PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4505, 28 August 1875, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, August 27. The Council assembled at the usual hour. NEW BILL. Ihe Hon. Dr. POLLEN introduced a Bill intituled The Napier Municipal Council Empowering and Waterworks Loan Act Amendment Bill, the second reading of which was made an order of the day for Tuesday. DECEASED WIPE’S SISTER MARRIAGE BILL. The second reading of this Bill was moved by the Hon. Mr. Scotland, supported by the Hons. Colonel Brett and Mr. Mautell, and opposed by the Hons. Messrs. Holmes, Stokes, Menzies, G. B. Johnson, Dr. Pollen, and Robinson. In favor of the Bill it was argued its proposal was not an innovation, inasmuch as that in the times of the Jews and the primitive Christians such marriages had been allowed, and it was not until two centuries after the commencement of the Christian era that a council passed this amongst other absurd laws ; that it was not opposed to the instructions of Holy Writ, and no moral or social evils were to be anticipated ; that other colonies had passed such a law j and that it was no argument against it to say England had refused to recognise such marriages, because by a parity of reasoning the ballot and other measures of utility should not have been introduced in the colonies. The Opposition party declared such unions were contrary to the law of God, de stroyed the finest feelings of humanity, and would create social evils of great mugnitude ; that public opinion was against it, and that the only object to be gained was the legalisation of the illegal acts of men of ill-con-ditioned mind. The division resulted in th? rejection of the Bill by 17 to 11. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, August 27. The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Taiaroa. NOTICES OF MOTION. A number of notices of motion were given. WAIKATO AND THAMES. Mr. O'NEILL asked the Minister for Public Works what the Government proposed to do in regard to providing means of communication by road between the Waikato district and the Thames and Ohinemuri goldfields ? The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said a preliminary survey had been made, but the cost would be very large, and he could not give the hon. gentleman any decided answer. TELEGRAPH FOR RIVERTON. Mr. McGILLIVRAY asked the Commissioner of Telegraphs when the telegraph line would be extended from Riverton to the Orepuki goldfield, as promised last session by the then Commissioner, the railway being now in progress ? The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS replied that the completion of the line was dependent on the completion of the railway. HOW WILL ABOLITION AFFECT PUBLIC WORKS. In pursuance of notice given yesterday, Mr. MACANDREW asked the Colonial Treasurer, in the event of the provinces being abolished, and the estimated revenue of the various provinces during the current financial year falling short of the amount necessary to cover the respective provincial votes for provincial public works and services, who was to decide what works and services were to be abandoned, and what were to be carried out ?

The Hon. Major ATKINSON replied as follows :—The Provincial Councils having voted some £BOO,OOO more than their estimated revenue, it is quite evident that they do not propose that the whole of the works voted for shall be carried out during the present year. The Councils having, therefore, left discretionary power in the hands of the Superintendents and Executive Councils to decide upon the direction in which the proposed works shall be executed, the Government propose to consult with, or rather to take the advice of, the Superintendents and Executive Councils, with the view of being guided by their recommendations. (Applause and laughter.) BILLS INTRODUCED. The following Bills were introduced : —Bill to Validate an Ordinance of the Province of Otago intituled The Kakanui Harbor Board Ordinance; Bill to enable the Corporation of the Municipality of Oamaru to acquire, construct, and maintain the necessary plant, premises, and works for supplying the Inhabitants of the said town of Oamaru with Gas. CONFISCATED LANDS. Sir DONALD McLEAN moved for leave to introduce a Bill to place the confiscated lauds under the ordinary administration of the waste lands in the provinces in which they are situated. Sir GEORGE GREY said before the question was put he should like to know whether the Government were prepared to place on the table a return showing all dealings that had taken place in relation to native lands. Sir DONALD McLEAN intimated that there would be no objection on the part of.the Government. The Hon. Mr. EITZHERBERT remarked that he thought the provinces were to be abolished, and asked whether it would not be better to defer the consideration of the Bill until the Government had decided whether they intended to persevere with abolition ? They had been told it was to come into operation within ninety days after passing, and now, in the meantime they proposed to establish a transfer of the confiscated laud to the provinces. Surely it was premature to bring in a Bill of this description before the matter was settled. It seemed to him an utter absurdity to hand over the administration of confiscated lands to a Legislature which the Government were engaged in obliterating. He* then referred to the administration of the Crown lands in the past, which had been dealt with nobody knew how, and now, as it appeared by this Bill, the remnant was to be handed over to the provinces. After stating that the province of Wellington was unblest with