PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4488, 7 August 1875, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, August 6. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p m. KAITANGATA AND COAL COMPANY BILL. Mr. REID moved the second reading of this Bill, which, after certain explanation had been given, was agreed to. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Sir Geobge Grey, Messrs. May, Muneo, Parker Creighton, and Takamoana. ’ notices. A number of notices of motion were given, papers. Sir Donald McLean and Mr. Reynolds laid a number of papers upon the table. question of privilege. Sir GEORGE GREY raised a question of privilege. He observed in the morning paper a copy of correspondence which had been laid upon the table of the House the previous day. The correspondence consisted of a letter which had been sent from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bowen) to his Honor the Chief Justice, and a reply thereto. The letter of the Minister of Justice commenced A statement has been made by Sir George Grey member for Auckland City West, in his place in Parliament, that you have given an opinion as to the power of the General Assembly to abolish the provinces different from that given by youas Attorney-General on the Ist December, 1874.’* There coul l be no mistake about the person, and no mistake about the place. It was alleged that he had made a statement which he really had not made. If membeis of the Government were to have the power of writing letteis of that kind without any communication with the member believed to have made ceitam remarks, and then printing ordered, and then laid upon the table of the House, members had no opportunity of defending themselves. Such a course he believed to be unusual, unparliamentary, and unfair, and any remedy which might be applied he appealed to the Hon. the Speaker to afford him. What he had said was, that he believed the AttorneyGeneral had given another opinion, in which he described the meaning of the word “abolition” to be the mere alteration of boundaries of provinces. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said when he wrote that letter he had not the least idea that there was any mistake. He certainly understood the hon. member for Auckland City West to make the remark he had attributed to him, and every other member on that side of the House had understood the same thing. (Hear, hear.) This opinion had received confirmation by the remarks which fell immediately afterwards from the hon. member for the Hutt, who had advocated the printing of the two opinions in parallel columns. (Hear, hear.) If he (Mr. Bowen) had been laboring under a mistake, he was sorry, but he felt it his duty immediately on hearing the words he had thought it right that he should make a search for the second opinion. That search proving fruitless, he had thought it best to write to the Chief Justice to get the opinion if possible.

A long discussion ensued, in which Mr, Fitzherbert, Mr, Reader Wood (who supported Sir George Grey in his disclaimer of the words attributed to him), Mr. J. E. Brown, and Mr. Buckie (who had understood the remark in the same manner as Mr. Bowen) took part. Eventually the Speaker ruled that there had been no breach of privilege. QUESTIONS. In answer to questions, Ministers stated—(l) That the sum of had not been set apart as a special fund for the establishment of State forests, in accordance with the provivisions of an Act passed last year, because the Act had not been brought into operation ; (2) that the Government had not taken any steps to promote commercial intercourse with, or to acquire the dominion of Polynesia ; (3) the Government had not instructed Sir Julius Vogel, during his sojourn at the German baths, to obtain the services of verderers to instruct the people of the colony in the art of conserving and planting forests, but the Government were certain that Sir Julius Vogel would not fail to do his best for the country wherever he might be ; (4) reports and correspondence in connection with the training school at Kbhi-mara-ma would be laid on the table next day ; (5) it is the intention of the Government to complete Waitara-Wanganui railway as soon as possible. BILLS INTRODUCED. By Mr. Pvke, a Bill to amend the Waste Lauds Act of TS72 ; second reading Wednesday. —By Mr. White, a Bill to amend the Westland Waste Lands Acts ; second reading Thursday.—By Mr. G. McLean, a Bill to authorise the Corporation of Palmerston to construct waterworks; second reading Thursday.

PROTECTION TO ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL, This Bill was passed through all stages. hawke’s bay volunteers’ grants bill.

Sir DON ADD McLEAN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that the object of the Bill was to reward certain persons who had afforded valuable assistance during the war, but who had not been able to claim compensation. Mr. BUCKLAND called attention to the fact that many persons in Auckland were equally entitled to reward. Sir DONALD McLEAN said that the Government were now in communication with persona in Auckland.

