PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 262, 14 April 1875, Page 3

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Tuesday, April 13. The Speaker took the chair at 5 p.m. PETITION. Sir Cracroft Wilson presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Waltham and its vicinity, praying that if any money is granted to the City of Christchurch for drainage purposes it may be burdened with the drainage of Waltham; also, for an investigation into the premises. He (Sir Cracroft (Wilson) stated that he drove along that road a short time since, and the effluvium arising from the drains was as bad as he had ever experienced. Petition read and received. LETTER FROM PROVINCIAL AUDITOR. The Speaker said that he had received the following letter from the Provincial Auditor:— " Provincial Auditor's Office, Christchurch, April 11th, 1875. " H. J. Tancred, Esq, Speaker Provincial Council. " Sir, —In the comparative statement which accompanied my report I regret that I omitted to complete the figures in the line contingencies under the heading education; consequently I have inadvertently failed to draw attention to the fact of this vote being exceeded by £352 13s lOd, and for which a special order was issued to me by his Honor the Superintendent. " I am sorry that this blunder should have occurred, and that I should be compelled to remind the Council that another resolution will be required authorising the expenditure in accordance with the terms of the Provincial Audit Act, 1866. " I have the honor to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, "J. Ollivier, " Provincial Auditor." PAPERS. The Provincial Secretary laid certain returns upon the table. The Secretary for Public Works also laid certain papers on the table. RAKAIA GORGE BRIDGE. Mr White asked the Secretary for Public Works if any steps have been taken during the recess to get surveys and estimates for the erection of a bridge across the Rakaia at the Gorge

The Secretary for Public Works said that the measurements would be ready for consideration this session. RAILWAY PARES. Mr White asked the Government why return tickets were issued at single fares on the Lyttelton and Christchurch line on November 10th, 11th, and 13th, 1874, and on the Southern and Northern lines the public were charged full fares.

The Secbetary for Public Works said that the single fares charged on certain lines on the race days were only intended to carry persons to and from the races, and were not consequently charged on other lines. RAILWAY YARDS AND STAGES.

Mr Harper asked the Secretary for Public Works what steps have been taken to carry out the resolution passed last session concerning the erection of yards and stages for forcing stock into the railway trucks at the principal railway stations.

The .secretary for Public Works replied—A yard has been erected at the Rakaia, aud the railway engineer has in hand the erection of similar yards at Dunsandel, Selwyn, and such other stations as after consultation with the traffic authorities it may be thought desirable to erect yards. The change of guageiu the South line has hitherto been an obstacle to providing yards at stations on it, and when the change of guage is completed the arrangements for delivering and receiving stock can be perfected. ROAD BOARD LIABILITIES. Mr H. F. Gray, in the absence of Mr Walker, obtained leave to postpone the following until a later portion of the evening—- " To ask the Government if they propose any immediate vote to relieve Road Boards from liabilities contracted in the belief that the balance of last year's vote would have been paid in full." GRAIN STORES. Mr J. N. Tosswill moved—" That whereas it is desirable facilities should be afforded farmers and others for the erection of grain stores in the vicinity of the various branch lines of the railway, suitable sites fronting upon the sidings at the various stations should from time to time be let by public auction." He said that the farmer was only too glad to get his grain away from his farm to the railway sheds, and the consequence was that for a short time the resources of the railway was taxed to the utmost, and the demand for labor was consequently increased, and the expenditure also. If this expenditure could be spread over several months it would have the effect of decreasing the expenditure and increasing the receipts, and this might be done if grain stores were erected as he had indicated in his motion ; and moreover, the farmers would save the high rate of storage they were charged in Christchurch. In a letter from the Superintendent, read at the Lincoln farmers' dinner, his Honor advocated the erection of co-operative grain stores. He (Mr Tosswill) only went a step farther, and he hoped the House would affirm the motion. Mr Bluett seconded the motion, remarking that the erection of such stores would be a boon to the farmers. The Secretary for Public Works said he believed that the present stores were ample to enable the railway to carry on business as carriers, the question of storage was auother matter. There was room at the stations for the erection of stores, as indicated by the hon member, but care must be taken not to alienate the sites for a lengthened period, so as not to create vested interests, for which a heavy compensation would have to be paid if the sites were wanted for improvements. He would not object to the motion being affirmed on the understanding he had pointed out. This referred only to country sites; as to town sites he certainly should object to letting sites in the neighborhood of town stations, as already in Lyttelton the Government had had to pay heavily for extinguishing titles, and would shortly have to do so in Christchurch, If the hon member would accept the conditions he had stated, then on that understanding the Government would consent to the resolution, being able to resume the sites at a short notice, and pay no compensation, save only the original outlay for buildings. Mr Dixon said that he thought it would be well if such a resolution were passed, but he thought it would be well if the Government would sell a portion of land in the country districts near the stations, for the erection of stores. This would give facilities to both the farmers and storekeepers. Mr JebSon was glad the Secretary for Public Works had conceded the principle contained in the resolution. He also thought it would be wise to guard the public interest so far as was required, in order to efficiently work the railway. He knew, however, of a station where every available place was filled with produce, so that it was useless to attempt to take more produce there. He (Mr Jebson) thought that was hardly consistent with sufficient accommodation to carry on the business of carriers. Either greater facilities should be given for removing the goods, or larger storage proTided.

