GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 400, 23 September 1875, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Electric Telegraph ] (From a correspondent of the Press.') HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, September 21. The House resumed at 7.30. THE ABOLITION BILL. Sir G. Grey said he had been unjustly accused of party action. After explaining the circumstances which had led him to introduce the amendment, re the abolition of the Gold Duties Acts, he stated that if it were lost he should on a future day bring in a Bill to give almost freehold tenure to their claims to those miners who were working quartz reefs. . , Sir G. Grey’s amendment was rejected by 39 to 22 On a division on Mr Shepherd’s amendment that the reduction should take place concurrent with the Act coming into operation, it was negatived by 45 to 14. _ The clause was then agreed to as previously amended. On clause 16,

Mr REEVES moved the amendment of which he had given notice. This amendment was so exceedingly simple that he had no doubt it would commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Government. It required very little explanation. The amendment was in fact the substance of the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works Act, which was held up during last session by their Treasurer as the model upon which future local government in the colony was to be founded. Early in the session, in answer to a question by himself, Ihe Treasurer stated it was intended to preserve the rights of the Timaru and Gladstone Board. What was good for Timaru and Gladstone must be good tor other districts. In fact, the proposal commended itself to his mind as a just, reasonable, and proper measure. The Treasurer had stated upon a recent occasion, when speaking to the amendment introduced by the member for Port Chalmers, that it was intended to establish Boards of Works, and it was the desire of the Government to make the measure as popular as possible. In his (Mr Reeves’s) opinion nothing could make it more popular than ihe acceptance of his amendment. From first to last it had been held out to the members of the Middle Island that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere in any shape with the land fund of the Southern districts, and that it was the desire of Government that those funds should be locally administered and settled. He was aware that the Treasurer told the committee it was not his fault that a large portion of the land fund was already allocated. He (Mr Reeves) accepted that decision, but he saw by the Bill that the residuum of the land funds was intended to be applied for necessary public works required for the settlement of the land ; but instead of leaving it in that uncertain state, he should accept the amendment and let the people understand that a certain fixed portion, not very large, only 25 per cent of their revenues, should be appropriated in the first instance for those necessary public works. It was a law of necessity not of choice that certain portions of of the land fund should be set apart for works absolutely necessary for opening up the country. They must see it was a first necessity, in order to induce the sale of Crown Lands, that necessary funds should be set apart for the cost of survey and so forth, and next, it was necessity that certain portions of the land fund should be strictly allocated for roads, bridges, culverts, &c, necessary to enable the purchasers of land to settle upon it. For those reasons he had moved the amendment. He thought the demand was extremely moderate, and trusted the Government would see its way to accept it,

Hon Major Atkinson thought the member for Selwyn should have gone into the matter and shown how his proposal would have affected the different provinces. The hon gentleman had not touched upon that, which it was his (the Treasurer’s) duty to bring under the notice of committee. If the proposal had only related to Canterbury, the ■Government might be prepared to accept it at once, but undoubtedly, as he had previously shown by figures, Canterbury •would receive a considerably larger proportion than 25 per cent. It would be in the recollection of the hon gentlemen that in answer to a speech of the member for Akaroa, he (the Treasurer) showed there would be available under ordinary circurnstances in Canterbury two years hence the .sum of £19,000. That was upon the assumption that the year’s land revenue would only yield £145,000, £49,000 was considerably more than 25 per cent, and should the land revenue be, as he believed it would be, more than £145,000, then the province would receive the total above that. The member for Selwyn’s proposition was to the detriment of Canterbury, and would take from her part of her land fund to assist other provinces. [Mr Eeeves— “ No.’’] He trusted the hon member would not make general statements, but would show how the land funds would be affected under his proposed arrangement. Canterbury and Otago, which ,so largely relied on the land fund for public works, would not consent to such a proposition. To the other provinces not in debt —Nelson and Taranaki —it could make little or no difference. The total loss of revenue by such proposals would be £85,000. The proposition of Gowernment was eminently fair. It said there were certain charges upon the land fund. Now let those be satisfied, and take any ■steps you like to secure the balance to the provinces. In the case of many provinces, though his friends opposing were still in .credulous, the land fund was pledged almost .to the fullest extent. [“No.”] He said “ Yes.” Those members opposing must show that the large sums he had mentioned could not be charged against the land revenue. Either that, or they would have to increase the land fund enormously to meet those charges. Was the member for Selwyn willing to give up the Canterbury revenue for the sake of relieving the land fund of the other provinces. As he contended, he had proved there were burdens already upon the land revenue. Taking the revenue at the last six years’ average of £580,000, and that there were already charges upon that to the amount of £577,000, it was a curious question, as he had already stated to the House, how local public works should be carried out, and what means were to be taken to relieve the land fund, but that was not to be met by giving the land fund of Canterbury to assist the laud funds of the other provinces, nor by fixing some arbitrary amount which local bodies shall have to be divided