any portion of the Crown lands now, he proceeded to express his surprise that even if in Taranaki and Auckland there was a considerable amount of Crown land remaining, the House should be invited to hand it over to those institutions which the Government proposed to destroy. Mr. T. KELLY was glad that the Government had thought proper to introduce this measure, as they had refused previously to grant endowments in this regard to the province of Taranaki, and thought it would have been much better had the Government introduced it two years ago, as the province would then have received the revenue which had gone to swell the Colonial Treasury. Mr. DIGNAN expressed astonishment at the remarks of the member for the Hutt, inasmuch as ho had no light to come to a foregone conclusion. He should support the introduction of the Bill, because ho believed it would result in more economical administration. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD thought the title of the Bill was a misnomer. Instead of provinces, the words should have been provincial districts. The Hon. Mr, BOWEN said the Bill had been introduced in pursuance of notice given by the Treasurer in making the Financial Statement, when it was stated that the Government proposed to introduce a measure to bring the confiscated lands within the land laws of the colony. The word “ provinces ” was rightly used in this Bill, but if the Abolition Bill were passed, then these lauds would pass into the hands of the provincial districts, and would be administered according to the land laws which would still remain in force in the provincial districts. He confessed that he had been a little surprised at the objection raised, because he understood that one of the objections to the present was that too much discretionary power was given. Messrs. Murray and Reader Wood then addressed themselves to the question. Mr. PARATA objected to the land laws being administered by the provinces, and stated that he, as a member of the Government, had not been consulted on that subject.

Mr. SHEEHAN, in alluding to the of the Previous speaker, suggested that the House should adjourn, iu order that the Government might arrive at an understanding amongst themselves. He was afraid his hon friend occupied a position in the Government more ornamental than useful. The speaker compared the Government to a private individual who, having led a life of plunder on approaching dissolution proceeded to distribute his gains obtained by questionable means. Mr. O'NEILL, looking at the various opinions expressed, suggested that instead of handing over the confiscated lands to the Provincial Councils they should be handed over to the Thames goldfield—that is to say, so far as the lands in Auckland were concerned.

Mr. TAIAROA was of opinion that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed till the Abolition Bill had been disposed of. SirDONALD McLEANregretted that members appeared to be under a misapprehension regarding this matter. It had been intimated in the Financial Statement that the Governmeut desired to place the confiscated lands under the same administration as the ordinary waste lands of the colony. The use of the ■word “ provinces ” was correct in this sense, that the provincial laud laws would continue until the next meeting of the General Assembly. He could not, therefore, conceive how such a misapprehension had arisen. With reference to the insinuations cast upon Government administration regarding confiscated lands, the Government were quite ready to show in detail the various transactions which had taken place, and it would be found that £BO,OOO had been placed to the credit of the colony since the year 1870, and that the last sale of land had realised the net price of £6 lis. 6d. per acre. The Commissioner had, moreover, taken the trouble to fully advertise the sales. In reference to the Waikato lands, very little indeed had been sold iii that direction, and for a good reason, viz., that much land there in the hands of private individuals would not realise 2s. 6d. per acre. Leave was then given to introduce the Bill. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. ROLLESI ON said he had in his speech yesterday expressed a doubt as to whether certain gentlemen who had received money from the Government on account of the waste lands of the colony had not brought themselves within the terms of the Disquafification Act. He had stated at the time that he was not in a position to give a decided opinion on the matter, but thought it was a prima facie case of a breach of the Disqualification Act. He had therefore appealed to the Government. Having raised the question, which was of considerable importance as affecting the character of that House, and as influencing the opinions of the outside world, it was only natural that he should call attention to it. He had let two days elapse, and nothing more had been heard of the matter, and he had therefore taken this occasion to call the attention of the House to the subject. The Government would no doubt have taken the trouble to make themselves acquainted with the outlines of the circumstances, and would have found knowledge sufficient to enable them to express an opinion which, he contended, should be given, in justice to the members of that House. He had no wish to make any imputations. His sole desire was to arrive at some decision to satisfy the country as to whether or no there had been a breach of the law. If the Government were unable to make the statement he asked for, he should be justified in requesting them to lay upon the table of that House the different papers