GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 424, 21 October 1875, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Electric Telegraph. {From a correspondent of the Press.) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, October 19. The Council sat in the evening. IN COMMITTEE. In committee on the Disqualification Act, the Speaker felt it his duty to take the same course with this as he had with the former Bills, and he moved progress be reported. It would not matter if he happened to be in the minority, beeausre he should have some satisfaction in the conviction that in future years the records of Parliament would bear testimony that the Speaker of the Council had strenuously opposed the passage of the Bill in the manner now proposed. Hon Mr Waterhouse hoped the motion would not be carried, inasmuch as the Bill was of considerable importance, and was a great improvement on the existing Act. The Speaker adhered to his resolution. He had not an opportunity of reading the Bill, and that such should be the case he looked on as a great indignity. After a good deal of discussion, it was agreed to postpone its consideration till next day. For the same reasons the Speaker unsuccessfully moved that progress should be reported on several other Bills. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, October 19. The House resumed at 7.30. committee op supply. On the motion to go into Committee of Supply, Mr O'Rorke moved that a gratuity of .£6OO be granted to the widow of the late Mr Williamson. He said about £6OO was required to provide her with an annual income. Sir D. McLean in a speech in which he eulogised the late Mr Williamson, supported the motion, whieh was agreed to. Mr Fitzherbert spoke generally upon the question of the financial position of the colony, and said had he not felt it his duty he would not have troubled the House on the present occasion, because of ill health. He had been debarred from doing it before, owing to the very engrossing subjects before the House, and because the report of the committee on the public accounts had not been presented. He then referred to the state of the colony, and said there was a total charge of twenty millions, and an annual charge of a million, to pay to the outside creditors, while there was only a population of three hundred thousand. A million was a large sum to go out of the colony to foreign creditors, and he compared our position with that of Turkey, which had to pay twelve millions a year to outside creditors, and had been negotiating its loans by contract. The opinion of the credit of Turkey was not favorable, but Turkey would not be more deeply indebted than New Zealand if it had to pay eighty millions per year for interest. He mentioned that to induce the House to appreciate the position of the colony. It had been said that to state facts was to impair the credit of the colony, but he objected to that, tor he believed the proper way to maintain the credit of the colony was to expose, in all its nakedness, the real position of the colony. Sir Julius Vogel last year deceived Parliament, and the House had a right to complain, for he had then said in effect that he had not required £4,000,000, but merely wished authority to borrow in case he could sell debentures at a large profit, and place the country above the exigencies of the money market. The present Treasurer now told the House that every £IOO bond was sold at £9O 19s 7d, although the net price was less. The price realised was £9O 10s ; and|how did suchja sale tally with the promises of the late Colonial Treasurer. Had the Treasurer told the House the real facts the House would not have accorded the authority it did. Again the late Colonial Treasurer had said he was going to provide for a long time to come, but how was that reconciled with the fact that a premium of 5 per cent was given to pay up prompt, although he was investing the money at a loss. There was another proof that ,the House had been deceived, viz, the money was urgently needed for the present, instead of being required for the future. He quoted from the evidence given by the Colonial Treasurer before the public accounts committee, in pi oof of the pressing need of money ; for of the four millions, only one remained, and that was loaded to a great extent He then referred to the statement made by the Treasurer last year, that there had been nearly two millions of the loan to be raised, and said, when negotiating the four million loan, he had not said anything about that to the house he was negotiating with. He read a portion of the evidence given by Hon Mr Waterhouse before the Committee on public accountp, in support of his assertion. The evidence contained details of a conversation between Messrs Waterhouse, Westgarth, Rothschild, and Sir J. P. Julyan, and in which all had professed ignorance of any such power to borrow, and all had agreed that a new loan within two years would damn the credit of the colony. A promise had been given, but this year the Treasurer proposed to break the promise by issuing the remnants of some of the loans. Hon Major Atkinson said the Government made no such promise. They had carefully abstained from making such a promise.