in a way hereafter to be fixed. It would be the duty of the Government during the recess t;> consider how the land fund could be relieved, and where it could be relieved, and to submit, a proposal to the House. The amendment of the member for Selwyn was quite out of place, Mr Montgomery did not consider it was for the member for Selwyn to show how his proposition would affect the revenue. It was not his place to do that. It was the place of the Treasurer to show how the lands were to be settled, without a portion of the money derived from their sale being devoted to making roads, bridge l , &c. That money must either be taken out of the consolidated revenue or the land fund. Was not the land fund the most natural source? V\ ith the view of setting the land fund free for that purpose, and making clear what was meant by the charges mentioned in the first clause. He moved as an addition to the end of the clause, “ Provided that in such debt or liabilities the sinking fund and interest on cost of colonial railways be not included.” All would acknowledge that this clause was the pith and marrow of the Bill, and was the most important next to the abolition question. He asked why did not Government abide by the declared financial policy of the Premier last session that the interest and sinking fund of the cost of railways should be borne out of the consolidated revenue ? No doubt Sir J. Vogel was then speaking the mind of the Ministry of the day. Had Sir J. Vogel sanctioned the alterations, he could understand the Ministers saying that it was the policy last year, but is not our policy, but Sir J. Vogel got the votes of the House, and particularly of the Southern members by that declaration of policy. The Treasurer had a right to give some explanation whyjthis change should be necessary. Reverting to the Treasurer’s figures, he remarked that the Treasurer reckoned there would be £45,000 from confiscated lands in Auckland. Charging against that the cost of survey, interest on railways completed, and interest on provincial debt, there was a deficit of £23,106, Therefore was it not a mockery to say that subsidies could be given to Road Boards after that. The thing was a delusion a snare. He would use stronger words if he could, and if he was not conscious of the Treasurer’s honesty, ho would consider it a fraud. True, the land fund in Auckland was to be equalised this year by the issue of Treasury Bills, but in two years afterwards there would be a deficit in Auckland of £20,672. In the name of common sense how were they to expect that the land fund in a future year would recoup this £36,000 of Treasury Bills. It was absurd, and was almost an insult to the understanding of members to expect any such thing. Westland, too, now showed a deficit of £9420; how then could that provinci be expected to recoup £II,OOO Treasury Bills ? In Otago the charges against the laud fund were £185,846 in all, against £200,000 land aivenue, leaving the magnificent sum of £14,854 for making roads, bridges, &c, and subsidies to Road Boards. He called the attention of the committee to the two statements put forward by the Treasurer on September 7th. He (Mr Montgomery) had been taking the table most favorable to the Treasurer. [Hon Major Atkinson— You have not quoted ray figures correctly.”] He admitted he was not taking the Road Boards into account. Now what was the use of talking about subsidising Road Boards out of that portion of the land fund ? The thing was perfectly ridiculous. By and by he might be told by the Treasurer that the principle of the Act of 1871 was in force, and by that Act the land revenue should be taken as payment for interest and sinking fund for railways. But he had shown conclusively that that was not the policy of Sir J. Vogel last year. He read clause 5, sub-section 3, of the Act of 1871, and asked if Government were prepared to levy direct taxation. They dare not do such a thing. In that case, were they only prepared to charge the land revenue of the provinces that had a land revenue with the cost of railways, if the other provinces paid it out of the consolidated revenue. That was the only way of making up the deficit required to make up the charges against the sinking fund for railways in Auckland and other provinces without a land fund. He did not think it was possible in any other legislature to have brought down a proposition that was so preposterous. It would have been the laugh of the House, The natural thing was to charge the land fund with the cost of opening up the land. He should like to see the whole of the provincial debt and the cost of the construction of railways charged upon the consolidated revenue. That was the policy of the Government last session, and should be this. Hon Major Atkinson confessed to having listened with surprise to the latter portion of the member for Akaroa’s speech, taken in connection with previous speeches he had made. In a previous speech, which the House listened to with pleasure, that hon gentleman said it was very wrong to tax people above £3 10s per head. Yet, the hon gentleman now deliberately asked the committee to put upon the revenue sums amounting to £226,500. How could that be possible without additional taxation ? Additional taxation to the extent of fifteen shillings per head must take place immediately, which would bring the individual contributions up to £5. It was perfectly evident the money has got to be found. The public creditor must be met; if not, from the land fund, where must it come from ? [Opposition cries of “ Retrench,”] Perhaps the hon gentlemen opposite would point out where to retrench. [Mr Montgomery— You spend too much as Treasurer,] He (Major Atkinson) told him he was unable to do it. No doubt the country would support the hon gentleman in doing so if he knew how. It was undoubtedly his business to show the country, and, if he could only show how to relieve the land fund and reduce taxation from £6 to £2 10s, he was the Treasurer for him, and he would be found supporting him with the greatest satisfaction; With regard to the policy of last year, surely his friend did not mean to tell the committee that the statement of the Prime Minister would bind a Government- when the law stood the other way, or that notwithstanding the state of the finances, Government should come down next year to carry out the statement of the previous year. The thing was absurd upon its face, that upon a mere statement of the kind Government should come down and repeal all the Acts relating to the Public Works and Immigration. It was a most outrageous proposition to which he would never give his adhesion. With regard to the laud fund, the Government had said all along I that the House was bound to provide for I government in all parts of the colony.