referring to the particular case which had given rise to the question. Sir DONALD McLEAN replied that the Government had referred the question to the Solicitor-General, whose opinion was that the particular instance referred to did not come within the operation of the Disqualification Act, but there were certain other papers in connection with the case which he would require to be placed before him before he could give a final decision. The Government had not been unmindful of that to which the hon. member for Avon had drawn attention, and when the Solicitor-General gave his final decision on the matter, he (Sir Donald McLean) would be willing to convey the information to the House. ANOTHER QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Sir GEORGE GREY said before proceeding to tbe orders of the day he wished to be Allftwwf .La ilii-iu, tunwlf 1 1..' of the House on a matter of privilege and order, which concerned the feelings of a very large community, probably some seventyor eighty thousand of her Majesty’s subjects. A Government officer—a General Government agent for the province of Hawke’s Bay, and, who was also a member of that House—had, as he was informed, made use of expressions of a damaging character as to the position of Auckland. He had heard that the term “rotten” had been applied to that province. He had only read one report of the speech, but in that report it was stated that the province over which he presided was a public scandal. Now, he must say that when the Government had resolved to force upon a people a Constitution which they abhorred; when they had resolved to take from them the representation which they prized ;• and when that representation was, in their belief, to be taken from them by a breach of the British Constitution (laughter from the Government benches) —it was not right that an officer of the Government and , one who had been a Minister, should aggra- ’ vate a people so oppressed by wrongs of this kind ; and if they had within their breasts the feelings of men, the people so maligned would make their indignation heard. He would call upon all those who respected the feelings of their fellow-men to support him in a demand for an apology, not only from the hon. gentleman who had insulted the city of Auckland, but from the Government whom he served. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches.) The Hon. the Colonial Treasurer, in delivering his Financial Statement, had made use of language regarding that province which might well call a blush to his cheek. His (Sir George Grey’s) own feelings had been outraged, as well as the feelings of every inhabitant of the province over which he had the honor to preside ; and he felt that throughout all the provinces of New Zealand numbers of persons would sympathise with those feelings. Let the Government look to what they were doing. He would emphatically deny that it was in the power of any majority of that House, who had determined to break the law, to force him or any other person to follow them in doing that which was unlawful. He had felt considerable surprise on listening to the sentiments expressed on this subject. He had felt surprise at the hon. member for Timaru

The SPEAKER called Sir George Grey to order. He could not allude to remarks made by the member for Timaru in another debate. Sir GEORGE GREY then said he would move for an adjournment of the debate. He maintained that he had a right to be heard, and that 80,000 people should not be insulted as they had been. He would throw himself on the sympathies of the House, and ask them whether he had not a right to protest against the language used, and against the example set by the Government, and he looked to them for some explanation. He demanded some reparation for the most improper, most irritating, and most unnecessary aspersions on the Province of Auckland. . Mr. ORMOND rose in explanation. As to his connection with the Government, he said he had acted as agent for them, but he denied that Ministers held any influence over him m that House. As a member he was quite as independent as the hen. member for City West. As to the words complained of, it was difficult for him to remember precisely the sense in which he had used the words. He was told that he had used the word “ rotten.” So far as his recollection carried him, he was endeavoring to show how, in his estimation, the administration of affairs in the Auckland province during the tenure of office of the hon. member for City West had been such as to degrade the Provincial Council, and he had advanced in support of his argument statements made by representatives, and had quoted a message from the Superintendent. He had used strong terms in speaking aa to the Provincial Council

of Auckland. He did say that, in his estimation, the hon. gentleman claiming to be the guardian of the rights and liberties of ■ the people had done more during his term of office to bring the institution into contempt than anv other gentleman in Hew Zealand. Mr. EOLLESTON said he had taken down what the hon. gentleman said at the time, and they were to the effect that the outlying dis'tricta were sacrificed to that rotten body the people of Auckland. Mr. OEMOND said his impression was that ■he had referred to the administration of the hon. member for Auckland City West, and its ■ effect upon the province. He then referred to the opinions previously expressed by him as to the subserviency of members of the Auckland Provincial Council to their elected head, and to the rescinding of a resolution re the abolition of provinces. He considered that things done by that body fully entitled