After a few remarks from Mr. Murray, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Sheehan—(who protested against land being given to these people, because it had the effect of creating a class of people called land sharks. He had no objection to compensation being given, but let the men be rewarded in money. He hoped the principle would not be carried beyond the present Bill) Mr. Ormond, Mr. Katene—(who approved of the proposal made by the hon. member for Rodney, that the compensation should be in money. If the Europeans were paid in laud let the Maoris be also paid in land. At present they were paid in blankets and sugar) Mr. Carrington, Mr. Macandrew. Mr. Swanson (all of whom opposed the giving of land), Mr. May (who supported the Bill), Mr. Cuthbertson (who hoped the principle of givinoland would in future be discontinued), Mr! Wales—(who ridiculed the idea of men being placed on forty acres of laud and told to flourish, and said if the Government thought it most convenient to pay in land, there was no reason why they should not receive grants. He hoped the Bill would be passed, and also trusted people in other parts of the colony if deserving would also be rewarded) —and Mr. T. Kelly (who opposed the Bill), Sir D. McLEAN replied. He felt the remarks of the various gentlemen were fair and reasonable, and when in committee would consider the proposal for altering the nature of the compensation. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed a fortnight hence. NEW ZEALAND UNIVERSITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was passed through all stages. INSPECTION OP MACHINERY ACT, 1874, AMENDMENT BILL. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON, in movit the second reading of this Bill, explained tht it had been rendered necessary by the dis covery of several slight defects in the Ac passed last year, and advantage had been takei of the opportunity of introducing a claus< providing for a more complete inspection ot boilers. After a few words from Mr. Ldckik, the second reading was agreed to. FORD AND OTHERS PENSIONS BILL. Sir DONALD McLEAN explained that the Bill was intended to give effect to pension' to certain women and children who had los husbands or fathers during the war. Mr. G. McLEAN objected to these pensioi Bills, but would support compensation, or i lump sum. Mr. T. Kelly and Mr. Swanson made a few remarks, inaudible in the gallery, but were understood to have no objection to the Bill. Mr. SHEEHAN supported the Bill, hot hoped the Government would eliminate the proviso to the effect of the pension ceasing when Maori widows married.

Sir D. McLEAN was willing to accept amendments in committee. Second reading agreed to. UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO SITE BILL. This Bill was passed through all stages. MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR.

A message was received from the Governor in answer to an address from the House, to the effect that he had not sent a despatch to the Secretary for the Colonies either on the Constitutional Bill or any legal opinion of the late Attorney-General. THE ABOLITION BILL. At 7.30 p.m. the House was crowded. The Hon. Major ATKINSON rose and said ; In asking the House to read this important Bill a second time, I feel a sense of deep responsibility. X propose to divide my subject into three parts—Eirst, to consider can we lawfully do that which by this Bill we propose to do ? (Hear, hear.) Second, what is it exactly that we propose to do ? Thirdly, what are our reasons for doing it ? Sir, there can be no doubt whatever in the minds of any bon. members that the Government, if they thought fit, instead of relying upon the Act of 1868, might have brought down a Bill simply repealing the second section of the original Constitution Act, which would just as effectually do that which is proposed to be done in the Bill now before the House. Sir, I am sure none of my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House will dispute that I and I trust, therefore, that that fact will go a long way in enabling any of those gentlemen whose tender consciences cause them to imagine that an unlawful act is about to be committed, to rid themselves of all doubts on the subject. Sir, I will say, to satisfy those hon. gentlemen, that if nothing else will set their iiiiiids at rest, the Government will be quite prepared to introduce a clause into the Bill to repeal the second section of the Constitution Act, and so remove every scintilla of doubt that may exist in their minds upon the subject of the power of the Government. (An hon. member : I don’t know about that.) But, sir, the Government, it they had that intention themselves originally, have thought better of it. We are satisfied that there is no question of technicality, or question of law, in the matter. We are satisfied, and common sense will lead every member who reads carefully the Act of 1868 to be satisfied, that there is power given the Government in that Act to abolish the whole of the provinces. (Cheers.) I ask hon. gentlemen to put this case to themselves : Suppose that instead of proposing to abolish the whole of the provinces, we proposed this year to abolish the provinces in the North Island merely, would not that have been according to law ? Sir, I say it would have been. Supposing that next year we proposed to abolish all the provinces in the South Island, would not that have been according to law ? I say it would. Then, sir, if we can abolish the provinces one by one, does it not follow as a matter of course, as a logical sequence, that if we can abolish them separately, we can also abolish them collectively. This, air, is perfectly clear. This matter is above such technicalities as those which have been raised. (Cheers.) We rely upon the sacred principle in our Constitution, that