Government propose only to provi le suflicient means for the proper government of the colony. Their propositions went no further. They said there were certain charges upon the land fund, and where there is no land fund so to charge, the House had to provide means. There was not the semblance of fraud, or anything approaching fraud, about that. As a prudent man, he would try to get it out of the land fund, failing that the House must provide it. This year they had provided for all necessary services. In the course of a year or two Government would be able to see if there was any land fund in those other provinces, and then it would be the duty of the Treasurer to make permanent provision; but'that was not taking the land fund of one province to pay for another. He did not propose to take anything from Canterbury, except to relieve the necessity of Auckland and provide her with Government. If, as his friend seemed to think, no land fund could be got from Auckland or Westland, of course Auckland could not pay, but he was not prepared to say that. As a reasonable man he could not believe that £250,000 spent in purchasing lauds in that province would return nothing, but he said before they take the burdens upon the colony, let them see if they can get them out of a different source. He did not disguise from himself or the*House that if that resource failed they must fall back upon the consolidated revenue. That question would have to be considered during the recess. With regard to the question whether the loans had a right to be put upon the consolidated revenue, the member for Akaroa said the legitimate use of the land fund was in opening up the country. He (the Treasurer) wanted to know what the loans had been raised for ? He was under the impres sion that the whole of the provincial and ten million of the loans had been raised for that purpose. Hon C. C. Bowen said it had been proved by the Colonial Treasurer’s figures that the provinces, especially Canterbury, would not be in the slightest degree losers. Mr WOOD contended that the admission of the Colonial Treasurer proved what he (Mr Wood) had previously stated, was correct, and that without the aid of the land fund the colony could not meet its engagements. The Colonial Treasurer might just as well admit that the financial system had utterly broken down ; that this year a patch might he effected, but next year there must be a smash. He advocated economy, by which £50,000 or £IOO,OOO could be saved, and asserted that if they went on in their present extravagant style, they would get into inextricable difficulty, and one day the Colonial Treasurer would come down and say he was in a position of bankruptcy, and did not know how to extricate himself from it. He (Mr Wood) was glad to find that the country was beginning to awaken to the fact that it was in a state of bankruptcy, and hoped in future people would pay greater attention to financial affairs.