Sir Cracroft Wilson—Would the hon member favor us with the name of the locality ? Mr Jebson—The Malvern Bailway Station.

Hon J. T. Peacock thought the hon gentleman wanted a great deal of accommodation for a very little money. He approved of the principle of the resolution, but was glad to hear that the Government proposed to be careful, so as not to create vested interests. He had always been of opinion that heavy compensation would have to be paid for the sites in Lyttelton. Mr J. Wilson moved that the word " branch" be left out, so as to make the resolution applicable to various lines of railway. Mr J. N. Tosswill said that he was willing to accept the amendment. So, as long as the stations at Christchurch and Lyttelton were not interfered with, he believed the resolution would be a boon to the country districts.

Mr W. White had great pleasure in supporting the resolution. The Secretary for Public Works said if the amendment were carried he should like to see the words " excepting the Lyttel« ton and Christchurch stations" inserted. Mr Dixon said he thought that the matter should be left to the Government.

Hon B. Richardson inquired whether the Government had made provision for purchasing sites. Mr Maskell could not see why the boon of erecting stores should be confined solely to the farmers. He would ask the hon member for Mandeville to withdraw hia amendment in order that he (Mr Maskell) might move an amendment which would cause the resolution to read as follows: " That it is desirable for the future the fullest facilities should be afforded to farmers and

others for the erection of stores in the vicinity of lines of railway." Mr I. Wilson withdrew his amendment temporarily. Mr Maskell then moved his amendment. The Secretary for Public Works said that the amendment of the hon member had pnt the matter in a light which the Government could not assent to, and if the resolution was to be thus clothed with a wider and different meaning from what was originally intended, the Government could not assent to it, as it would give rise, he feared, to a system which would result in a large compensation being given. The Hon Mr Buckley was of opinion that the facilities at present were ample. If this were granted, he did not know where it would end. The amendment was then put, and negatived on the voices. The Provincial Secretary said that if the resolution were carried he should move the insertion of the words " excepting the Lyttelton and Christchurch line." Mr Wynn Williams said that the hon member for the Rakaia had alluded to the Malvern station being occupied by grain and wool, when only a short time since he saw a station on the Southern line occupied by an entire horse [laughter]. He trusted if this resolution were carried, the Government would adopt the same system which prevailed in England. Mr MONTGOMERY said he hoped hon members would clearly understand that no compensation would be allowed for these stores in case the ground was required for railway purposes. The Government intended to bring in a Bill for the estaolishment of a through rate to the merchants'stores.

Mr Webb was very glad that the Government intended to reserve the Lyttelton and Christchurch stations from the operation of the resolution. He wished to point out to the Government the difficulties brought about through the various goods not being assorted at Christchurch.

Hon J. T. PEACOCK objected to the amendment for striking out the word " branch," as it was of too sweeping a character. Sir Cracroft Wilson said he thought it would be well to leave the matter until the General Government took the railways into their own hands, which they would do before many months were over. The amendment to strike out the word " branch" was carried on the voices. The Secretary for Public Works moved an amendment, excepting the Lyttelton and Christchurch stations from the operation of the resolution. Mr J. N. Tosswill was quite willing to accept the amendment, The amendment was carried on the voices, and the resolution as amended was agreed to. THE SHIP CATHCART. Mr POTTS moved —" That the Government be requested to lay on the table a return showing the number of cases which have received hospital treatment amongst the immigrants by the ship Cathcart." He said that he believed the vessel was a first-cl iss ship, but it was somewhat singular that sometime after her arrival fever broke out amongst the passengers; indeed he had been informed that at one time there were twenty- two cases of fever in the < hristchurch Hospital from the passengers. He thought it desirable that these returns should be granted. Dr Katneb seconded the motion, which was agreed to. The PROViNCrAL Secretary said he hoped to lay the return on the table tomorrow. works by tender. Mr Andrews moved—" That a return be laid upon the table of all works for which tenders have been invited from the Provincial Engineer's office ; from the Railway Engineer's office ; also, from any architect's office, under authority of the Provincial Go-