the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament have confer ed upon the Legislature of this country the power to alter and model its Constitution in any way it may think fit, to suit the requirements of the people and the country. (Cheers.) And this is what the propose to do, —and we feel the responsibility of our deed, —to model the Constitution according to the requirements of the country. (Hear, hear.) In proof that the Imperial Parliament intended to give that power, I ask hon. gentlemen to look at the way in which the Imperial Parliament acted at the time we sent Home the Bill of 1868, if they have any doubt about the matter. Sir - , we had a graphic description the other night of the way in which this Bill of 1868 was hurried through the Imperial Parliament—and it was a very graphic description indeed—but, I think the only one argument to be deduced from the treatment of that Bill, is an argument which cuts the whole of the ground from under the feet of the hon. gentleman opposite, who used it as an argument to suit his own purpose. It is from the way iu which the Bill was passed through the Imperial Parliament. Let us look at the matter. We wanted to constitute new provinces. There were a number of gentlemen who told us we could not do it—gentlemen who told us the Imperial Parliament would not permit it —it was unlawful, and so forth. We went to the Imperial Parliament, and what did it do ? At once it removed all difficulties and doubts, if difficulties and doubts ever existed. Is this an argument in the hon. gentleman’s favor ? Again, sir, we determined to separate the Westland province from the province of Canterbury. We had the croakers against us : “ You cannot do this, you have no power ; it is an infringement of the people’s rights and so forth. But, sir, we did it; and what was the result ? The British Government and British Parliament agreed to it, they passed a Bill and sent it out. They did not stop to charge us with a breach of the Constitution—they did not send out to say what we might do, or what we might not do. They sent out a Bill, and said, “ Is this what you want.” It did not quite suit us, so we prepared a Bill which did, and sent it back, and the British Government instantly passed it without a single alteration. Therefore, in this case, we have not the slightest doubt that we have power to abolish the provinces under the Constitution. By the Constitution we hold, we are responsible for the good government of the people and the welfare of the colony; and how can any one say that we shall not do this or that when we feel —and the people give ns unmistakeahle proof that they feel it too—that it is desirable that the course we propose to pursue shall be pursued. (Cheers.) I say, air, there is no weight in the argument of the hon. gentleman on the opposite side. There ia another point. This House has appointed certain legal officers fo advise the Government on questions rf law, and by whose advice the Government, if not bound to act may at any rate always feel justified in acting; and all these officers have advised us that we have the legal power to do that which we now propose to do. Therefore we are fully justified—having the support of this House and this country, and possessing the legal power—in doing what we propose to do. (Cheers.) Bor my own part, I have not the least doubt about the rightfulness of the opinions given us by the law officers of the Crown. I have not the least question that these opinions will be amply home out by the opinions of higher authorities, if it be necessary to apply to them. This division of the question is free from all technicalities, for there can he no doubt that whatever this assembly thinks to be right and good for the country can be done under our Constitution. (Cheers.) And now, sir, I come to the next division of my subject, and I propose to consider what it is exactly that we propose to do. Well, I shall not occupy the time of hon. members at any length on this part of the question, because the Bill brought forward by the Government ia so clear that it speaks for itself, and is couched in such decisive language that it needs no explanation—too decisive for my hon. friends on the other side, I fear. (Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) I say it speaks for itself so decisively that there will be no misapprehension as to its meaning. It is this, that it means real local government. (Cheers from centralists, and ironical laughter from provincialists.) There is an old proverb which says, “Let those laugh that lose, for they who win are sure to laugh,” which will give an excuse for the humor of hon. friends opposite. (Mr. Bunny, sarcastically; Hear, hear.) I say, sir, the Bill speaks for itself, therefore I shall not trouble the House with any lengthy remarks; but I desire to point out one or two matters connected with it. In the first place, there is the interpretation clause, and this I may say does not include the designation of the whole of the governing bodies which are to be established. The Government was not clear as to what title to give these governing bodies, whether they should be called town councils or road boards. We had doubts as to what would be proper organisations for some districts, and as it was impossible for us to appeal to these districts before the Bill was made public, we shall be willing to consult with these districts on the subject, and