Hon Major Atkinson denied having said so, and went on to say that the member for Parnell had stated what he knew to be untrue. [“Oh, oh”] Yes, that was the plain English. He had stated what he knew to be untrue respecting the finances of the colony. These statements were not made only against the Government, but they went throughout New Zealand and the mother country, and did incalculable damage. He charged the hon member with making untrue statements, and he challenged him to prove what he had said. He should read and take pains to see what was the real position of the colony. As he had challenged the member for Auckland City West, when making statements equally at variance with the truth, he challenged the member for Parnell. He challenged both these hon gentlemen. Let them move for returns, so as to put before the House the whole statement of the finances of the country in any form they pleased, so that the public creditors could not possibly be hoodwinked. Let returns be called for, any returns they liked, and they would be granted, and he challenged hon members to prove their assertions.

Mr Wood asked what was the use of getting returns, when false returns were furnished by the Government. [Oh, oh.] He referred to the statement of the land revenue, which he had called for, and still he had been given a false return. In fact he had never seen a more scandalously false paper issued. [Oh, Oh.] Hon 0. C. Bowen said this was absolutely denied by the Colonial Treasurer, and as there was a direct issue of fact, the statements should be proved. It might be very easily proved if the hon member chose to do so. He could examine figures and examine the estimates which wore before the House. When the hon gentleman got up and put before the House such statements as that a return placed on the the table of the House was scandalously false, he should be made to prove them. Mr Wood said it was so, and called the hon member for Avon (Mr Rolleston) to attest that in respect to Canterbury the return was not correct.

Mr Rolleston went into a few of the details of the return which appeared anomalous.

Hon C. C. Bowen said when the Treasurer laid the return upon the table, he had made an explanation which would have cleared up the difficulty, and it was not proper for an hon member to say a return was scandalously false, Mr Wood said he had not heard the explanation, and as for any remarks that had been made in the heat of debate he regretted them, though the Treasurer’s remarks bad been quite .as strong. Sir G. Grey said he had asserted on a previous occasion that the financial statement of the Treasurer, was misleading and unfair to the public creditors, because the Treasurer had manufactured a balance. He adhered to that statement, and would show that it was so, The Colonial Treasurer knew that he was stating what was a patent fact. Hon Major Atkinson said it was absolutely at variance with facts, and the hon gentleman could not prove what he had said. He referred to the manner in which he had brought out certain balances, and challenged the hon member to disprove his statements.

Sir George Grey repeated his assertion as to a manufactured surplus, and intimated his intention of proving this assertion when the debate on the financial statement came on.

It now being nearly one o’clock, there were cries of “ Adjourn,” but it was decided to go on. Mr Reid then addressed the House, after which there was another cry for adjournment.

Hon Major Atkinson desired to pass the clause.

Mr Montgomery hoped members would be allowed time to express their views. Mr Pyke said the member had already had two months, and if in all the talk which had taken place members had not expressed their views yet, they would not do it in two centuries.

Mr Murray then addressed the House for nearly an hour.

At two o’clock the House divided on Mr Reeves’ motion, the result being— Ayes 14 Noes ... ... ... ... 31

An amendment proposed by Mr WOOD, to the effect that the land fund shall be appropriated annually by the Parliament of the colony in such a manner and for such purposes as it may think fit, was negatived ; also another amendment proposed by Mr Montgomery, that at the end of the first sub section should bo added a proviso to the effect that “ interest and sinking fund on the colonial railways shall not be included.”

