The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1877.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 284, 30 November 1877, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1877.

Odr telegrams informed us the other day that by a majority of 33 to 21 the House had voted au "honorarium" of £3000 to Sir Julius Vogel in connection with his selfordered mission to England. We hare not the Hansard report of the discussion that took place before us, but it is thus briefly summarised by the Evening Post:— " There was considerable talking about an item of the Estimates, giving an 'honorarium' of £3000 to Sir Julius Vogel for • services in England.'— Mr Sheehan proposed to strike this vote out.— Mr Ree3 went into figures to show that an allowance at the rate of £7000 per annum was made to Sir Julius Vogel. Mr Hunter advocated the payment of the money, believing that Sir Julius would be •very hardly treated' if the item were struck out.— Mr Gisborne thought the AgentGeneral had been very liberally treated in his mission home. — Mr Macandretr supposed the late Government, before placing the item on" the Estimates, had satisfied themselves that the money had been spent, and he should therefore vote for the payment of the money. — Mr Reynolds took a similar view. — Major Atkinson in a graceful speech supported the, vote, saying the money was undoubtedly expended, and he was followed by Mr Carrington, Mr J, E. Brown, Mr Reid, Mr Stout, and Mr Manders, who ali agreed that it would be but a graceful act to pay the monßy.— Mr Hodgkinson, Mr Murray, Mr W. Wood, and Mr Montgomery spoke on the other side.^Sir George Grey protested against the vote. Sir Julius Vogel's mission to England wss entirely unnecessary, and he was merely sent there to suit his own convenience. — Upon a division the item passed 33 votes to 21," From this it will be seen that the two principal reasons that were adduced for presenting Sir Julius Vogel with so large a sum of the people's money were, first, that it would be " a graceful act " to do so, aud • secondly that the amount asked for was " ua^ doubtedly expended." No one is likely to question this last statemeut, indeed, if Major Atkiuson had asserted that Sir Julius had got through twice or even three times as much during hia visit to London, auch an assertion would be accepted without hesitajtipn by the colonists of New Zealand, who have had ample opportunity afforded them of becoming acquainted with that gentleman's extravagant habit*. We fail, however to see the force of thi3 argument which appears to have produced such anefect upon the House, The idea of members of the House of Representative* as $t present conV stituted being influenced by the consideration that anything they might do would be ?• a gracef ul act," is too ludicruous, and Major Atkinson's surprise rau3t have been great indeed on fluding that what could only have been said in irony was accepted in earuast. So far from there being anything graceful about this proceeding, it may rather be characterised as a most <ftsgracef ul one from beginning to end. In the year in which the

"mission" home was undertaken the House was prorogued on the 31st of August, and on that day an assurance was given that Mr Vogel was not going home. On the Ist of September a Cabinet Council was held, and it was decided that he should be despatched to England. Then came the impertinent and jaunty correspondence in which Sir Julius asked his " Dear Pollen " to see if he could get a sum of £2750 in addition to what he had already received passed by the House, This was rejected last year, but this session members, in spite of their economical professions, appear to be more generously or more extravagantly disposed, and they have not only voted the £2750 originally asked for, but an additional £250. The actual cost to the colony of this celebrated "mission" may be gathered from the following items: — « , £ s. d. Salary 2172 16 5 Travelling expenses ... 2171 8 0 Special allowance 1500 O 0 Passages of self and servant 283 10 0 6127 14 5 Monday night's present ... 3000 0 0 Total 9127 14 5 Here is something for the electors to think over.

In the month of March, 1876, a deputation romtha City Council waited upon his Honor the Superintendent and Mr T. Mackay in connection with the Port extension of the railway, the latter gentleman having suggested that, as there was only a sum of £5000 voted for the work the Council should undertake the widening of the road from its, present boundary to the railway. The Super- ■ intendent at the time stated tbat the fact of only £5000 being voted did nofc matter, W there waa no reason why it should riot be increased as had been done in the case of other extensions elsewhere. There was a general opinion expressed that the Government were pledged to carry out the work in its entirety, and that it was a very strange proceeding for them to ask extraneous aid for its completion, and it wa3 clearly stated that even if tha Council had the inclination they were without the necessary means for undertaking so large a work. As the Superintendent's views coincided entirely with those expressed by the deputation it was decided to leave the matter in his hands. The matter had almost dropped out of sight when the following letter was received the other day from Mr John Sharp, M.H.R.:— "My Deab Mb Everktt.— l write a few lines to you, as you alone have seen the plans for the port extension, and I should be glad to hear from the Mayor and Council at once, what are their views as to the Corporation completing the filling in of those two places which will be left undone when the Government plans are completed. My own opinion is, that if it is to be, the whole work should be done at once, as it wouid be cheaper than being done separately. The extra expense would be something considerable, but I might get the Government to have it widened at the same time, and to advance the money ; I think it wouid be about £3000 or £4000. There are 46,000 yards. Akersten could give you that cost. I should like to get an answer this week. — Yours sincerely, John Sharp." To consder this a special meeting of the Council was held last night, when it was decided that the opinions expressed by the deputation in March, 1876, and adopted' by the Council, wore still maintained by them, and that Messrs Curtis and Sharp would be requested to use their best endeavors to get the extension carried out in its entirety; in other words, that the Government should not allow a chasm to bo created between the Port Road and the railway embankment. i