before the House, he had voted for its first reading because he felt it should be placed before members ; as a general principle he voted for first readings of all bills, therefore the hon member at the head of the Government could not twit him with that. He stated very plainly that he was opposed to the Bill of the hon member and the principle therein laid down. It seemed to him that the only way to solve the problem was to increase the powers of the Council, and to have an Executive at its head thoroughly and entirely responsible to the Council and it alone. The Bill of the hon. member was a retrograde step ; it was going back whpre for years they had been trying to get forward. Let them take the Bill itself and see how it would work. The Bill repealed the Bill which took away the power of the Superintendent of dismissing his Executive and of confining the choice of the new Executive to the members of the Provincial Council. The Bill now before the House did contain one principle, and that was that the members of the Executive should be members of the Provincial Council.’ It contained a very strange provision, however. It went on to say that theßxecutiye should consist of not less than three nor more than five, and should be selected by his Honor the Superintendent. All other Executive Council Ordinances contained the words, ‘‘Appointed by warrant,” and he must say that he looked with a good deal of suspicion on the word “ selected.” The House would remember that some few sessions back the Executive and the Superintendent were at variance as to the power of appointing a member of the Executive to fill up a vacancy, and he saw the cloven foot peeping out in the word “selected,” He trusted if the Bill passed its second reading, the word “selected” would be altered in Committee. The Ordinance, he supposed, was to be looked on as a sort of compromise between the two powers. He looked upon it as going back to the old system. He would like to ask the hon member at the head of the Government what was to prevent the Superintendent coming down after getting twelve months’ appropriation, and convening a session, and then saying “Gentlemen,! have dismissed my Executive,” and then prorogue them at once. He wanted to learn how they would meet this. It might be said that the Superintendent woqld not do this, but he did not know what Superintendent and Provincial Council might not do., Even if the Council petitioned the General Government to remove him, he might say that he had done nothing without his powers, and the General Government therefore could not dismiss him from his office. Besides it must be remembered that the General Government depended on political support as much as Provincial Executives, and they might say that this was but a small matter, and that they did not see that the Superintendent had done any wrong. This was a state of things which arose from bungling legislation, and he thought it would be better to go back to the old system, or sweep it away altogether. The Superintendent might tell the Council that the dismissal of his Executive was a mere matter of detail with which they had nothing to do. They were continually being told this in the Council. He had consideid the matter as fully as the time would admit,

and he had come to the conclusion that it was a retrograde step, and one the Council should not be asked to take. If the amendment now asked for had boon submitted to the bon member at the he id of the Government in 1868, would he have accepted it? No, he would have said that this would pla'*o him far more than ever in the power of the Superintendent. If hon members passed this amendment, they would regret it, as it would land them in infinitely more difficulty than ever they had had before. Let the whole matter be dispassionately considered without reference to the past four or past fourteen yogis, and he believed they would reject the Bill now before the House. [Cheers.] Mr W. B. Tosswill said it was not his intention to follow the hen member for Seadown through all the points of Ins address, bub there wore portions of it which might he taken exception to. This was the only province in which the Superintendent had not the power to dismiss his Executive. He thought that the power used by the Superintendents in olden times was due to this fact. They had even taken contracts for large works, without consulting their Executives, and an hon member on the bench opposite had a lively recollection of this circumstance He thought it would be better for them to address themselves to remedying evils which they had experienced, rather than run away after chimerical evils which might never arise. [Hear, hear.] It was a well known fact that a large amount of loss had taken place to the province generally owing to the disputes between His Honor and his Executive —[Hear, hear]—and this from the fact that there was no tribunal to which they could appeal, aud this he contended was supplied by the Bill now before the House, which had been brought in by the hon member at the head of the Government. if the Superintendent disagreed with the Executive on any point, he could call the Council together, dismiss his Executive, and then the Council would be in a position to express their wishes. The Bill did more than this, it gave the Superintendent an opportunity of putting his case before the Council, which he held was very desirable, and would, had it been in force before, have spared them the disagreeables of the past few months, and the province the loss of a large sum of money. (Hear, hear.) The only point made by the hon member for Seadown was that referring to the chance of the Superintendent coming down and telling the Council that