him to speak in language as strong as he had done last Mr. SHEEHAN expressed his determinaion not to let the matter rest where it was, and should take an opportunity of showing the hon. gentleman he had behaved improperly. Mr. WOOD made a statement regarding the action taken bv the Provincial Council of Auckland, in correction of the statement made by the hon member for the Clive. After some remarks from Messrs. Macandrew, Murray, and Fitzhekbert, Sir GEOEGE GKEY replied, and regretted there should be a stolid determination to pass an insult upon a people who by no means merited it. He then proceeded to make an explanation regarding his conduct respecting the question of police control in Auckland, and in conclusion said the language of the hon. member for Clive reflected the greatest dis- , credit upon him. The matter here dropped. ' THE ABOLITION BILL. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The debate was resumed by Mr. T. Kelly, who supported the Bill without prejudice, as one of the noble army of martyrs to be sacrificed by the measure. He had been a provincial officer for many years, but had no grievance against the measure on that account. He advocated securing the abolition of provinces during the present Parliament de facto , but leaving all questions of administration for a measure to be carefully considered during the recess. He considered the present consti- ■ tutiou of the Upper House better than an elective one, more elastic, and more capable of receiving pressure from without. They • had been told that if provincialism were abolished the rights and liberties of the people • would he taken away. He had yet to learn •that the rights and liberties of the people de- - pended upon Provincial Councils and Super- ! intendents. The liberties and lights of the people were in reality to he found in that House. He would vote for the Bill, because he .thought it would secure true liberty to the people, .and not the sham liberty of which certain hon. members had spoken freely. Mr. STOUT said it was with some diffidence that hewose to address the House. The task was difficult for two reasons, first, because he was new to the House, and secondly, because hehad not had the privilege of listening to the debate which had taken place upon the second reading of the Bill, and had not tbia occasion been what he might term a .crisis in the colony of New Zealand, he would not have spoken. It seamed to bi'm from the rmanner in which the debate had been persisted in by the Government, that a decision must he come to on the question, that a real crisis in the history of the ■ colony had arrived, and that it became -the duty of every representative of the people to give an expression to his opinions -whether he happened to be on the side of •the majority or the minority. (Cheers.) Speaking on the legs! aspect of the question, ;he said, with all due respect to the House, he did not think the House a proper tribunal to try the legal question, as to a certairf extent the minds .of .members must be affecteu by political sympathies, by party feelings, and by what he might term sentiment, and under such circumstances it was impossible for them to approach the purely legal aspect Of the question in an unbiassed manner. But he would like to point out that anyone reading the Acts of 'Parliament which were said to give the House full power could not but be struck by this fact that at the time those Acts were passed there was intention on the part of the Imperial Parliament to sanction such a Bill as the Abolition Bill now" netoi'e tUeAETcmse. TVTiatever might be the construction to be placed on the letter of the law, at all events no one could say they were acting in accordance with the spirit of the Acts—that the Imperial Parliament ever intended to give the Legislature of the colony power to entirely sweep away the Constitutions which had been granted. (Cheers.) But really he thought the legal question had little to do with the matter, and he should be very sorry to have it said that the people of New Zealand were not competent to frame a Constitution for themselves. He did not oppose the Bill, because they had no power to effect the change in the Constitution, and he did not ask merely for delay of the measure ; but he opposed the second reading of the Bill because he objected to any change whatever taking, place in the Constitution of New Zealand. And although there were many things to be considered greater by far than those raised by the Bill, vast as were the obano-es it proposed, he did not intend to go \ into 'them that evening, but would confine ' himself to a discussion of the principles, and an i expression of his views upon the question immediately before the House. He hoped that those who were in the majority on this occasion would be prepared, notwithstanding some of the personal remarks which had been made, to grant to the minority that right of opinion and freedom of expression which had already