A division was taken on Mr Montgomery’s amendment, which was lost by 30 to 12. A further amendment proposed by Mr Murray amidst loud cries of “ question,” was negatived on the voices. The clause was subsequently passed, and the House adjourned at 3.12 a.m.

Division list on the motion of Mr Montgomery : Ayes (30) —Messrs Andrew, Atkinson, Basstian, Sir D. Bell, Messrs Bowen, Cuthbertson (teller), Gibbs, Harrison, Hunter, Ingles, Johnston, Kateue, Luckie, May, McGlashan, Sir D. McLean, Messrs G. McLean, Mervyn, Parata, Pearce, Pyke, Reynolds, Richardson, J. Shephard, Stafford, Steward, Tribe, Wakefield, Wales (teller), Webb. Noes (12) —Messrs Bradshaw, Dignan, Sir G. Grey, Messrs Macandrew, Montgomery (teller), Murray (teller), Reeves, Reid, Rolleston, Swanson, Thomson, Yon der Heyde. The following was the division list on Mr Reeves’s amendment:— Noes (31) —Messrs Andrew, Atkinson, Basstian, Sir D. Bell, Messrs Bowen, Cuthbertson, Gibbs, Harrison, Hunter, Ingles, Johnston, Katene, Luckie, May (teller), McGlashan, Sir D. McLean (Napier), Messrs G. McLean (Waikouaiti), Mervyn, Parata, Pearce, Pyke (teller), Reynolds, Richardson, J. Shephard, T. L, Shepherd, Stafford, Steward, Tribe, Wakefield, Webb, Williams. Ayes (14) —Messrs Bradshaw, J. B. Brown (Ashley), Dignan, Sir G. Grey, Messrs Macandrew, Montgomery, Murray, Reeves (teller), Reid, Rolleston, Swanson, Thomson, Yon der Hyde, and Wood. Wednesday, September 22, The Speaker took the chair at 2.30. notice. Sir George Grey gave notice of his intention to introduce a Bill to repeal the gold duties Acts. QUESTIONS. (1) Mr Rolleston asked the Government whether they had any further information than has already been laid before this House in reference to the charge of venality brought by Sir J. Vogel against the immigration officers acting under the Board of Trade, as referred to in Lord Carnarvon’s despatch of the 20th October, 1874. [Parliamentary paper A2, page 10.] Also, whether the names of the officers, and the grounds and authority upon which the charge was founded have been furnished, as requested in that despatch, and whether the charge has been substantiated or withdrawn.

(2) Mr J. E. Brown asked the Minister for Public Works, if he had any objection to lay before this House the petition of 200 and more residents of Oxford, asking for an extension of the Rangiora and Oxford railway, a distance of four miles.

(S) Mr J. B. Brown asked the Minister for Public Works when the railway will be opened to Balcairn and Amberley respectively. (4) Mr Basstian asked the Minister for Public Works when the section of the railway from Wintou to Elbow, on the Bluff and Kingston railway, will be open for traffic. (5) Mr O’Neill asked the Commissioner of Customs whether Government will have any objection to lay before the House any papers iu connection with the investigation of the collision of the barque Jane Spiers and schooner Young Dick. (6) Mr MURRAY asked what will be the total amount of honorarium which Sir J. Vogel has ordered to be paid to Messrs Julyan and Sargeant for the negotiation of the £4,000,000 loan. In answer Government said—

(I) There was no further information in the hands of the Government beyond the dispatch to the Governor covering a letter from Sir J. Vogel, in answer to one from Lord Carnarvon. Sir J. Vogel had in his possession all the papers relating to the matter which must stand over until his return, when he would, iu accordance with his promise, either substantiate the charges he made or withdraw them.

(8) The line would be ready for opening as far as Balcairn in a fortnight, and the provincial authorities had intimated their intention to work the line about the. middle ol October. He could give no definite answer as to when the line would be open to Amberley. It was simply a question of a few hundred sleepers or more, which were rather difficult to get. But no unnecessary delay would be allowed to take place. (4) One section of the line would be open as soon as locomotive power was available, but it would be six months before it would be open to Elbow. (5) Papers would be laid on the table when received.