he had dismissed his Executive, and after appointing another one to succeed them, proroguing the Council. How he thought the difficulty might be got over by the insertion of the following words in the preamble, after the word province “ by means of an Executive Council possessing the confidence of the Provincial Council.” But he could not for one moment believe that the Governor would sanction such a thing as this. He quite agreed with the hon member for Seadown, that the retention of the word “ selected," was very undesirable, but still ho felt that with this alteration the Bill now before the House would prevent any repetition of the proceedings of past sessions, where the province hadsufliered great loss and inconvenience through these complications. He supported the second reading of the Bill, aud should be prepared to support the Bill as now before the House, with the alterations he had suggested. Mr Joynt said that the hon member for Seadown had laid it down that the tendency of the legislation of the Council had been to to repress the power of the Superintendent, and as a natural consequence, to increase that of the Council or of the Executive. It appeared to him that the legislation up to now had been thoroughly experimental. The deplorable state of things which for some time existed between the Superintendent aud his responsible advisers, aud also between the Superintendent and the Provincial Council, did not show that in this legislation at least they had reached the desired end. For the past twenty years they had been living under two systems, but from the year 1868 the stride taken was from one extreme to the other. Before 1868 the power given to the Superintendent was very large. There was a portion of the Executive who were not responsible to the Council but to the Superintendent, and the Superintendent himself not only dared do, but did do things which might have been in direct antagonism with the best interests of the province, and the Executive Government could do no more than remonstrate, because if they did more than this the Superintendent had the power to show them the outside of the chamber. Now, hon members would see that this was very undesirable, aud in the year 1868 an Ordinance was passed, which enacted that the Executive should be appointed by warrant of the Superintendent, and must possess the confidence of the Provincial Council. Of course this had the effect of depriving the Superintendent of all power, and conferring it on the Council. Up to the latter end of last year the Superintendent bad no means of making his views known in the Council. The Executive Government were avowedly and confessedly in antagonism with the Superintendent, and there was no opportunity afforded to him of making his views and feelings known to the House. This, of course, was a deplorable state of things, and attempts were made to remedy it, but the Government of the day strenuously opposed it. The relations between the Superintendent and the Executive of the day assumed such a character that it culminated in the Executive leaving the benches and taking up their position opposite. When they went over to the opposite side, the first act of one of the hon member for Seadown’s colleagues was to attempt to bring in a Bill to repeal the Ordinance. That gentleman made no secret of what be intended to do. He told the House that he wanted to go back to the state of things which existed prior to 1868. Well, the" hon member for Seadown supported the first reading of that Bill, and he stated now that he did this because it was a principle of his to vote for the first reading of the Bill. Now, what was the case ? Why, that Mr Kennaway, while working with Mr Beswick and his party, and voting for the first reading, now said that he intended to vote against the second reading, i “ Hear, hear,” from Mr Kennaway.] They all knew, from reasons given by Mr Beswick when he brought forward the Bill, that he held that good government under that Bill had been impossible in Canterbury. They bad been living under it for two years, but when they got outside of its shelter, they found that the weather was inclement and they at once cried out to sweep it away. [Hear, hear.] Perhaps if his hon friend the member for Seadown and his friends got back to those benches they might be quite contented to

shelter themselves tinder it again. The hon member, however, now seemed to think that though the Bill was a mongrel piece of legisIntion, it was not so bad as it might be. The Government had attempted by the present Bill to steer a middle course between the two systems which had worked so disastrously. Nor did they intend to bring it forward, only that there was such a general demand made from the House at large for some alteration and amendment in the law respecting the Executive Government of the province. [Hear.] The result of that was the Bill before it, which, he said, did not abate one jot or one tittle of the powers possessed by the Council in the government of the country ; while it gave to the Superintendent a small —a very—small share in it. The only alteration was, that the Superintendent could, before the Appropriation Act was passed, come down to the Council and say that he had dismissed the Executive. Did that interfere with the powers of the Provincial Council ? The Executive could only hold office while they had the confidence of the Provincial Council, and all the power given to the Superintendent was that he could dismiss four or five obnoxious persons with whom ho could not work, replacing them by gentlemen who possessed the confidence of the House. If the Superintendent did not do this, —did not put gentlemen there possessing the confidence of