been granted to themselves, and that the majority would consider the minority were really sincere in their desire for the nationality of New Zealand, and that it was the fact of their being desirous for the wellbeing of New Zealand that caused them to come forward and express the opinion they had done. (Cheers.) In speaking against the Bill he did not take up the position which some members had—the postponement of the measure and a reference to the constituencies. He held that the true view to take of the question was not that, for possibly if the Bill were sent to the constituencies they would decide in favor of it, whereas if every constituency in the colony were in favor of it, he would still be found on a division in the Opposition lobby, voting against it. (Cheers.) And before sitting down he would endeavor to give bis reasons, and point out why he believed that practically and theoretically the provisions of the Bill were unsuitable to the colony of New Zealand. (Cheers.) There was one other matter also that he wished to notice before dealing with the Bill on its merits, and that was the remarks which had been made respecting the position of the Opposition, to the effect that except upon the matter of abolition they were divided on every point of policy. He did not know that it was the duty of any Opposition to be united on all points ; he did not know that it was necessary even for Ministers of the Crown to be united on every subject coming before the Legislature; and indeed, if he looked at Hansard of the present year he found that if such had been the case, at any rate this year it had been departed from by the Government, for on the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill Ministers had voted in different lobbies. (Cheers.) He said he was not aware of any principle of Parliamentary Government that set forth there should be such absolute unity, and he did not know, that because of the absence of that unity there could not be an opposition ; but even supposing there was no opposition, what was the deduction to be drawn from that fact ? Was it not a plain proof that Parliamentary Government in this colony had failed ?—(cheers) —and was it not an admission that after all the time which had heen spent in educating the people ■up to representative government, that Parliamentary Government was unsuitable to the people of New Zealand ? Instead of having cast a slur upon the Opposition, the hon. gentleman who had made the remark had cast a slur upon the people of New Zealand and all the members of the House, and had demonstrated there was no necessity for this measure.

(Cheers.) He did not know that it was the duty of the Opposition even to be in accord upon the provincial question. It was not tor the Opposition to prove that there was necessity for the change, but rather for the Government to prove that it was necessary. It was the function of the Opposition to criticise the measures brought before them, but it was dot their duty to draft new constitutions or to frame paper Acts for anybody. (Cheers.) What were the grounds for making the proposed changes. One of the first was provincial mismanagement—-that large blocks had been sold. Well, was that a crime ? Was it wrong to sell large blocks of land ? Had the House ever declared it should not be done, or bad it ever declared what quantities of land should be sold to one man, or what quantity a man might purchase ? Had the House ever said the selling of large blocks of land was an injury to individuals or to the colony ? Had any complaints ever come before the House ? Did the House intend to say that those large blocks had been wrongfully sold, and that hereafter those persons who purchased these large blocks should have to give part of them back or else pay additional taxes for the amount of land over the quantity they should hold. That would be the kind of test to impose if they thought it a bad system. Which hon. member could say what was a fair limit, and would any of those hon. members of that House who had bought land above the fair limit support a Bill to make them give back the surplus ? He expected not. It was a peculiar fact that the gentleman who had opposed him at the recent election was one of those gentlemen who had bought such large blocks, and the very members of that House who had bought these blocks of land were those who clamored for abolition. (Cheers.) Therefore the charges brought against the provinces of selling large blocks of land had assumed a very peculiar phase. Even supposing the charges of mismanagement of the lands were true, Whose concern had it been ? Did hon. members know that in Otago the authorities had no •discretionary power—that if mao brought his money and demanded certain land, the Provincial Government had no power to • refuse to sell ? The blame rested upon that House, who had passed such laws. There was something further. When in 1808 pastoral tenants in Otago wi bed to set aside the compact of 1856, in order that they might get compensation for the determination of their , leases, the Provincial Government did not see the advisability of doing so, but that House had passed a Bill without the knowledge of the province, giving tie rnnholders compensation at the raje of 2s? fid. pel- acre. That Act secured to the pastoral tenants the opportunity of breaking the contracts they had made with the province. Then, again, under the Goldfields Act, pastoral tenants who had secured leases of land at a nominal sum per enabled in the course of a few years to come upon the Provincial'Government and ask for a determination of their leases, and actually drew from the Provincial Government £1 per acre for giving up the right of that which they had obtained for a few shillings. That was the sort of thing Otago had had to fight with. (Cheers.) Pastoral tenants were enabled to claim from the province that to which they had no right in law or in equity. That was called provincial mismanagement. (Cheers.) The next point was this—the want of roads in outlying districts. If an account were 'taken of the work of the General Government And the work of the Provincial Government In Otago, it would be found that the latter had done the hest. The settlement of Otago had 'taken place in rushes, and the Government had to make roads wherever