Mr Fitzhekbbbt said the statements of Messrs Kothschild and VVestgarth were at variance with that of the Treasurer, but if the House would look into the details of the evidence given by the witness before the committee they could judge for themselves on the matter. He believed the credit of the colony had been irreparably damaged by the manner in which this forced loan had been negotiated or rather foisted on the market. It could have been negotiated much better by the loan agents, who would have issued it in two parts, and not in the manner in which it had been done. If two millions had been issued ninety-four would have been realised, and the colony, by the use of this, would have gained breathing

time before it agaiu went into the market. He then referred to matters of administration, and said the late Finance Minister had been guilty of negligence in allowing over two millions to be spent by the AgentGeneral, without ,iny safeguard. Regarding their present position, he said, assuming the balances brought out by the Colonial Treasurer, in his financial statement, to be correct, he should like for a short time to look at the general bearing of their position, for the country was now entering the beginning of the end of an era. He complained that there was no looking forward to the future, and said there was a great change in the proposed finance of the colony from the ideas promulgated before the constitutional changes were brought before the House. There ought to have been some indication as to the incidence of future taxation, an indication as to how the revenue was to be raised in cases of deficiencies, which seemed imminent. This was a serious omission, and he hoped to see it supplied, Hon Major Atkinson, after complimenting the speaker on the speech, because it had been so fair and reasonable, said he thought his statement not well founded, though he should not accuse him of deceiving the House Any hon gentleman who had taken the slightest notice of the finance last session, must have known that nearly the whole of the four millions were required, and the member for Hutt must have known that the whole of the money previously raised had been spent, and that the four millions were required immediately. II was clear from the very speech quoted by the hon member that the whole financial position of the colony was put before the House, and the charge of deception must fall to the ground. Last year, with an empty exchequer, Government proposed to spend two aud a half million on public works, so that it must have been known that nearly the whole of the four millions must necessarily have been raised. The money had been raised most advantageously ; for supposing, as was probable at the time, a European war had broken out, what would the country have had to pay for the money if raised in two instalments. As matters had turned out, it appeared that the money would have been raised more cheaply, but it would not have been wise or prudent to run a risk for the sake of a little interest. As for the 5 per cent, that was part of the original scheme, and not an after thought, as had been attempted to be shown, though he admitted there were several charges not included in his estimate of the cost of the loan. It was true that it was proper to state the exact position of the colony, but it was a crime for hon gentlemen to get up and for party purposes distort facts One hon gentleman occupying a high position in the colony had got up and accused him of gross carelessness for not having included £400,000 Treasury bills in the funded debt; but when his error was pointed out, what was his excuse, that he had not had time to look at the papers. He had been in such a hurry to accuse the Government of a great deal more than carelessness, that he could not look at the papers. It was such statements as these —not honest criticisms —that damaged the credit of the colony, and it was such statements as these that every one should discourage. He regretted that statements of third parties should be taken before the direct statements, for he was perfectly certain that Messrs Rothcbild could not be ignorant of the state of the colonial affairs, and he was equally certain that Sir J. Vogel was not the man to deceive the firm. He could not believe statements of third parties. Mr Fitzherbert said the communication to Mr Waterhouse had been an authorised communication.

Hon Maior Atkinson still preferred direct statements to " authorised statements" from third parties. He denied that the estimates of income were too high, and did not believe there would be deficiencies. He then proceeded to make a statement of the financial proposals of the Government additional to the financial statement, remarking that it was necessary for them to do so in consequence of the House having declined to entirely abolish the provinces this session. Provincial services were not now provided for. They were omitted, and the total expenditure proposed now was £2,103,664. Government had proposed to spend £BO,OOO in subsidies, and £60,000 in local Government works. Now they proposed to spend £80,060 only, and in this way it had been proposed to give Koad Boards £2 for every £1 raised, and £1 to municipalities for every pound raised. Now they proposed to give municipalities one-thiid of a pound per pound, and Road Boards one-third of £2 for every £2 raised, or 13s 4d, and £BO,OOO was the total amount of the vote Government proposed to take. Government would lose revenue, but expected to have a surplus of £127,000. The estimates, however, did not include the supplementary estimates, so that there would have to be added something like £IO,OOO or £12,000. £92,000 also had to be provided for Auckland and Westland, and this, with £48,000 which the provinces were entitled to under the Advances to Provinces Act, would leave him unable, even if the revenue resulted as estimated, to meet the expenditure without issuing Treasury bills. The extra expenditure would be £140.000, while the surplus would be but £127,000 to meet this. He would employ the consolidated revenue as much as possible, and would only issue Treasury bills where necessary. Sir G. Grey also spoke, after which the House went into committee, and the supplementary estimates were passed, and at 3.35 a.m. the House adjourned. [Per Press Agency.] Wednesday, October 20. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE. Mr Stafford brought up the public accounts committee's report, which recommended that notice should be given to determine the present agreement with the Bank of New Zealand, and that tenders should be invited from all the banks in the colony to take the colonial account. With respect to Mr Bridges' evidence the committee reported that his imputations and inferences are absolutely unwarranted and without foundation. [Applause.] Mr Bujsny moved the adoption of the report, which was strongly supported by Sir Donald McLean, Mr Stafford, Sir G. Grey, and other members. The motion concurring in the report was adopted and ordered to be communicated by the Speaker to Sir J. Vogel.

