PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 13, Issue 684, 21 May 1869, Page 3

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1869. The Speaker took tlie chair at three p.m. Present, —All the members except Colonel Whitmore. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. PAPERS. His Hqnor laid on the table the following papers : Return of Rent and Road Levies due from lessees of Hikutoto Block Return of Rent and Road Levies due from lessees of Papakura Block Toll-gate, Tareha's Bridge—Account current with Provincial Treasurer Abstract of Expenditure under Toll-gate Act Inspector ot Slaughter-house Return The Speaker laid on the table certain papers received from the Auditor in consequence of the inquiries made by a member for the town. Mr Ferard said that last sitting day he had said he thought the Provincial Auditor had not carried out the Act by merely enclosing the unauthorised expenditure in the general accounts of the Province; buC he did not think he fulfilled it any better by throwing on the table a bundle of warrants. As he underdorstood the Act, the Auditor was bound to make up the statement on a separate sheet. [He here read the clause bearing upon the subject from the Audit Act.] He also complained that the Abstract of Receipts and Expenditure for the last quarter were not on the table, nor the general balance sheet for the year. Moreover, he .believed that the account of special appropriations, such a<t the toll-gate revenue, should be made up separately. MR BODDINGTON'S PETITION. Mr Rhodes moved— The adjourned consideration of Mr Boddington's petition. —He had very little to add to the statements in the petition. Mr Boddington's tender was £1,531 for the year, but the amount received at the gate never came up to the amount of the tender. The ra+e of the tender -was £4 3s lOd per day ; in the month of July +he receipts averaged £3 Is 10 '; in December—the only month out of the nine during which the petitioner had the gate that realised the full amount—£4 7s 8d; and in February the amount was £3 19s 4d. Just as the » v ool season was coming on the contract was terminated. The fact was, the man had made a mistake--he had been led into a blunder, and by no less an authority than the Provincial Engineer ; on whose calculations this unfortunate man had based his tender. That very sanguine gentleman had offered to stake his credit that the receipta would be £1,500 or £1,600 per tmnum. Mr Boddington, being a pauper to commence with, had of course been unable to pay more than he received, and had been allowed to remain so long in the hope that the traffic would increase sufficiently to enable him to pay his arrears. He (Mr R.) had called upon the present lessee of

the gate, Mr Egan, whose tender was at the rate of £3OO per annum lower than Mr Boddington's, and who, through the wool season, had been doing 25 per cent, more business ; yet this man said it; did not pay him, and that as soon as the month was over he intended throwing up the bargain. Under the circumstances he thought he might ask the Council to relieve these men from their hasty bargain. Mr Carlyon : Why ? Mr Rhodes was quite aware that the petitioner was legally liable for the deficiency ; but there was something more than law. He was now appealing to the better side of human nature —appealing to the Council as a Court of Equity to relieve this man and his sureties from theii heavy responsibility. He must blame the Government—not excepting himself—for allowing the contract to go on so long. It should have been stopped the second month of deficiency. But they had let it go on thinking times would mend. Mr Carlyon : Yes. He wanted to go on getting what profit he could, and expecting the Council to indemnify him for his losses. Mr Rhodes said the amount of the deficit was £164. He would ask the Council to consider also that during much of the time the petitioner had been unable, from illhealth, to attend to his duties, and had to keep an extra man at the toll-bar. There was another point. Mr Boddington, being a pauper, was not worth a halfpenny, and die liability, therefore, fell upon his sureties. One of these men, Thomas Eden, had been 9 or 10 years in the Province, and had by untiring industiy and frugality obtained a cart and horses. This man who could neither read nor write— Mr Carlyon : Mr Speaker, is this relevant 1 What has the man's reading or writing to do with Mr Boddington *? The Speaker : The member for Clive is in possession of the House. Mr Rhodes : To this man it would be simply ruin. It would be a hard case indeed for him to be deprived of his ten years' earnings through the exorbitant terms of the contract. The other surety was a person named Gilford, of whom he (Mr R.) knew very little. Mr Ormond asked to what amout the sureties were liable, and what mitigation the member for Clive proposed. Mr Carlyon : We are not consisidering petition of the sureties; but the petition of Mr Boddington himself. Mr Rhodes did not intend asking for the remission of any particular sum, but thought he would leave that to the discretion of the Council. The liability of the sureties was £2BO. Mr Weston would like to ascertain by whom the natives were told that they would be exempt when travelling on Government service, and whether they still passed free. Mr Rhodes said we had had nothing but wars the past few months, and it was only right that when the natives were going to fight for the Government they should pass free, but there was not a shadow of doubt that great number* had evaded it by means of this excuse. Not only this, but if 50 men were sent up the coast they would be accompanied into town by about 100 friends and 200 women, all mounted, and something like 50 carts. Mr Carlyon : What has this to do with the question 1 Mr Rhodes said that the present lessee had been more successful with the natives than Mr Boddington. He did what the latter had never been able to do—simply collared them, and insisted on their paying the toll before he allowed them to pass. Mr Carlyon ; Am I continually to ask what this has to do with the question 1 The Speaker : I rule that the member for Clive i« not out of order. Mr Carlyon : He is out of order, and it is my place to call your attention to it. Mr Tanner said that the member for Clive had nearly exhausted the subject, and as he had appealed to the Council as a Court of Equity, he