those rushes took place, and could not sit down and map a regular system of roads. The charge was that the money had been spent in centres of population, hut the very essence of the proposal in this Bill was to centralise the expenditure. Everything was to be spent in cities, and what would become of the outlying districts then ? (Cheers.) - He would take Dunedin as a practical example. By this Bill Dunedin would benefit to the extent of £IO,OOO a year for nothing. Was that centralisation or decentralisation ? (Cheers.') If tens of thousands of pounds were going to the cities in this manner, what would become of the outlying districts ? The money for the centres must come out of the municipalities and outlying districts. (No.) The Treasurer said “no;" but he would deal with the question directly, and show him it was so. If there had been mismanagement in the provinces, he would like to know what kind ef management there had been -in that House. Why, the Colonial Treasurer had said in his Financial Statement that the provinces were continually scrambling for money, and that the House had been in the habit of giving away the public money without reference to the interests of the colony, but simply to please a few persons in certain localities who came to that House. There could not be n graver charge than this, yet the Colonial Treasurer admitted it. If he took the statement of the Minister for Public Works, he found him saying that works had been commenced before proper surveys had been made, and the consequence was loss to the colony, and that same statement showed there bad been gross mismanagement of the railways, for they had been authorised without any information as to surveys. With goldfields’ services it had been the same. One year the Treasurer came downfor a vote, and in succeeding years there had been supplementary votes of £IO,OOO, £20,000, and £30,000. Was that management, and was that the way the affairs of the whole colony were to be conducted ? If the argument used against Provincial Governments were good, then could not the same argument be used in an appeal to London, asking to be governed from there to prevent future mismanagement ? (Cheers.) If the argument held good against the provinces, it was equally good against the whole colony. Supposing there had been mismanagement, was that any reason why the provinces should be abolished ? If the Government said “yes,” he would ask what did the Bill propose to do on their own showing, and according to the very lucid explanation of the Commissioner of Customs ? (A laugh.) He told the House it was proposed to give the people greater powers. Then, because the people had mismanaged their affairs in the past, they were to have greater powers in the future. That seemed a peculiar argument to address to the House, If the people had shown utter incompetence to govern themselves through Provincial Councils, could the Government make them more competent by giving them greater powers ? Supposing the people had made mistakes and blunders, he had yet to learn that giving them increased powers would make them more able to govern themselves. Would it not be better to take the management of their affairs out of their hands altogether. It was proposed to give them the increased powers to use in shire councils, but where was the distinction between these councils and Provincial Councils ? The Provincial Council required a chairman, and they called him speaker; the shire council required a chairman, and they called him chairman. Where was the difference to be ? It was said Provincial Government was expensive, but he had yet to learn that the work would be done by shire councils for nothing. There would be the same expense, and perhaps a little more. It seemed to him that the question had been argued in a narrow spirit. Every member had addressed the House on the subject of “ my district,” Each member merely looked at it as it affected his constituents, and perhaps he might be excused if he spoke alittleon the subject of Otago. Hon. members might not know that the whole cost of the paraphernalia of Provincial Government in Otago was about £4OOO a year. There could not possibly be any saving on that ; and he believed if the people of Otago had the question put before them, they would prefer to manage their own affairs, even if it cost £IO,OOO a year. Ho would look at the Bill from another point of view. It was said it was a Bill to abolish the provinces, but would any one say it was such a Bill ? It was not an Abolition Bill—it did not go the length any centralist could wish. It kept up all provincial boundaries, and provinces would become merely provincial districts. Not only that, the surplus revenue which remained after the provisions of the Bill had been satisfied could

only bo voted to the district from which it came. For instance, any surplus f rom the land fund of Otago or Canterbury could only be spent in those districts, the House merely determining how the money should be spent, Which could be much better. done by the district itself than by the central Government. But this seemed a most peculiar position for a decentral Government to be placed in, and that position was rendered even more peculiar by the system of subsidies. It was said to be a system of decentralisation, yet each district was to be subsidised from - the colonial chest out of Consolidated Eevenue. Last year as well as this the Colonial Ireasurer had said that the main reason why this Bill was to be introduced was because some of the Northern provinces required aid from the colony, and because the colony had to find revenue, therefore that