vernment since January, 1874. Ist. All works that have been put up for public '-'tender. 2nd. All works for which tenders have been received and have been rejected, and the reason assigned for rejection. 3rd. All works for which tenders have been called and no response thereto by contractors. 4th. All works for which tenders have been received and rejected and have since been undertaken or completed by or through the different Government officials. sth. The cost of all such works to the Government and the difference of cost, whether below or in excess, of tenders sent in by contractors." He thought it very desirable that these returns should be granted, because complaints had been made of the manner in which the Government conducted their business. He thought in fairness to those persons who took the time and trouble to estimate for public works that they should be answered with courtesy respecting the rejection of their tenders. He thought it would be well that tenders should not be invited for works, the execution of which would cost far more than the amount voted. If this were carried out they would not have so many tenders rejected as being excessive. He did not wish to particularise, and therefore had couched his resolution in general terms, his sole object being to establish confidence between the Government and the contractors. The Secretary for Public Works said that the Government would give instructions for the preparation of the returns. He might say that, in nearly every case where the Government had rejected tenders there had been a necessity for it. The fact was, that lately the contracting world had been in a very unsettled state, which had the effect of occasioning a very great difference in the tenders. The motion was carried. BUSING ROAD BOARDS.

Mr Pilliet moved—" That the Government be requested to take steps to hare remedied the present unsatisfactory state of law affecting persons sueing or sued by Road Boards, as shown by a late ruling of Judge Gresson in the appeal case of Paterson v Mandevillc and Bangiora Road Board, whereby it was held that any such cases could only be heard in the Superior Courts." He complained of the incomplete reply he received from the Secretary of Public Works when the other evening he put a question on thiß subject, and said he (Mr Pilliett) was of opinion that it was right for the Council to press upon the Government the necessity of bringing the matter before the General Assembly. He was aware that many of the Road Boards were considerably alarmed at Judge Greseon's decision, and he had heard it mooted that it was very doubtful whether the Judge's decision did not affect the right of Municipalities to sue for rates in the Resident Magistrates' Courts. He begged to move the resolution. Mr Jebbon seconded the motion, believing jt wm highly important that the Road,

Boards should have the power to sue for their rates in the Resident Magistrates' Courts.

Dr Bayner said this was really a very grave question, and he hoped that the Secretary for Public Works would give such a statement as would guide members of the Boad Boards as to|how they should act under the circumstances.

The Provincial Solicitor said he was afraid that he could not give any more satisfactory answer than had been previously given by his hon colleague. The fact was the Council had not the power to remedy the defect complained of. It did not arise from any local Act, but from the fact that in such cases the Resident Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction. If the hon member had so worded the resolution that it was expedient that the defects in the existing law should be remedied, he (the Provincial Solicitor) had no doubt the Council would affirm it at once, but if the resolution were passed in its present state he could not tell how to advise the Government in the matters He might state, however, that Judge Gresspn's decision had been carried to the Court of Appeal, and if the decision should be reversed there would be no need of any further action in the matter. Should, however, that decision be affirmed, then it might become a question whether the General Government should not interfere so as to remedy such a defect in the law. He might state that the Council had not the power to alter the law, and even if it had he thought it would be very undesirable to do so, seeing that the matter was now before the highest legal tribunal in the country. He would suggest that the hon member should withdraw the resolution. Mr Pilliett asked whether the appeal was actually now in progress. The Provincial Solicitor said that speaking as a private lawyer, he might state that the case for appeal had been actually settled between Mr Duncan and himself. Hon Mr Buckley said he thought it was the duty of the Provincial Government to represent this matter to the General Government. Mr Montgomery said that would probably be the course to be adopted by the Provincial Government, provided the decision of the Court of Appeal should affirm Judge Gresson's decision.