The Appropriation Bill passed through all its stages, and the House adjourned at 4 p.m. till 2.30 next day, the prorogation taking place at three,

Sir D. Bell to-night announces his retirement from the chair and political lite.

In the Legislative Council, a motion was carried that the Council regrets the officers of the Council had not been placed on a footing of equality with the officers of House of Representatives. With reference to the Dunedin Extension Borrowing Powers, the conference recommended that the amend ments be waived, and that there be added to clause 3 that a hundred thousand be spent on drainage only. The report of the manager was adopted. The Appropriation Act and Immigration and Public Works Appriation Bill were read a third time and passed. The Disqualification Act Amondraen* Bill and Representation Bill have passed.

There was some warm talk both in the Council and in the House. Yesterday, in the House, *ir G. Grey uttered the wildest statements, at which Major Atkinson laughed immoderately. This fairly incensed Sir G. Grey, who savagely attacked Ministers. Hon Major Atkinson replied that such extravagant statements, if true, should put Ministers on the roads, and only deserved to be received with laughter, and he would always laugh when Sir G. Grey made them. Mr Montgomery, continuing to press Major Atkinson for information, which in one shape or other had been previously given, the latter said the member for Akaroa must frame the answer for himself, when Mr Montgomery accused him of impertinence, Hon Major Atkinson then refused to give Mr Montgomery any further information. Before the committee finished its sittings Mr George McLean complimented the Trea surer on the admirable statements he had made during the session, the like of which would never have been received from Sir J Vogel, who rather desired to keep people in the dark as to the accounts of the colony. Hon Mr Reynolds replied that great injustice was done to Sir J. Vogel, who on all occasions gave the fullest information. It was not right for the hon member, in Sir J. Vogel'B absence, to make such statements. Mr McLean repeated it, and considered him self perfectly justified in doing so. In the Council, Hon Mr Waterhouse approved of the Bill generally, but objected to the control which had been exercised on the financial agents at home. Hon Mr Holmes spoke highly of Dr Featherstoue, and the reverse of Sir J. Vogel. It was as plain as noonday to his mind that, had Sir Julius Vogel been alone in negotiating the loan, it would undoubtedly have gone into the hands of Messrs Rothschild at 88. Hon Dr Pollen thought Mr Holmes would at some future time be of opinion that he had said more than he ought to have said. Nothing could be more unfair, more unjust, and with less of truth, than the insinuation he had made regarding Sir Julius Vogel. He absolutely and entirely repudiated the statement, which was utterly unworthy of a gentleman holding the position of Mr Holmes. [Hon Mr Holmes: "I have documents to back me-up."] Hon Dr Pollen said that there were no documents that would support such an assertion for one single moment, and he was sorry his hon friend had spoken so of an absent man. MR BRIDGES'EVIDENCE BEFORE THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE. [By Electric Telegraph.] (From a correspondent of the Press.) The Chairman—You are aware that the House of Representatives have ordered this committee to continue the inquiry in the line of examination on which you were examined before. This being a new examination, it is necessary that you be sworn. Witness —Before you proceed with my examination, I should like to say that recently, when 1 saw the direction in which the inquiry was tending, I thought it necessary to decline to answer questions which would render me liable to a lawsuit. Now, however, I am quite willing to answer any questions you may put Jto me which are within my knowledge. IJalso wish to point out that there are errors in the printed report of my examination on the 6th of October, and I wish to take objection to the evidence that was given by me on that occasion, having been printed without being first submitted to me. They are simple errors, and do not affect the evideuce at all. I desire to be allowed to correct my answer to question No 618, by adding the words "or words to that effect." To my observation that I had heard Mr Bathgate say that he would not consent to the price, I also wish to be allowed to explain my answer to question No 642, by saying that I did not intend to imply that Mr Bathgate had been subjected to any personal pressure upon himself ; I think the printed evidence is calculated to mislead in that respect. The Chairman—The committee will proceed with the examination. Have you read the Act which has been just passed, by which you are fully protected for the evidence you will give before this committee. Answer —I have.