it should also expend that revenue. What does this Bill do ? Why, the Bill proposes to give subsidies to each of these localities. Then what is the distinction between giving a subsidy to a road board and giving a subsidy to a Provincial Council . Then the Colonial Treasurer, in introducing the Bill, had asked them why a colony with a population of 300,000 people required nine legislatures ; but under this Bill there would be ninety-nine legislatures. Had not road boards the power to pass by-laws ? If so, they were simply endowed with those special legislative functions,not definedandnot limited, which had been given to provincial institutions. There was no necessity for, nor reason why, provincial institutions should be abolished. Instead of Provincial Legislatures being abolished they ought to be encouraged, with their powers strictly limited and defined, and the powers of the General Assembly also strictly limited and defined, to prevent that overlapping between the Provincial and the General Government which had hitherto occurr ed. He had a list of the Bills which had already been brought forward this session, supposed to be debated and understood by members from all parts of the colony; and he had no hesitation in saying that one-half those Bills could have been dealt with by the local authorities without troubling the House at all. Was it necessary to bring before the representatives of the whole of the colony a Bill to abate a nuisance at Napier ? or was it necessary to call into play the wisdom of the representatives of Otago, Canterbury, Tarauaki, Marlborough, and Nelson in order to pass a Bill to incorporate the Wellington Athenaeum ? They had a good Athemeum in Otago, but they did not want to come to the General Assembly to incorporate it : they did it by provincial Ordinance, without the aid of the General Government at all. One half the Acts passed by the Provincial Council could be dealt with quite ns well, even more satisfactorily than by the General Assembly. If all these matters were to come before the General Assembly, would there not be a greater waste of power than if the nine provincial legislatures were retained ? Were reptesentatives to come here from different parts of the colony, and to be expected to stop in Wellington for six months passing local Acts which the half of the members knew nothing about ? Was that the way to create a nation, to ask an Imperial Pai-liament he supposed it might be called an Imperial Parliament, as the colony was called a nation —to spend its time in abating nuisances at Napier, and in passing Incorporation Acts for Wellington Athemeums ? One of the first questions he had heard on entering the House was a question from the hon- member for Invercargill—whether it was the intention of the Government to build a clock tower ; and he would ask was that a sample of the administration they were to have ? Who would say the people of Inyercai-giil were not in a better position to see to the erection of a clock tower than a Cent Val Government ? It had been said that this Local Government Bill would give i&reased powers to the people, notwithstanding/flfet the people had been said to be incapable of governing themselves without blunders ; and passing over from the absurdity of that, he would ask what powers were to be given to the province of Otago that it did not already possess ? It did not confer a single boon on the people that he knew, of, but took away the privileges • they possessed. By privileges, he meant the right to spend their own revenue. It had been said by the Minister of Justice that the colony should be reduced to a dead level —that was to say, that one district should not be rich while another was poor. But what people would consent to that ? If there was a desire to have one common purse, and to make the wealthy share with the poor, where was the local government ? If a rich road board were forced to contribute to a poorer neighbor, how could it be said to manage its own affairs. If there was a desire to have a general distribution of revenues, it could not be said to be local government; and if they were to have one common purse, why not also have a dictator, to distribute bis favors as he thought fit ? Perhaps the Minister of Justice would like to carry this political communism into private life, and say that those who were wealthy ought to divide their wealth with others who were poor. He did not suppose that that was an act of justice which would meet with the concurrence of the hon, member. If the Act meant anything it meant this, that because one or two provinces happened to be rich they must divide their revenue with other provinces which were poor. This year it was Otago which was to pay a contribution, but possibly by-and-bye it might be the Northern provinces, for they had resources superior to those of the Middle Island, who would not have to pay. He believed he was giving the opinion ®f the Minister of Justice. If this was the kind of national feeling which was to be raised throughout the colony, he might be pardoned for disagreeing with it, believing it to be, if he might use the phrase, a sham, a delusion, and a snare. What would those provinces which had no land fund do? The hon. member for Westland and the Grey had told them that £25,000 for his district must come from somewhere, and the Colonial Treasurer had promised to make provision ; hut where was that to come from ? and where was the £IOO,OOO Treasury Bills from which these sums were to bo paid to come from ? Not from the land fund, but from the Consolidated Eevenue, and that meant coming from the wealthy districts eventually. It