Mr J. W. White said that if the Provincial Council could give the corporations power to sue, why could it not give private persons power to sue the corporations ? He contended that his Honor the Superintendent and the Provincial Council could give power to sue in cases where the amount sought to be recovered did not exceed £2O. If the Council had such a power why could not the Government bring in a short Bill to give such power to Road Boards. Mr J. N. Tosswill said he thought the House was indebted to the member for the Pays for bringing this matter forward; but after what had been stated by the head of the Government that the matter would be brought before the General Assembly in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful, he hoped the hon member would withdraw the motion. [Hear, hear.J There was no doubt that the motion was an important one; but he thought the Government had given such an answer as fully met the case as far as could be expected at present. Mr Pilliet replied, declining to withdraw the motion. The motion was then put and negatived on the voices. extra labor on railways. Mr Jebson moved—- " That a return be laid on the table showing the sum paid for extra labor on the Canterbury railways, the stations at which oxtra labor has been required, and the amount paid for such labor at each station; also, the time spent in travelling to and from the various stations, and whether the time occupied in travelling had been paid for at the usual rate." They were told that the receipts from the railways were £93,000, and the expenditure £77,003 At this stage of the hon member's address he was interrupted by the hour of eight arriving, and the orders of the day being called on. FENCING ORDINANCE, 1875. Sir Cracroft Wilson moved the second reading of the Canterbury Fencing Ordinance, 1875. In doing so the hon member said that the Council had passed several Fencing Ordinances, one of which had been vitiated by the introduction of a clause which included only town lands under the operation of the Bill, and excluded rural lands. Another reason for its non-effect was that it was ultra vires on account of f he Council having established a tribunal which the Attorney-General decided was out of the power of the Provincial Council. Last session the General Assembly passed an empowering Act giving to Provincial Councils power to create tribunals to decide as to description of fence, and he had, therefore, brought in the Bill now before the House. It was word for word the same as that of last session, except that the list of fences in the Ordinance of 1868 was omitted. It was very desirable that there should be a Fencing Ordinance, and as the Assembly had now passed an Empowering Act there was no fear that it would be ultra vires.

Mr Bluett seconded the motion pro forma, and expressed a hope that the hon member would postpone the reading of the Bill until Thursday next, so as hon members might have an opportunity of studying the Bill, as it dealt with a very important subject. Mr W. B. TOSSWILL moved the adjournment of the debate until Thursday next. Sir Ceaoroft Wilson had no objection to this course being taken; The motion was agreed to on the voices, and the second reading of the Bill ordered to be made an order of the day for Thursday. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS REVENUES BILL. In moving the second reading of this Rill, Mr Montgomery said that last session a Bill had been before the House to give certain fees to the Municipalities, but was rejected mainly on the ground that hon members did not feel themselves justified in alienating the permanent revenues for any special purpose, and also that the Road Boards did not participate in the fees and fines. The Government wished to carry out the principle that the Road Boards should participate in the Provincial funds, and therefore he had introduced into the interpretation clause the Road Boards, so that they would participate. In bringing this Bill forward, it was necessary that he should give some figures to show the ' asis upon which the Government based their idea that the municipalities should have these fees. The amount of fees derivable from the various parts of the province during the financial year was as follows:—Municipalities—CJhristchurcb, £2117; Lyttelton,

£517 10s; Timaru, £694 10s; Kaiapoi, £248;! total, £3878. Prom Road districts they had received £5119, or a grand total of fees receivable of £8997. These figures, he thought, would show hon members that the municipalities were very large contributors to the provincial revenue by means of these fees, which he now proposed they should have the benefit of. He would call to the recollection of hon members that municipalities for many years had not received any grants from the Council, while Road Boards had received very large grants—larger indeed than they knew what to do with. If the provincial revenue were derived exclusively from the proceeds of the sales of waste lands, then he might be disposed to admit that the roads and bridges tending to open up this land should have the first claim ; but such was not the case, as the provincial funds were derived from pasturage rents, from capitation grants, and other sources. This latter item was a very important one in the provincial account, and they found that for the last financial year the capitation grant amounted in round numbers to £46,396. This was a refund from the Colonial Treasury, but before this refund could be paid, the province of Canterbury must pay into the Treasury £297,000 in round numbers, or at the rate of £4 16s for each person in the province. Now take the municipality of Christchurch. The population for this calculation he took at 11,000, paying this year £52,800 into the Colonial Treasury. The other municipalities paid in proportion. Now was it too much to expect that a portion of this refund should be applied for the benefit of those who contributed the revenue ? He would be told that the education, police, gaols, hospitals, asylum, must be maintained out of current revenue ; and he replied, certainly, but let current revenue be provided from the proper sources. This capitation allowance could very properly be applied to the support of education and the maintenance of these institutions as far as it would go. He would be asked how were the two sides of schedule Ato balance if £8999 be withdrawn from the receipts ; and he replied that there had been a deficiency for years, that the proceeds, ,of sales of waste lands had been taken to make up the deficiency. Take the population of the municipality of Christchurch at £4 16s per head, and they found that it paid £53 800 into the Colonial Treasury. The refund from the General Government was, he might be told, sent back to be spent among the people ; and he might be asked how they were going to support the police, gaols, &c. He would reply that the current revenue should be able to maintain this, and that the capitation allowance should be applied in other ways. He would be asked how would schedule A and schedule B balance if this £BOOO. odd was withdrawn. He would reply that the schedule A was made up by drafts on schedule B; that as a matter of fact schedule A never did balance with schedule A, having to be balanced by removals from schedule B. If hon members would refer to the accounts of the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works, they would . find that the fees, pasturage rents, &c, were placed there as an asset, and only a small portion was put on the other side of the schedule. On the opposite side of schedule A the following would be included : £ s. d. Ordinary revenue, as per