Question —Now, Mr Bridges, the committee will expect you to make a full statement of the grounds on which you gave evidence before the committee on the previous occasion to the effect that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government by the Bank in the purchase of the Port Chalmers railway, and they will hear any statement that you may make in the first instance ? Answer—The opinion was founded on a variety of circumstances, some of which I find were not facts, as I stated to the House.

Question —But what were the grounds upon which you made the statement 1 You must tell us what it was that led you to make the statement 1 Answer —I say it was a floating opinion from a variety of circumstances. Question —What were the circumstances? Answer —If you will ask me any particular question as to upon what the opinion was founded, I am prepared to answer it. Question —It is for you to inform the committee what the circumstances were.

Answer —I am advised by my counsel that the Act passed is not full, and that if I say anything that may be construed into malice, I am not protected, and I should not be protected in the Supreme Court, therefore I suggest that you should question me. I had no positive knowledge of the fact. The opinion was founded as I said before upon circumstances which I find were not correct, the chief fact being that it was not the Bank but the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. I also received a communication from a member of the House that I was under a mistake, and that the pressure had not been put by the Bank, but by the Superintendent of the province. Mr J. Shephard—Would you name that member.

Answer—Mr Luckie. The Hon Major Atkinson—You say you were informed that the pressure had been used by the Superintendent—which Superintendent? Answer—Mr Macandrew, 'the Superintcntendent of Otago. The chairman—l must recall your attention to this, that you must inform the com mittee what the circumstances were that made you give the original evidence. Answer —I can only state a variety of circumstances. Question —What were those circumstances? It is my duty to inform you that the House has decided that those circumstances must be fully disclosed, and the Legislature has now given you the same protection that you would have in a court of law. A court of law would compel you to give nnswer to such questions, and you must give the answers here. You must tell the committee fully what the circumstances were that led you to make the statement 1 Answer—lt will be a long statement that I must make. I shall have to call yonr attention to variety of matters. The first of these is that there is a company called the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company which is affiliated to the Bank of New Zealand, and so closely allied to it in the colony that the directors of the company are also directors of the Bank and the company is managed by the manager of the Bank in London, and by the chief manager of the Bank in the colony. The operations in the colony are often of a very mixed character, partly done by the Bank and partly by the Loan Company, and in consequence I have been in the habit of looking upon them as one concern. I have already stated what I heard Mr Bathgate say. In January, 1873, I went to England where I was in frequent communication with Mr Larkworthy, who is the manager of both the Bank and the company in London. I heard him speak of the Port Chalmers railway, and it was he who first gave a strong impression that pressure had been put upon the Government by saying that it had been an advantageous operation altogether, and by expressing his desire for more such operations. I think that is all I have to say. Question—But, Mr Bridges, you must tell the committee what the " circumstances" were to which you were referring when you said that certain circumstances had come to your knowledge in confidence while you were manager of the Bank. Answer—l concluded that pressure must have been put on the Government, or the price would not have been given, having heard that that price was generally considered excessive. I also have an impression that I have heard (though it is only hearsay) that the previous Ministry had determined that they would not give more than a certain price.