will be prepared to make any alterations which the hon. members who represent these districts may desire. Clause 6, as hou. members will observe, has the object of leaving in force the whole of the original laws of the provinces. As I said on a former occasion, the Government do not desire to meddle with anything until they can amend ; therefore, we consider it is far better to leave in force the present provincial laws, unsatisfactory as they are (Mr. Bunny, ironically: hear, hear) —until we have time to consider how the requirements of the districts will he met by the various Acts, which must necessarily be made general. I don’t desire to trouble hon. members with any lengthened remarks on this subject, but it will be plain to hon. members that some districts will be differently affected by the application of the general laws, and it will also be plain to hon. members that there are some of our Acts which will require amendment iu immaterial particulars, Ihe Government will therefore during the recess give these questions serious consideration, and null introduce such measures in the next session as they hope will meet the requirements of the country iu this respect. Clause 7 I can say little about. Clause 8 gives the Governor power to delegate Ids authority. _ We have had considerable doubt as to providing for the exercise of this power, but it was considered advisable to make some such provision, in order to avoid against any possible bitch in the carrying-ont the administration of the provinces. Clause 10 is an important clause, and gives to the provinces that for which they have long contended, placing within the hands of the people the control of their rates and taxes, for the purposes of local expenditure. (Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) We now give these powers to real local bodies. We offer to cities their licenses of all kinds, and to the road boards the licenses they may collect. Clause 15 deals with the goldfields, and this is a clause with which most hon. gentlemen have expressed themselves satisfied. Here also we recognise the principle that local revenues should be locally expended. Clause 16 appropriates the land revenue, and this also is framed with the intention of carrying out the same principle which runs through the parts of the Bill previously referred to—that the land revenue shall really be applied for legitimate purposes, that it shall be spent in improving the land from which it is raised, and also to provide for public works. Clause 19 provides for the endowment of road boards, aud must be regarded as a very important provision. I don’t know whether the hon. gentlemen opposite think these boards ought to be so endowed, but without these endowments it is utterly impossible for them to carry out the objects which they are intended to carry out. The gentlemen opposite seem to doubt the ability of the Government to provide this subsidy, but no doubt the time will arise—that is to say, if it ever mil arise, for I doubt if hon. members on the opposite side will come to discuss the finances at all. (A laugh.) But, sir, X say if it does arise, and we come to discuss the finances, I shall he able to prove, if it be not already proved, all that I stated on a former occasion. But I will take this opportunity of saying that there is no question, in the opinion of the Government, that all that has been promised and held out can be easily fulfilled. (Hear, hear.) Clause 23 is also of considerable importance. It provides that all the necessary government of the colony shall be carried on, not as heretofore with uncertainty, but with the certainty that the provision made by the Assembly for the carrying on of the various institutions of the colony will be assured to the people. It provides that gaols, harbors, police, and charitable institutions throughout all the colony shall be maintained by votes from this House. Such, then, sir, are shortly the provisions contained in the Bill, and I think there can be no doubt in the minds of hon. members as to what are the intentions of the Government. (Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) We have been taken to task for the way in which this Bill was introduced, but, sir, I am not aware of any constitutional law which forbids the Crown to relieve its subjects of the onus of performing unpleasant duties. If I was not aware of the assiduous way in which my hon. friend the hon. member for the Hntt attends to the business of this House, I should have thought he was ignorant of what the Bill actually contains. It does not propose to take anything from the people, but it rather proposes to relieve the people from an incubus. (Mr. Bunny: hear, hear.) It not only proposes to relieve her Majesty’s lieges from a considerable amount of taxation—(Mr. Bunny: hear, hear)—but it also relieves them from much disagreeable bodily service—(hear, hear and laughter)—for at once it will set free some thirty or forty hard worked public servants— (Mr. Bunny: hear, hear) —and it will also set free a hundred or more gentlemen who are obliged to come up ever year to attend the sitting of the Provincial Councils who give their services with considerable pain. Therefore, sir, I think there should be no complaint from any part of this House that the Crown should he permitted to send down such a Bill as that to this House. My hon. friend the hon. member for the Hutt also complained that we have sent down what should be two Bills—the Abolition Bill and an Appropriation Bill —in one Bill. I have no doubt at all that had the hon. gentleman had to bring down this Bill, it would have been brought down as he suggests ; and I can only say in our excuse that we brought to hear upon this subject such slight intelligence and knowledge of public affairs as we possess—(Mr. BuNNy : Hear, hear) and if the result is not satisfactory to my hon friend, I trust that he will put it down to our inexperience. (Opposition members : Hear, hear; Government supporters, laughter.) But if instead of being magnanimous, my lion, friend still refuses to pardon us, we must submit with the best grace we can, and be judged by the result. And this brings me to the third head of my address—What are the reasons for