schedule No 1 4469 12 3 Proportion of departmental charges 5754 16 0 Loan charges 8333 6 8

£18,557 14 11 Showing a balance of £15,915 8s 7d, which was provided for by proceeds of sale of waste lands. In other words, the Timaru and Gladstone district gets credit, and public works must be done in that district to the value stated, to be placed on the credit side of schedule B. He thought that this calculation was correct, and if so hon members would see that schedule B must of necessity come to the assistance of schedule A. And it was right this should be so, for schedule A was charged with interest on the loans incurred partly for railways, and partly for West Coast road and immigration. He contended that the land fund should contribute part if not all the interest on our loans. Now to these fees the municipalities contributed, as he had said, very largely, and it was only justice that they should be allowed to spend the fees raised within their own borders. By this means the municipalities would be enabled to borrow money if they thought necessary; the various sums handed over to them enabling them to pay the interest on the sums at 6 per cent. By this means Christchurch would be enabled to borrow £40,000, Lyttelton £B6OO, Kaiapoi £4600, and Timaru £IO,OOO. He thought that it was not a proper thing to put the town against the country. [Hear, hear. | They were inseparably connected, and they in the Council should do the best they could for all. For many years the towns had not received the justice they were entitled to, and therefore the Government thought it only right that they should receive a permanent endowment in the shape of the fees. The Bill now before the House was, he might say, a portion of the policy of the Government, attaching as they did great importance to it, and they personally would |regret very much if the Bill were thrown out. The Executive commended the Bill to the favorable consideration of the House. [Cheers.]

Mr Maskbll said that the President of the Executive had moved the second reading of the Bill in a very temperate speech,—so temperate, indeed, that there was a large supply of water in it and no argument. The hon gentleman had adduced figures to show how much the various municipalities would get, and he asked the Road Boards to vote away permanently some £9OOO of the revenue of the province to enable municipalities to get thousands, while they got hundreds, [Hear, hear.] The fact was that the pill was rather too thinly sugar-coated for the country members to swallow. [Hear, hear.] He wanted to hear from the hon member how much each Boad Board was going to get out of this £9OOO a year, which they were asked to vote. [Hear, hear.] The hon gentlemen asked them to reduce their revenue, already low, by a sum of £9OOO per annum. Some persons might say, " Oh what is £9OOO or £10,000?" Well, it was not much in itself, but it was a serious matter when it came to be added to another deficit, which had to be made up by the whole of the province. He took it that no arguments in favor of the Bill could override the question whether it was fair to reduce the revenues of the whole province to improve the property in a portion of it. [Hear, hear.] He thought this was the question to be considered, and really they ought to go into a committee of ways and means, and consider how the

accounts were to be balanced before granting a sum like this. Ap regarded justice, he thought that the City Council of Christchurch, if they felt aggrieved by what they considered unfair treatment, should have come down to that Council and put their case before the Council, and have it discussed and decided on its merits. [Hear, hear.] As to the argument —or rather no argument —of justice, be looked upon it as more than absurd, and the hon member at the head of the Government had had this put into his mouth by the city of Christchurch, who well knew the fallacy of it. His idea of the treatment of municipalities, and he thought the ideas of a number of members of that House, was that municipalities should be placed on the same footing as the Road districts, and that they should come down to that House and receive, as they were fairjy entitled to, such a share of the revenue as their importance and their claims entitled them to. The argument that the rates in the towns were very large did not hold good, because though the rates might be heavy, the whole of them, every penny, was spent in the towns, and every one contributing thus received the full benefit of them, whereas in the country the ratepayers did not not receive such a return in any way. It was also argued that Christchurch had one-fifth of the population of the province; but there was no reason why the other four-fifths should be called upon to alienate so large a sum from the provincial revenues as that required now for the benefit of this one portion of the province. The whole question had been fully argued at last session, and he saw nothing that had arisen since last June to warrant a reversal of the decision then arrived at when the Government Bill was thrown out. [Hear, hear.] Therefore, not as opposing the city of Christchurch, but as regarding the interests of the province as a whole, he felt it his duty to strongly oppose the Bill. [Cheers.]