the House—the Council could refuse supplies. Now, was that abrogating or parting with any of the privileges of the Council ? He said not only was it necessary, from the opinions expressed by the late Council, that this Bill should be brought forward, but it was rendered necessary by the V' ry discreditable proceedings which had taken place for a lengthened period. If it had not been for the aegis of the Bill which this one was intended to repeal, the late Government would not have held their seats as they did. The Bill was not retrogressive, as stated by the hon member for Scadown, but was progressive, as it tended to improve the Government of the province. [Hear, hear.] In order to show how grossly defective this attempt to remedy legislation was. the hon member for Seadown was driven to suppose one of the most improbable cases ever heard of. The hon member for Scadown had said that this Bill was personal legislation, and brought forward by persons having a bias in the matter, but he could assure the House that this was not the case. The Bill had been brought forward to prevent such a state of things as had occurred. He hoped the House would pass the second reading of the Bill, as any technical alterations could be made in committee. [Cheers.] The Hon Mr Buckley had been opposed to the Ordinance of 1868, and was so still, but at the time it was brought in they could not have imagined any body of men holding office under circumstances such as those under which the late Government had sat on those bencher. (Hear hear.) Ho believed he was right in saying that under the old Ordinance the Superintendent had the power of dismissing his Executives, but he did not recollect one single case in which it had been used. If the Superintendent’s hands were to be tied up as they were no v, they might as well have no Superintendent at all. (Hear, hear.) The Provincial Council, he took it, had power sufficient to defend itself, and he thought that during the continuance of the power of the late Government, when the differences between the Superintendent and the Executive were being continually brought down to the Council,they should have done their duty and asked them to resign. The effect of the Council not doing this had been that there had been very great loss to the province and hindrance to the public service. [Hear, hear.] It was a very great mistake that the late Executive did not resign when they were about to do so. [Hear,] Some portions of the Bill he did not agree with, but probably in committee the provision might be remodelled somewhat. In clause 2, for instance, bethought the number of members of the Executive was too large, and he could not at all agree with the word “ selected” used in that clause. He would, however, support the second reading, hoping to see the defects he had pointed out remedied in committee. [Hear, hear.] Mr Maskell said his feeling was against the Bill, and that he felt very much inclined to oppose it, because he was strongly of opinion that the power should rest with the Council. [Hear, hear,] He did not find anything to this end in the Bill brought forward by the Government. Besides this, he (Mr Maskell) thought that the objections urged by the hon member for Seadown (Mr Kenuaway) wore insuperable, and unless the hon member at the head of the Government gave a pledge to the effect that a clause would be inserted to obviate this, he should oppose it. If he would do so, he saw no reason why the Bill should not be passed. Mr Jebson said that he could not understand why the same gentleman who in 1868 wanted these restrictive powers enforced, now required them removed. He thought he could not do better than read to the House the remarks made by the mover of the Bill in 1868 when introducing it to the House, [The hon member read an extract from the speech of the mover.] It was proposed bv the gentleman introducing the Ordinance of 1868 that the Council should have a restraining power. He was unable to see if the repressive power was wanted then, why it should be removed now. He thought that the House should dismiss this Bill, because the present Executive had no dilliculty with the Superintendent. Indeed, they were told that real attachment existed, Then why did they seek to alter the law? If this were carried out, they might have Executives every week. It would be far better to leave the matter in the hands of the Council to say who possessed the confidence of the Council. Holding these views, he would move—“ That the Bill be read a second time this day six months,” Mr Healey seconded the amendment pro forma. Mr Montgomery said that ho wished to reply to the remark of the hon member for Seadown that he (Mr Montgomery) did not place the matter so fully before the House as he should have done. He was aware that there were a number of new members in the House,but he knew that a very great number of them had gone into the subject, as the alterations of the Executive Council Ordinance had been very freely discussed. He had fully explained that the Bill provided that the Superintendent could discharge his Executive while the Council was in session, when there was a difficulty between them, so that the Council could judge between them. When the hon gentleman taunted him (Mr Montgomery) with having abandoned the principles he had advocated, and had endeavoured to take from the Council the powers it possessed, he told him that the