hoped they would grant his request. It would be an act of charity on behalf of Mr Boddington, and he thought that if the request was confined to his part of the liability the Council would at once grant full indemnity. But the Government should come upon the sureties, for, if not, what did the position of surety mean? They should not have accepted the position if they were not either fully satisfied that the bargain would pay, or they were prepared to make up the deficiency. Mr Carlyon : What's this about the sureties again? The sureties are not mentioned in the petition. The Speaker : The member for Te Aute should has r e made himself acquainted with the petition before making that statement. Mr Carlyon : They were not mentioned in the original petition when it came into the possession of the Council. It has either been altered afterwards, or it is a misprint. Mr Tanner was at a loss to know why the application was on behalf of both the sureties. He quite agreed with the appeal so far as concerned Boddington and one of the sureties; but the other, Mr Gifford, was, he believed, a landowner, a man possessing valuable property, and was, very likely, able to pay the whole. He believed it was the usual course, if one of the sureties was worth nothing, to come upon one who could pay, and he saw no reason why it should not be taken in this case. "With regard to Mr Boddington, he thought the member for Clive might reasonably have recommended him for charitable aid, for he belie\ ed he was ill, and in a state of utter destitution, caused mainly by his sticking to the toll-gate in the hope of paying the Government. He (Mr Tanner) would be glad to subscribe something towards his reliet. He wanted to hear the law on the subject. Mr Rhodes said he would state the law of the case. There was a lawyer there who would no doubt catch him up, but he did not speak unadA isedly—■ Mr Carlyon : You've spoken once. The Speaker : The member for Clive has a right to reply to a question. Mr Carlyon : I don't deny his right of ultimate reply, but I do deny his right of making a second speech. Mr Rhodes : lam speaking in explanation. Mr Carlyon : I again deny your right to speak. I keep on speaking in explanation. Mr Rhodes : It is simply impossible for me to speak with these interruptions. Mr Tanner (to Mr Carlyon) : The member for Clive is simply answering a question I asked him. Mr Carlyon : You have no right to ask him that question. Cries of " Order, order." Mr Carlyon : The discussion will continue till nearly midnight if we go on at this rate. Mr Speaker, if you allow members to speak more than once the discussion will be interminable. Mr Rhodes : In explanation— Mr Carlyon : What right have you to speak 1 Cries of " Order." Mr Rhodes : What I was saying is, that the law stands thus—you cannot get at one surety without the— Mr Carlyon : What right had the member opposite to put that question 1 and what right has this member to reply 1 I appeal to you, Mr Speaker. The Speaker : As long as I am am here my ruling must be obeyed. Mr Carlyon : Unquestionably. I ask you if it is right to allow a member to make two or three speeches on one question. Mr Rhodes again rose. Mr Carlyon : 1 shall insist upon an answer. Mr Tanner said that having now receh ed an answer to his question— Mr Carlyon : There's my colleague now speaking again How can discussion go on at this rate 1 The Speaker : Mr Carlyon, I call on you as a gentleman to support the Speaker, and not interrupt the busidess of the Council in this manner. You place me in a very painful position.