Mr Dixon said that he had not been able to follow the President of the Executive through his figures, but he might say that his speech had not taken his reason along with it. He would desire to point out to the House that once they passed this Bill giving these fees to the municipalities, no future legislation could tnko them away, as the municipalities would at once borrow money to the full value of them. This would be one result, and the other would be that the power of dealing with these fees would be taken away from the people. He should like to see the figures of revenue received from the city of Christchurch, as he felt that it was unfair on the part of the Government to bring down this Bill before the Provincial Treasurer had made his financial statement. Mr W. B. Tosswill had listened to the speech of the hon President of Executive with great attention, but he saw no reason to alter his opinion expressed at the last session of the Council. He contended that municipalities had no claim, as the claims of Christchurch had been condoned by their members receiving a certain grant. [Dr Turnbull—" No, no."] He contended that it was so, and as regarded the plea of justice he thought that ample justice had been done, and municipalities could not, he felt, make out any claim. [Hear, hear.] While he said this, however, it was his intention to vote for the Bill introduced by the Government, and for the reason that the city must at all costs be prevented from being a hot-bed of disease. It was perfectly plain that the corporation had not the means to keep the city clean and free from disease, and by granting them these fees they would be able to raise money with which to do these necessary works, and make the city a residence fit for people to live in. They were introducing a certain class of immigrants, but they were not able to induce a class they very much wanted to come amongst them, because they could not offer them a capital to live in which was at all clean and healthy. This, it was necessary, they should obviate ; and therefore he supported the Bill on these grounds. He did so because he looked upon it as a benefit to the whole province, and he thought that "they should not look at this question from one point of "view, but on the broad principle of the good of the whole province. He therefore trusted the House would pass the Bill; [Cries of " Question."] After a pause, and just as the Speaker called upon Mr Montgomery to reply, Dr Turnbull rose amid laughter. He said that all the city asked for was that the revenue raised amongst themselves should be spent amongst them. They were not asking for what was necessary for their comfort, or for the improvement "of their property, but as a means of averting disease and saving life. Therefore it was that he asked the House not to be led away with the arguments of the hon member for Sefton (Mr Maskell), because in so doing they would be striking out from their ideas all claims of humanity which he hoped was not the character of the legislation of that House, and he felt sure that the Bill brought in by the Government would receive a large amount of support. Every member knew that during the past six months they had had in Christchurch an unparallelled amount of sickness, caused by the want of those drainage and sanitary improvements for which the City Council came to the Council imploring assistance to avert. They were not justified as legislators in striking out all claims of humanity from their minds, and allowing in the midst of the city disease and death, which it was in their power to avert. The fact was that Christchurch was the largest contributor with its population to schedule A. They had taxed themselves to the utmost limits allowed by law, and he said any corporation which did this, which had done its utmost with the funds at its disposal to clean and improve the city, had a perfect right to come to that Council for assistance to carry out those works which were found to be necessary to avert from their midst sickness and death. He would not go into statistics, as if the appeal to the members of the Council on the score of humanity failed in effect, then it was perfectly useless for him to quote columns of figures to them. He put this to them, that the large population of Christchurch was largely contributing to the country districts to the extent of nearly a quarter of a million yearly. Though public money was spent in Christchurch, he (Dr Turnbull) contended that this expenditure was far more beneficial to the country than to the town. He thought that the old fable of the members of the body applied here, and that the city and country were as necessary to each other as possible, and that they had no interests which were not in common with each other. [Hear, hear.J He would again urge on the Council on the plea of humanity, as a sanitary measure, and as a means of arresting death and disease in their midst, to carry this Bill. They only asked for their own revenues to be given to them, and this, he took it, was a proper and