(6) The amount paid was £3333 Gs Bd. It appears to have been the custom, which, he believed, was initiated by the member for the Hutt, though the records are not very clear about it, to give the Crown agents an honorarium for the extra trouble in raising the loan at the rate of Is and the eighth of a penny per cent. FIRST READINGS. The following Bills were read a first time: —Bill to provide for Education and the Management of certain reserves in the town of Onohunga ; Immigration and Public Works Appropriation Bill ; Public Debts Sinking Funds Act Amendment Bill. This latter Bill makes the Public Trustee one of the Public Debts Commissioners. ABOLITION BILL. Before going into committee on the Abolition Bill, Sir G. Grey said the responsibility of the measure must rest on the Government, but the Opposition would do everything in their power to pass it through without delay. He hoped the Bill would pass through by Thursday, and that Friday would be given up to private members’ business, and that hereafter Wednesdays and Thursdays would be similarly devoted.

Sir D. McLean replied that Friday and Monday next could be taken for private business; but Government could not pledge themselves to give up two days a week afterwards. They would give members c*v ( ry reasonable opportunity of passing ih i r business through. IN COMMITTEE. In Committee on the Abolition Bill, on clause 17, Mr George McLean moved, after the word, “ and raised,” in line 3, page 6, the insertion of “ to advance,” and at the end of the clause, the following :—“ From the consolidated fund as a loan to such district.” Mr Rolleston condemned the clause as the most Vicious in the Bill, and intimated his intention of dividing the committee, if his was the only voice in the negative. Hon Major Atkinson said he could not accept the amendment. Government would not issue Treasury Bills if anything would be taken from the consolidated revenue. Last year they had authority to raise £BO,OOO by Treasury Bills by way of advance, but had not exercised that power. Still there might be a falling off, and if the House sanctioned the scheme, the Government should be given the power of carrying it out. Mr Fitzuerbert said they were in reality now going to discount the land revenue of the colony year by year. If this power was to be exercised, surely it ought only to be exceptional when the land revenue fell off, but they were providing yearly for a permanent diminution of the land fund.

Hon Major Atkinson was agreeable to amend the clause by making it provide that not more than £IOO,OOO shall be in circulation at one time.

Mr Montgomery objected to the clause and amendment, because he thought that in the province of Auckland theregwould be no probability of funds being available to take up the treasury bills at the end of the two years. The Treasurer said he repeated that he believed the land fund of Auckland would be sufficient, but if not they must take it out of the consolidated fund.

The clause as amended was passed. On clause 18, the Treasurer moved an unimportant amendment, which was agreed to. Mr Macandrew moved an amendment, and supported the same by warning those who were passing these sweeping changes. The Provincial Governments had executed public works, such as roads and bridges, &c, which were not within the compass of the action of Road Boards, Out of the £230,000 spent in the province of Otago, not more than £IO,OOO had been spent in the city of Dunedin. The hon member believed that no real local Government would emanate from this House. It must colne from the Provincial Councils.

Sir F. D. Bell said he could not support the clause, and would support Mr Macandrew’s amendment. His principal objection was that the clause, as it at present stands, is in contravention of what the late Prime Minister said last year, viz., that the land should be absolutely devoted to the purposes within the district in which it might be raised.

Mr J. E, Brown (Ashley) objected to charging immigration against the Provincial districts, and moved an amendment to that effect.