Question —Well, what were those circumstances 1

Answer —I do not quite understand you. Question—So far, it appears that the two institutions are to be taken together, instead of the bank alone as having put pressure on the Government. Now, I again ask you what the circumstances were under which pressure was put on the Government ?

Answer—The circumstances by which I came to my opinion are these. I heard Mr Bathgate make certain statements. I heard Mr Larkworthy say it was a very good operation, and he left the impression on my mind that it was a very profitable operation indeed. I felt very little interest in the matter, and I do not remember putting any questions to Mr Larkworthy respecting it. I also heard that the Ministry determined to have given (?) These are sufficient circumstances to prove that pressure had been put on the Government. Question —Then are the committee to understand that it was from this conversation that you had with Mr Bathgate that you were ied to make imputations such as those which are contained in your previous evidence ?

Answer—l had no intention of making imputations. If you remember, I requested you to let me withdraw or modify that answer, stating that it wus a hasty one. Question —Are the committee then to understand by your present evidence that it was not your intention to cast any imputation upon anybody ? Answer—Yes.

Question —And are the committee to understand that you have no other information to give on the purchase of the Port Chalmers railway ? Answer —I have no other information to give on the advice of my counsel. I have no information to give, but I am prepared to answer questions as to facts within my knowledge. My counsel says the Act does not protect me. Hon Major Atkinson —Then you have information to give ? Answer—l do not]know that I have any information to give. The Chairman —I will ask you again. Are there any circumstances whatever which as a matter of fact came to your knowledge in a confidential way ? Are there any accounts, books, or papers, or any officers of the Bank or otherwise, with respect to which you are able to give any information whatever to the committee ? Answer —As a matter of fact I do not know. | Witness was here requested to withdraw while the committee deliberated, and the usual hour for adjournment having arrived, he was not recalled, but was ordered to attend at half-past 11 next day.]

The Chairman —Mr Bridges, in your evidence on Friday, you stated that up to the time you left the Bank of New Zealand Sir Julius Vogel's accounts were nearly always overdrawn. Answer —Yes.

Question —The committee desires to ask whether you are aware that that account was ever exceptionally treated by the Bank ? Answer—Yes. Exceptionally treated in this way. That the account was allowed to be overdrawn in Wellington up to a certain amount —I think it was £2oo—and then it was transferred to Auckland by his own cheque on the Bank of New Zealand. Question —Which, in fact, wiped off the overdraft from the Wellington accounts ? Answer —Yes.

Question —Do you know whether that cheque which extinguished the overdraft at Wellington was placed to the debit of his account in Auckland ? Answer—l do not know within my own personal knowledge. Question —That question has been put to you at the request of the committee generally ; and the committee also desire to know how you connect the fact of the overdraft in Sir Julius Vogel's account with the purchase of the Port Chalmers railway ?

Answer- The accommodation granted by the Bank was so excessive that the Bank would have great power over him. Question —You have stated £2OO •'>« the amount of the overdraft he was allowed in Wellington ?

Answer —Yes. Question —Do you call lhat an excessive amount of accommodation ?

Answer —No; that was a frequent occurrence. I mean the transfer of his account to Auckland.

Question —This operation of transferring his account when the overdraft reached £2OO was an occurrence that took place frequently ? Answer— Yes.

Mr T. Shepherd—You know nothing of the state of Sir Julius Vogel's account in Auckland ? Answer—No. Question—Nor did you at the time you were manager?

Answer—No. Question—At what intervals was this overdraft cancelled in this way ? Answer —At irregular intervals. I cannot trust ray memory to make any answer to that question ; they were very frequent. Question —Four or five times a year ? Answer—l should say much more than that; but I really cannot tax my memory. The Chairman —You stated when you were last here that you wished to give some further evidence with respect to Mr Batkins' memo. Before you do that I wish to ask you some questions in elucidation of the evidence you have given in reference to the gpneral banking arrangements. In question 495 you state that the course pur ued in Victoria of employing the Associated Banks worked well. How would you propose to make the receipts and payments to the different accounts in New Zealand? Are there any such separate accounts kept in Victoria, and any such payments made there?