hon member for Papanui (Mr Williams) and others, with himself, had struggled night after night to serve the province and save it from the loss which was being entailed upon it by the disagreements between the Executive and the Superintendent. They never for one moment contemplated that such a state of things would come to pass as hail done. When they saw that month after month the province was suffering from the differences existing between the Superintendent and the Executive, it never for one moment occurred to them that this state of things could continue. But it had done so, and that was the reason —to prevent such a state of things coming to pass again—that he stood before them that night to ask them to pass the Bill, and not as had been said, to take awav any of the powers of the Council, but rather to place themselves in a position to enable them to judge between the Executive and the Superintendent. [Hear, hear.] It was no diminution but rather an augmentation of the powers the Council now enjoyed. [Cheers.] If he Ihought for one moment that the rights and privileges of the Council would bo interfered with, he would never ask the Council to pass the second reading of the Bill, but he did not do so, nor did he believe that this would be the case for one moment. Prospecting the objection raised by the hon member for Scadown, this had been considered by the Government, and it was thought if the Appropriation Ordinance contaiued a limit for a fortnight or a month, the difficulty would be got over and the Superintendent would then be able to be removed on application to the Governor. Mr Wynn Williams said that the conclusion he had come to on this question was, that the contingency pointed out by the hon member for Scadow a was just as likely to occur as what had occurred. He contended that the Bill would place the Superintendent and Provincial Council in a greater difficulty than they had been for the past four years. If they retained the important clause that the Superintendent and Executive had no power to carry out works until the money had been first voted by the Council, the former Act was by far the best. If the Superintendent and Executive differed on an important subject, the Superintendent could say, “ You had better resign,” or he could dismiss them. It seemed to him wiser to go back to the old system and retain the important power in their own hands to which he had referred. He thought that by passing this Act they would be placing the Superintendent in a very invidious position, and not one at all which was contemplated by the Constitution Act. The office was different from a Superintendent elected by the Council or being nominated, and he could not help saying that the course proposed by the Government in dealing with the powers of the Superintendent was somewhat lowering to the dignity of the office—and that tin y were treating the office in a manner far from dignified. Unless he heard some far stronger reasons he should vote for the amendment of the hon member for Rakaia, After some remarks from Messrs Parker, Knight, Gray, Buckley, and Dr Turnbull, Mr Kennaway replied. The amendment was put aud negatived on the voices. The question for the second reading was then put and declared to be carried on the voices. Mr Kennaway demanded a division, which took place as follows — Ayes 20 Noes 16 Majority for Ayes I The following was the division list : Ayes, 20—Messrs Buchanan, Buckley, Dixon, Fisher, Higgins, Jollio, Joynt, Mallock, Maude, Montgomery, Parker (Teller), Potts, Tailored, T. S., Tosswill, J. N. (Teller), Tosswill, W. 8., Turnbull, J. S., Walker, Webb, Wilson, 1., Wilson, J. 0. Nois, 16 —Messrs Andrews, Bluett (Teller), Gray, Harper, Healey, Jebson, Kennaway, Knight (Teller), Maskell, Pilliet, Rayuer, Teschemaker, Turnbull, R. Westenra, W, White, Williams. The Bill was read a second time. Mr Montgomery asked whether hon. members were prepared to go into committee on the Bill. [Cries of “Go on.”] Mr Kennaway objected to the Government going on with the Bill, as hon members had not had time to make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. [Hear, hear.] Mr Knight thought it would be better for the House to go into committee, pass clause I, and then report progress. The House then went into committee. Mr Webb, on taking the chair for the first time, said he desired to thank the House for the honor they had done him in re-electing him to the post of chairman of committees. He hoped, with the able assistance of Mr Speaker, to preserve that order and decorum for which the Provincial Council of Canterbury was noted. IN COMMITTEE, Hon Mr Buckley moved that all_ the words after the word “ repealed ” be omitted in the first clause, the clause reading thus —“The Executive Council Ordinance, 1861, Amendment Ordinance is hereby repealed.” The amendment ifj carried would bring them back to the Ordinance of 1861. Mr KENNAWAY said this amendment was so important, that he would move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. Mr Montgomery said the Government were quite willing to agree to the motion of the hon member for Seadown ; in fact he was about to rise to move the same motion himself but the bon member for Seadown had risen just before him. The amendment proposed by the bon member for Waimatc was so important and covered so largo a question, affecting the whole principle of the Bill, that the Government were only too ready that hon members should have an opportunity to consider it. [Hear, hear.] The motion for reporting progress was then put and agreed to on the voices, and leave granted to sit again on Tuesday. ORDERS 01' THE DAY, The consideration of the following resolution was then resumed : “ That iu accordance with the recommendation of a Select Committee of this House iu Session XXXVIII, 1872, on the matter of a petition from certain residents in the Kowai district, it is expedient that a road temporarily laid off through section 15181 should be stopped up.” i The motion was agree to.