taking the course we propose ? (Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) Sir, I need hardly remind hon. members that during the last session of Parliament it was determined that a Bill should be brought down to abolish the provinces in the North Island this year; but the more the Government considered the subject, and the more they became acquainted with the feelings of the people—(hear, hear) —the more clear it became to them that nothing but a complete measure would satisfy the country. (Cheers.) Now, sir, what are the reasons that have induced the Government to bring down this Bill, and what has induced the people to so heartily support it? (Cheers). I will answer that question in the first place by asking my hon. friends opposite why it has become a public question ? I should like to ask them what useful purposes in the State are served by the Provincial Governments. (Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) I should like to ask them what functions these Provincial Governments now perform, which could not he as well performed, I say better performed, by the General Government and road boards. (An hon. member : Hoad Boards.) (Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) I say sir, there are none. When the provinces were first instituted, what might have been the original intention of their founders is not clear, but it is certain they were capable of performing some of the leading duties of a supreme power in a new country, such as carrying out immigration, public works, and so forth; but in time they gradually became incapable of performing these duties. Immigration and public works ceased, and general stagnation prevailed. (An hou. member; Why. Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) I am not now here to tell you why ; that shall be done on a future occasion—l am now simply stating facts. I say, sir, that immigration ceased and general stagnation prevailed (Mr. Bunny; Hear, hear) —and in 1870, this House by common consent, I might almost say by acclamation, determined to assume the duties which the Provincial Governments ceased to perform. I shall he told no doubt that Canterbury and Otago, and some other provinces, did continue public works. That, to a certain extent, no doubt is true. But my answer to that is—that the same could have been more economically and better performed—(Mr. Bunny; Hear, hear) —by road boards and the General Government. (An hon. member : By road boards. Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) Amongst the works which should have been performed by the Provincial Government, were immigration, the construction of roads, harbors, &o.

Now etus see how the Provincial Government did these works. How did they discharge their duties ? Why, in this way—they appointed some one else to do it for them. (Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) Is education to he carried on—a Board of Education is_ appointed. (Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) The rivers to be conserved—a Board of Conservators is appointed. (Mr. Bunny : Hear, hear.) Are roads required to ho made —Road Boards are appointed. (Mr. Bunny ; Hear, hear.) Are harbors to be constructed —Harbor Boards are nominated. (Mr. Bunny: Hear, hear.) Mr. McGLASHAN; Sir, I rise to a point of order. I wish to know if the hon. member for the Wairarapa is to be allowed to continue these cheers or ironical cheers to interrupt the Hon. the Treasurer ? (Oh, oh; laughter, and confusion.) The Hou. Major ATKINSON : I hog to state that I am not at all interrupted by the hon. member’s interjections. (Hear, hear.) I am rather encouraged by these cheers. (Cheers.) Sir : Are harbors to be madethen Harbor Boards are appointed. (Mr. Bunny: hear, hear.) It is true, lam ready to admit, that in some cases the police are tolerably well managed by the Provincial Government. (Hear, hear; no, no.) But, sir, if that is true, it is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the measure now proposed. As far as legislative functions are concerned, I think it is agreed on all hands that the time has arrived when the legislative functions of provincialism should cease. (No, no ; hear, hear.) b ir, I say it is agreed on all hands that the time has arrived. (Hear, hear ; no, no.) I am determined to have the last word. (Laughter.) I feel quite sure that hon. members will agree with me that die legislation for the population was quite sufficient without the nine supplementary parliaments. They only lived to get money from this Assembly. And this brings me to another great argument iu favor of the Government policy. It is admitted as a sound law of political economy, that the power which raises taxation should be the spending power, aud should he wholly responsible to the people upon whom such taxation is levied. But, sir, is this the case in New Zealand ? (A voice : No.) Is it not a fact that large sums of money are spent without the knowledge of this House ? And we may inquire into the manner iu which that money has been spent. Sir, that money is spent by bodies possessing ample taxation power themselves, a power which they very seldom venture to use. Now, sir, is it desirable that this state of things should longer continue i (A voice : Yes.) I say, sir, that the majority of the members of this House have emphatically answered “No.” What has been the effect of this system ? The result has been this; that the revenue of the colony, both ordinary and extraordinary, has been disposed of—notaccording to the requirements of the people, but by gigantic scrambles on the floor of this House and in the lobbies. The process which I have described in rather homely words is known in parliamentary language as “ pressure on the Government.” lam not Utopian enough iu my ideas to think that by any change of law we shall do