Answer —I believe so. I was in Melbourne on my way to tins colony in September. 1874, and I consulted two of the Bank managers there on the subject. I a-ked them whether there would be any difficulty in the matter, and they said " No." I asked Mr Curtain, the manager of the Union Bank of Australia, how it was done, and he said, " Easily enough; there is no difficulty in the matter." Something called away his attention, and I did not get particulars, but I believe the difficulty pointed out by Mr Batkin is visionary.

Question —Do you know whether the Government of Victoria has any local paymasters ? Answer—l don't.

Question—Did those Bank officers whom you conferred with in Melbourne know, or were they aware, of the accounts kept by the New Zealand Government when they gave you their opinion ? Answer —No; 1 should think not. Question —You do not know anything about the matter yourself 1 Answer —No.

Question —In answer to question 522, you said that you knew the London Bank rate for fixed deposits for twelve months varied from 4to 5 per cent? What London Banks were you referring to ? Were you referring to the Colonial Banks having offices in Loudon or English Banks. Answer —English, Colonial, and Indian Banks.

Question—Name some of those that gave 4 or 5 per cent ?

Answer—All the London Banks give 3£ to 4 per cent. The London and Westminster, and Union of London, give from 4to 5. It is a matter of advertisement that they give 5 per cent for deposits for twelve months.' Question—Did the National Bank of New Zealand offer to take any part of the loan. How did they obtain it Answer —By tendering, I suppose. Question —To your knowledge they did not make any offer to the loan agents to place auy of the loan ? Answer—l am not aware that they did. Question —You never heard that it was their intention to make an offer. Answer —No.

Question —You state in answer to question 554, that you could prove that the Bank of New Zealand put pressure on the colony.

Answer —Yes, there are so many cases within my knowledge of persons being pressed, that it could be proved. There is no doubt in the mind of any bankers on the subject. Question—But the committee wishes to have your own knowledge, not what you may think was in the mind of any banker.

Answer—l have heard many persons mentioned whose names I do not remember, upon whom pressure has been put by the manager, who stated they must have money.

The Chairman—Mr Bridges, in your original examination you said, at different time, that pressure had been exerted by the Bank upon the Government. The term pressure, in reference to any action taken by a bank, has a well understood meaning among all persons acquainted with banking transactions?

Answer—Yes, I suppose so. It is generally understood.

Question—ln fact it means that any arrangement which may exist as to overdrafts or accommodation generally will not be continued to the same extent at all events.

Answer—Yes ; that is the usual mercantile acceptation of the term. Question—Then when you said that, you did not mean that political pressure had been exerted by the Bank in the instance you mentioned, but simply that pressure had been exerted—you meant pressure in the ordinary sense ? Answer—Pressure may be described in other ways.

Question—What is the other way ? Answer —Yes, I mean the ordinary way. Question—Well, at the the time the purchase of the Port Chalmers railway was completed the following persons were mem bers of the Ministry—Sir Julius Vogel. Sir Donald McLean, Mr Bathgate, Mr O'Rorke. Mr Reynolds, and Dr Pollen. To which of those gentlemen did you mean to refer as upon whom the pressure had been exerted ? Auswer—That is a matter of opinion.

Question—Was it Sir Julius Vogel ? Answer —I do not know that Sir JuliusVogel had any accommodation from the Bank at the time.

Question —I am not asking you about thp express amount of accommodation, but abou' the word pressure. The iniiuence, in fact, which you designated by the term pressure. Do you think it was exerted on him 1 Answer—l have said that I have no knowledge that any member of the Government had an overdraft. At that time 1 was, iu England.

Question—The word overdralt has not been mentioned ! Answer —Well, advance or accommodation. Question —Did you mean Sir J. Vogel as one (if the members of the Government when yon slid < hat pressure had been exerted? Answer—l do not think lam permitted to answer that question, because I do not know know it as a fact that he had aay accommodation or advance. Question—As a matter of opinion was he in your mind wheu you used the term ? Answer—l am advised by my counsel that I must say nothing as a matter of opiuion ; it must be as matter of fact. Question —You have, distinctly stated that you believed pressure was exercised by the Bank on the Government ?