just request. He hoped the House would ! support the Bill now before them. The Hon G. Buckley had opposed the Bill last session, and should do so again, as he thought it unadvisable under present circumstances, and especially with the fact staring them in the face that a change in the existing institutions was imminent, to pass the Bill. The case of the neighboring province of Otago had been referred to, but the two cases were not analogous, as the municipality of Dunedin had taken over large engagements in consideration of the endowments made to it. When the matter of endowment came before the Council some years ago, the Corporation had been very liberally dealt with, preferring as they did a sum of money instead of an endowment, which he (Mr Buckley) thought was a mistake at the time. What he would suggest was that the Corporation should borrow up to the full extent of their powers, and he might say as a country member that if they wanted anything from the Council he would be prepared to vote a grant for them. [Hear, hear.] Sir Ceacboft Wilson said that they had heard a great deal about humanity, but he took it that there was a very great deal more inhumanity in the way in which the suburbs of Christchurch had been treated. He should feel ashamed of himself if he voted for this Bill ; a Bill which asked them to hand over this sum without any guarantee that the suburbs would be better treated than they had been. The result would be that the suburbs would be even more neglected than they were now. He should oppose the Bill unless it was very considerably modified. [Hear, hear.] Hon E. Richardson said that the principles contained in the Bill of localities spending the rates raised within their borders had his warmest support. As regarded the fees he thought that they were a very uncertain source of'revenue ; as the probability was that if provincial institutions were swept away, the city would find that its endowment was worth nothing at all. Be felt that something must be done at once for the City of Christchurch and the suburbs, but he did not think that the way proposed by the Government was the proper course. He hoped, before the debate closed to hear from the Government that they intended to do'something better for the municipalities than hold out to them this miserable pittance, which was at the best a most uncertain source of revenue. [Hear, hear.]

Mr Jebson said that for. some reason or other the Government had not been able to pay over to the Boad Boards of the province the vote passed by the Council by some 20 per cent. Now, he wanted to know where the revenue was to come from to meet the call upon it made by this Bill of £9OOO or £IO,OOO to be paid to the municipalities. For some ten years the city of Christchurch had done without municipal institutions, and he thought the country districts had a right to ten years' grace as well as Christchurch had before raising revenue by rating themselves. They had heard a great deal about the injustice perpetrated by the alienation of the town reserves. Let them take the value of these reserves at £IOO,OOO. Well, in 1862, the Council granted £20,000 spread over four years, and last session £SOOO which had been paid. This brought them to the conclusion that Christchurch had received 25 per cent on the amount of the value put upon the town reserves. He thought it would be much better for Christchurch to stand on the same footing as the other institutions of the province, and receive grants from time to time so long as the Provincial Council had the power to vote the requisite money. He (Mr Jebson) might say that he was not at all prepared to sign the death-warrant of the provinces; what he wanted to see was, that they should deal out justice to all parts of the province, without specially considering the interests of one part. Therefore it was that he opposed the Bill now before the House, as he considered that the time chosen was inopportune. The Bill certainly should have been delayed until the Provincial Treasurer had Made His statement; and they knew how much they had to deal with— He_ was sorry he could not support the Bill in its .present state. [Cheers.] Mr Fisher would support the Bill at any rate as far as committee, as he thought that by so doing, they would enable the City Council, not only to drain its own boundaries, but also to look after the interests of the suburbs.

Mr Joynt said that the arguments used against the Bill had been a string of figures produced by the hon member for Sefton. Now he (Mr Joynt) thought that the municipalities, as a rule, taxed themselves to the utmost of their power, which was not the case with the Boad Boards (" Oh ! Oh 1"). Well, hon members were aware that this was the case, and therefore it was not a fair argument to place Road Boards and municipalities in the same category, at any rate until the. Road Boards had rated themselves to the full extent of their powers. Tt seemed to him that underlying the arguments of those hoJ members who had opposed the Bill was the feeling that the city should not receive a permanent endowment at the expense of the country. [" No, no." | Well, he would desire to point out that the Council had permanently endowed the system of national education, and he could not see why the municipalities should not also be endowed, and the more so as it was probable that their power over the revenues might be abrogated by a higher power. He could not conceive anything so objectionable as leaving municipal institutions to the tender mercies of a central legislature. The fact was that the rating of Christchurch strained to its fullest extent, was perfectly inadequate to meet the wants of the city, and not only of the city itself, but also of the outskirts. Footpaths required making, and a number of other works were also absolutely necessary, as hon members were perfectly well aware. Besides this, the hon member for Christchurch had told them that disease was exceedingly rife in Christchurch,||and that it was necessary to avert the consequences of it that the Council should have a certain sum of money to carry out its drainage. He did not stand up to say that Christchurch had special claims over all the other municipalities; what he wanted to point out was that this amount was simply transferred from the Government of the province 1o the Government of the the towns ; the amount did not pass away, but was simply handed over for the carrying out of works which, as member for Christchurch pointed out, were necessary in order to prevent the spread of. disease. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill now before the House would pass its second reading. The revenues they asked them to set aside were permanent revenues 2 and therefore;the Government were quite justified in setting

them aside for the permanent endowment of the towns. The hon member for Sefton (Mr Maskell) said that hundreds were <jiven to the Road Boards, but thousinds to the Municipalities ; but he would point out that the more populous Road Boards would receive large sums whilst the more sparsely-peopled portions of course would not, nor did they require it. [Oh, oh.J All that the Government desired was that the portions of the province in which the revenues were raised should have the right of spending within their own borders the amount of local revenues raised therein.