away with that system by which one member, with a perhaps laudable, but certainly rather local than general motive, lends his aid to any other member, and receives in return the like aid. But Ido say that this Bill would do away with that most dangerous form of organised pressure—that provincial organisation which the member for Taieri so delicately described, in the debate of last session, as the centre of sympathy round ■which certain members gathered to determine what was just for their province. And here, sir, I mil pause a moment to consider what is the reasonable definition of the word justice as understood at these centres of sympathy. In an admirable work on Pig Philosophy, with which no doubt hon. members are well acquainted, and which, so far as I know, is the only work of the kind extant, I find the following “ What is justice ? Your own share of the general swines’ trough, not any portion of my share.” “What is my share? As I hold, whatever I can contrive to get without being hanged or sent to the hulks.” lam sure that the House will agree that the country can very well dispense with these centres of sympathy, and that it will be much more satisfactorily determined what is just for those districts when those centres have been swept from the face of New Zealand. This House will then be a real power in those matters, and not a liberal provider as it now is for nine starving mendicants, whom ray friend the member for the Hutt used to speak of with such asperity before he joined their ranks. iHear.) There are other weighty arguments, which I shall indicate but not enlarge upon. There can be no doubt that our credit would be increased, that our credit would be materially enhanced, by the passing of this Act, by doing away with complicated divisions, and rendering our finance less perplexing to strangers. There is also no doubt that the administration of the country’s affairs would be very considerably improved and cheapened, (Hear.) And last, but not least, it would set free a considerable number of able and zealous men—(hear)—who are now bound by the Provincial tether, and who could then come to this House untrammelled. There ia one point more, sir, I have still to consider. lam told that by passing this Act we shall take away the liberties of the people and their representative institutions. Sir, I cannot pretend to follow the arguments which lead my hou. friend the member for Auckland City West to this conclusion. I can hardly believe it was intended seriously. I will content myself with pointing out that every man in New Zealand is fully represented at this time. (No, no.) Speaking in a broad sense, I say the people of New Zealand are fully represented at the present day, and I hope if it he possible that they will be still more so when Provincial Governments are done away with- And now, sir, it is said that supposing we are right in this matter we ought not to press the measure, but defer it for the decision of the electors. We have already referred it to the electors, and they have decided. (A Voice; No fear.) There is no doubt in the mind of the Government as to the course they ought to pursue. This question was brought prominently before the House during last session ; it has been before the county during the recess ; the people were aware that a great change was proposed, aud they acquiesced. (No ; Hear.) It has been before the county ever since the first beginning of political life in New Zealand. It is the one point round which the battles of party have all along raged most fiercely. The party to which I have had the honor to belong has always contended for the vital principle embodied in this Bill; and here I may remark that it is indeed a matter of deep regret that it has not fallen to the lot of that distinguished member of the House who so long led that party, and who so ably, and at last successfully contended for its principle—that it has not fallen to the lot of that hon. member to introduce this Bill, and so carry to its completion his great work. I need hardly say that that priuciplo_ is the unity, the oneness of the colony ; and it is the only principle consistent with local self-govern-ment. Sir, it is idle to talk of this os a new question. I say again that it has been in reality one of the hardest-fought questions, and, in reality, it was practically settled five years ago ; and every day, every hour I might almost say, we are receiving stronger and stronger evidence that now at all events the people are awake to the truth, and thoroughly approve of what we propose. Sir, for these reasons I ask the House to read this Bill a second time.

Sir GEORGE GREY : I move the adjournment of this debate till Tuesday. Sir DONALD MoLEAN : The Government offer no objection, but I would like it to be understood that on Tuesday the debate be resumed until it is finished. It was agreed to adjourn the debate till half-past seven o’clock on Tuesday. ORDERS POSTPONED. The ordinary business was then proceeded with, and a number of orders of tho day were postponed. IMMIGRATION INDEMNITY BILL. • This Bill, to indemnify the Government for expenditure of certain unappropriated money for immigration purposes, passed its third reading. OTAGO UNIVERSITY BILL. The Otago University Site Exchange Bill was read a third time, and passed.

TAURANGA HOAD. Mr. W. KELLY moved, and it was agreed to, that there be laid on the table of the House the report of the District Engineer on the cost of constructing the proposed road between Tauranga and Ohinemuri ; also, the roport of the cost of improving that portion of the main line of road running through the bush between Tauranga and Rotorua. Mr. KELLY also moved that petitions relating to native affairs be referred to Select Committee on Native Affairs. The House then adjourned till the usual hour on Tuesday next.