Answer—l have requested my counsel to give me his opinion in writing, which shows my course quite clearly. I will lay it before the committee.

Question —I do not think the committee have any right to see the advice you got from your counsel at all. The duty of the committee is to get from you the grounds on which you stated previously that pressure had been exercised by the Bank upon the Government ?

Answer—Yes. But unless those grounds are facts, I am prohibited by law from answering those questions. I can give no opinions, or lam liable to be criminally prosecuted as showing malice, or what might be construed into malice. Question —Did you refer to Sir Julius Vogel when you said that pressure had been put upon the Government ? Answer—l have said that my opinion was from a number of inferences. Ido not think I can answer lhat question Question—Do you refuse to answer ? Answer—Yes. I refuse to answer that question. Question—Was [Sir Julius Vogel involved in those inferences ? That is not criminating yourself in any way. Answer—Yes Question —Were the other members of the Ministry (naming them) ? Answer —No. Question —How was Sir Julius Vogel involved in those inferences ? Answer—From the fact that up to the time of my leaving Wellington for England Sir Julius Vogel's account was nearly always overdrawn at the Bank. Question —Then you think that any man who had an overdrawn account is subject to this inference ? Answer—Yes. Question —You have statec' more than once that your answer would extend beyond the Bank. To whom would it extend beyond the Bank ? Answer—To Sir Julius Vogel. Question—Sir Julius Vogel was then a member of the Government, and outside the Bank. Your answer would extend to some third parties ? Answer —No; I have been misapprehended. Question —Have you since your last arrival in tha colony said to any person that you would or could make such revelations of the doiDgs of the Bank of New Zealand or the Loan Agency Company as would make the Bank of New Zealand glad to give your Bank a share of the public account, or words to that effect ? Answer—No, I have not said words to that effect. That is incorrect. As regards the the last portion certainly not. Question —That is the portion which refers to getting a share of the Government account ? Answer—Yes. Question —Then you have talked about making revelations ? Answer I have no recollection of that. What I have said is to this effect—that if it was known what I knew the Bank would lose the Government account. It was to that effect, but not as you put it. Question —To whom did you state that? Answer—l mentioned it to several. Question —Can you name any one ? Answer —No. Question —Then will you state what the revelations are that you meant ? Answer—l have done so. Question —The committee is to understand, then, that the statements you have made heretofore in your evidence what you meant by the term as used by you in private conversation. Answer —Yes. Question —With reference to the statements which you made that pressure had been exercised by the Bank of New Zealand, is it not a fact, speaking of the private customers of the Bank, that pressure has been put within the last twelve or eighteen months by mere than one Bank on individuals. Answer—Yes. Question —By the Bank which you are managing, for instance ? Has it not been found necessary to put pressure on an individual in that Bank ? Answer—Yes ; it is a matter of every day occurrence. If our overdraft is found to be too large it is required to be reduced. Question —In answer to a previous question with xeference to the transactions with the Weld Ministry, you said—" Mr Russell said to me that they would not make the advance to the Weld Ministry at all." I understand that remark to have been made by Mr Russell to yourself, not in the presence of the Board but in private conversation. However, there seems to be some difference of opinion about it; perhaps you will state how it was ? Answer—l forget. Most likely I was alone with Mr Russell at the time. I have little doubt it was said to me alone. I should like before the committee releases me from attendance to call attention to the fallacies and misstatements contained in the memorandum of Mr Batkin with reference to my evidence: Question —You mean with reference to the general banking arrangements ? Answer—Yes. The Chairman—Well, when you attend again you may perhaps make a statement on the subject if you wish to do so. Mr D. L. Murdoch wrote as follows, in auswer to the Chairman: —"At the time Mr Bridges was in the Bank of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel was resident in Auckland, where he had valuable mining and other interests yielding considerable revenue. His Wellington account was for family expenses while obliged to reside there, and at his request instead of his drawing each cheque on Auckland, the balanoe was allowed to accumulate till it reached about two tiundred pounds, and he then drew a cheque on his Auckland account, fa no way was the account treated in an exceptional manner; the imputation apparently meant by Mr Bridges is simply a wicked and malicious invention,"