Hon Major Atkinson said it was clear that the laud fund should be applied to the introduction of immigrants. Government would not accept either amendment in any shape or form. Although Government, in view of the Act passing this session, had agreed that Boards of Works should be established, yet in view of the postponement of the matter, he absolutely declined to do that, or in any way med die with the clause in that direction. For a couple of sessions the Bill must be of tentative character, Until that time had passed the system of colonial finance and administration could not be thoroughly established, and such a thing as formality could not be anticipated. Mr Stafford commented on the fact that the early system of finance, that expenditure for immigration, and public works in the various districts should be borne by the land funds of respective districts, would be unfair, because of the inequality of laud funds. He supported the clause as it stood. The amendment of the member for Port Chalmers was of a fundamental character, and he had no hesitation in saying, if such an amendment was carried, he would be prepared to vote that the Bill should go no further, for it would introduce a custom of the very worst kind of centralism. As for the representatives of the various Assembly electorates being constituted Boards of Works, it was simply absurd. The greatest influence would bo exercised by the representatives of the capital towns and the outlying districts would be altogether ignored. With eighteen members coming from one district, and twenty from another, each with different demands and ready to assist each other in in obtaining their demand, no Government could withstand the pressure that would be put upon it. Why was it contemplated to make these Boards political bodies? [Mr Macandkew —It is not.] Were not members of that House politicians? It would be the old story over again, “ Your money or your life.” He was perfectly surprised to see the hon member put his ideas in such a shape. Mr M'Gilliveay opposed the amendment. Boards of works would be useful, but should be the outcome of local governing bodies, and be an adjunct lo them. Mr Reid considered if they continued Provincial Councils divested of political functions, upon which he placed little value himself, there could not be found a better body to deal with the surplus of the land fund. Canterbury or Wellington had no right to deal with the disposition of the residue of Otago’s land fund, and vice versa. One Board was sufficient for a provincial district.

Mr Shepherd opposed bolh amendments. Mr Montgomery supported Mr Macandrew’s amendment, and that of Mr Brown to relieve the provincial districts of the charge of immigration. The Boards of Works contemplated by Mr Macaudrew’s amendment should be created in every provincial district, and he moved accordingly. Mr Macandrew accepted the addition suggested by the member for Akaroa, Mr Rolleston said from the tone of the debate it was plain neither the Government nor the House knew whither they were travelling. Although the Government might by its large majority force the House to carry out its will, he was convinced that Provincial Institutions would come up again in some form or other, and flourish stronger than ever.

Hon C. C. Bowen defended the principle of charging immigration upon the land funds. Mr Sheehan wanted to know if the Gover nont intended to carry through their Lo a: Government Bill. If not, he would support the amendment of the member for Port Chalmers. Hon Major Atkinson said the Government intended to go on with the Local Government Bill, but did not think it probable it would pass through this session. The debate was interrupted by the dinner hour. On the House reassembling at 7.30, Hon Major Atkinson said, as the feeling of the House seemed to be strong in favor of Mr Brown’s amendment, the Government would accept it. The following were the various amendments to clause 18 ; Mr Macandsew’s— “ Provided that the residue of the land fund arising within the Otago provincial district, after defraying the charges as set forth in section 16 of this Act, shall be paid monthly to the account of the Board of Works of the said provincial district, to be constituted by an Act of the General Assembly (or in a manner hereinafter provided), and such residue of the land fund shall be subjected to appropriations by the said Board of Works for the construction and maintenance of the public works within the said provincial district, provided always that until an Act of the Assembly has been passed to constitute the Board of Works as aforesaid, the members of the Assembly representing the several electoral districts in the Otago provincial district shall be and they are hereby constituted a Board of Works for the said provincial district, and all powers, duties, and functions, which immediately before the date of abolition hereunder of the said province of Otago were, under or by virtue of any Act or Ordinance, vested in the Superintendent of the said province (excepting those referring to education) shall on the day of date of abolition of the said province vest in and be exercised and performed by the chairman of the Board of Works of the said provincial district ” The Government proposal was to strike out sub-section 2, and insert the new clause “ The other part shall be applied by the local governing bodies for the construction and maintenance of public works within such district in the provincial district, in such a manner as shall hereafter be provided by any Act of the General Assembly constituting local Government bodies within such district.” Mr Brown's amendment is as follows : “The residue of the land revenue arising within each provincial district, after the deduction of the aforesaid, shall be applied by the local governing bodies in the construction and maintenance of public works within the provincial district in such manner as shall hereafter be provided by any Act of the Assembly constituting local governing bodies within such district.”