REPLY TO MR. PYKE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4476, 24 July 1875, Page 3

REPLY TO MR. PYKE.

TO THE EDITOR OF TUB NEW ZEALAND TIMES, Sin.—l notice a denial by Mr. Pyke of having called a ‘‘caucus’' of goldfields’members, and an allegation that he had fully explained away my assertion of having endeavored to raise opposition to a 1101 which had not been introduced into the House this session, known last session as the Goldfields Consolidation Hill. I also notice a further assertion that he (Mr. Pyke) has explained away my statement in the House, and your sub-leader in yesterday’s paper, wherein you point out that Mi*. Fyke’s mode of burking Bills is quite novel and open to grave censure, I, sir, at once join issue with Mr. X’yke, and assert that your leader was fully justified by the course taken by Mr. Pyke. I will now proceed to show that Mr. Pyke s statement that he did not do anything calculated to prevent the passing of a Bill not introduced to Parliament, is entirely contradictory, as vouched to mo by two gentlemen who attended the meeting, and whoso veracity is beyond suspicion. It appears that the meeting was convened by Mr. Pyke, who, having secured the attendance of eight members, proceeded to explain his object in calling the meeting. The business was conducted in a conversational manner, evidently with the view of eliciting the opinion of members before proposing a resolution. Mr. Pyke urged that the Goldfields Bill, proposed to ha inti-o-ducod bv me, should not be allowed to ho sent to the Goldfields Committee ; but a majority refusing to consent to such an unusual course, it resulted in the meeting dispersing without accomplishing the desire of Sir. Pyke, namely, that eight members of the Assembly should stand pledged to oppose a Bill that had not been read a first time, and had not been read by them. I need scarcely point out how unfair to any measure it is, that members should intrigue to reject Bills without a perusal of them. I also desire to point out the unfairness of not inviting me to attend the meeting convened by Sir. Pyke. Had ho done so, it would have resulted in his not playing Ids “little game ” in such a foolish manner as ho did, and which I have exposed, as I should have explained that the Bill I had given notice of was one to provide for the necessary fouling of streams by goldmining operations, rendered necessary by the want of knowledge of those who had prepared the Goldfields Act of 180)6, and which I pointed out when serving on a Goldmining Commission in Otago in 1870, and the passing of which was unanimously recommended by that body. The passing of the Bill is rendered the more necessary by verdicts having been obtained in the Supreme 'Court against working parties of goldminers in the province of Otago.—l am, &0., Tnos. L. Shepherd. July 23.