Mr Wynn Williams said that the hon member at the head of the Government had labored very much in his speech to prove that the Council should do justice to Christchurch bypassingthe Bill nowbeforetheHouse. The result of the passing of the Bill would simply mean that Christchurch would get nothing more, f" No, no."J Well, he would show the hon member that it was so. They simply got a certain amount of fees which might exist for a Bhort time or not, and he could not characterise this as anything else but a snare. The wants of the city of Christchurch for public works was something like £100.000; but what chance had they of receiving this, or even £IO,OOO If this Bill passed, the opponent-' of it would of course be in a position to say, if Christchurch came to the Council, that justice had been done. Who, he asked, would lend money on such a fallacious security as the fees which might be swept away any moment. Did the hon member for Christchurch expect that the £lO/5,000 worth of work was going to be carried out by the City Council, having these fees amounting to £2OOO or £3OOO per annum. He contended that it was ridiculous to think of such a thing. He failed to see any permanency in the object of this Bill, and if he thought that money could be raised by the city on it, he should feel justified in voting for the Bill without doing any injury to the other parts of the province. [Hear, hear.] He contended that by voting against this Bill he was consulting the best interests of the city of Christchurch, and he must say that the statement made by the member at the head of the Government that they made this a Government measure, placed the House in an unfair position. He pointed out to the Government that the existence of the municipality of Christchurch did not relieve them of the responsibility of constructing roads and bridges, and generally looking after the interests of the citizens of Christchurch, who were not only so but citizens of the province at large. By bringing forward this fallacious advantage, the hon member at the head of the Government thought he had got rid of the very serious question of what was to be done with municipalities, which had been brought before the Government by the City Council. It was impossible, he might say, in passing, to view the circular sent out by the Government, that the grants to Road Boards would cease after a certain date, without great alarm. [Hear, hear."] He thought that the House would only be doing the best thing they could for Christchurch by throwing the Bill out.

Mr Webb said he should move the adjournment of the debate until after the financial statement had been made. [" No, no," and hear hear.] if the Government did not intend to do more for the municipalities than expressed by the Bill, he should decidedly oppose it to the utmost. He would now content himself with moving the adjournment of the debate. The motion for adjournment was then put and negatived on the voices.

Mr Montgomery rose to reply, when Hon Mr Peacock rose and said he should oppose the Bill. He would be prepared to vote a liberal grant of money, as it seemed to him that the Government by this means wanted to alienate a portion of the revenues of the whole of the province for the benefit of the City of Christchurch. He contended that if this sum was required for sanitary works, as they were told they did, the Government should take a larger and more comprehensive view of the matter, instead of coming down with the trumpery sep of including the Road What they iiad better do was to endow the city with a large tract of land upon which they could raise the requsite amount of money. The Road Boards had rated themselves up to the very highest pitch they could, and yet it was now proposed to give the municipalities the greater part of the provincial revenue. He would support a grant being made to the city, which was only fair, but he would oppose the present Bill. Mr Montgomery having replied, The question for the second reading of the Bill was put, and declared to be negatived on the voices. Mr Montgomery demanded a division, which took place as follows: Ayes 13 Noes 22 Majority against second reading 9 The result was received with cheers. The following is the division list:— Ayes 13—Messrs Andrews, Fisher, Higgins, Jollie, Joynt, Maude, Montgomery, Richardson, Tosswill, J. N., Tosswill, W. 8., Turnbull, J. 6., White, J. W., Wilson, I. Noes 22 Messrs Bluett, Buchanan, Buckley, Dixon, Gray, Harper, Hay, Jebson, Maskell, Parker, Peacock, Perry, Pilliet, Potts, Rayner, Teschemaker, Walker, Webb, Westenra, White, W., Williams, Wilson, J. C. Mr Montgomery—l beg to move the adjournment of the House to the usual hour to-morrow. Notices of motion having been given, the House adjourned at 11 p.m., till 5 p.m. this day.