was just the same as going to a wealthy man who had money out at interest, and other income from rents, and telling him : “You may keep the rents as long as you please, but you must give up your interest.” The Treasury Bills for £IOO,OOO a year would come out of the Consolidated Eevenue, and the Consoldated Eevenue would be aided by the land revenue. With reference to the national feeling, it wasnot the right way to create a national feeling for the majority to do an injustice to the minority. That had been the cause of all the bickering up to the present time in Ireland. If the people in Ireland had considered they were treated with justice, would there have been so much trouble between England arid Ireland ? Ireland should be a standing warning in the present case, and it should bo recollected that the sentiments of the people were not to be treated with a high hand. He then proceeded to make reference to the remarks which had been made respecting Mr. Godley’s opinions, and said that although Mr. Godloy had looked forward to the time when provincial institutions should merge into the General Government, ho had contemplated the merger by growth and not the merger by extinction. (Cheers.) If legislation were thrown solely into the hands of the General Assembly, there would only be two classes of people in that House first, the wealthy monopolisers ; second, those who were not able to do anything in any other line of business. They would not get men to come to the House to form an Opposition, and a powerful majority would do just as they pleased. It would sweep away all that was good in representative Government. It was true that payment of members might remedy that to some extent, but they would have to increase tho honorariums to double and treble the amount, and if that were done, it would take away a great deal from the savings to be gained by abolitiom of provincial institutions. There was another thing which Mr. Godley had said which was worthy of attention, that a country

governed from a distance would cither be tyranised over or altogether neglected. He contended that that would be the result if this Bill were carried. He would ask whether the Government had any ideal of the nation they wished to raise up 1 If they had, it seemed they could not commit it to paper. He contended that if they wished to make New Zealand a great nation there should be a speciality of functions that the General Government must have its special functions and the Provincial Governments theirs. In opposition to the condition of Italy and Germany, he said that the condition of New Zealand was that they had a National Central Legislature which would perform the higher legislative functions, leaving the smaller matters to the provincial legislatures. If they wished the young men of the colony to take an interest in tlio affairs of the colony, local government must be fostered. No young man could afford to come to Wellington ami spend half his time in legislating for the colony, and if young men were so deprived, political life in the colony would die out and become merely a refuge for the destitute. He then went on to quote various authors, including He Tocqueville, and said that statesmen in this colony taught the people to believe that the salvation and progress of the country rested solely on changing its institutions, much same as had been the practice of politicians in Prance for many yearn past, a * course of action to which was to be attributed the many disasters which had befallen Prance during those years. The whole course of legislation for many years past had been little else than the propounding of new schemes—scheme after scheme had been brought down, and the people were now told that to vote for this was to secure the salvation of the colony. Every kind of bribe was held out, and, as in bis case, representatives who failed to vote with the Government must be content to lose their seat if they would keep their conscience, for his constituents would feel that he was robbing them of £IO,OOO a year. He asked the House was that a fair way of submitting a constitutional change ? or was it likely that such reforms as these would he productive of good ? The Government might haveamajority,but it would he a majority not of settlers hut of capitalists and monopolists. He knew how a section of the Press of the colony was governed, for he knew that under the thumb of capitalists, hoards of directors of newspaper companies had met, and, by a majority of one, had said, we must go against provincialism. That was the way public opinion was formed in favor of abolition. He warned hon. members that to pass this Bill would he to raise up a class of feudal lords and feudal slaves, and that the only way in which to make this a great colony was to preserve provincial institutions, to draw a line of demarcation between the duties of the provincial institutions and the General Government, and let each do their duty, and let the people he brought more in contact with the governing power, and that would confer on the people a great boon and a great advantage. Mr. WALES would not follow Mr. Stout through a speech which was altogether a tissue of sophistry and special pleading, and which he was very sorry to say had attempted lo raise a class feeling. At the same time he congratulated the House on the accession to its members of a gentleman who had already so distinguished himself as a citizen and as a member of an honorable profession. Mr. Stout’s speech had been leavened by the fact that he (Mr. Stout) had come to Otago a lad, and had been reared a thorough provincialist.

When Mi-. Wales resumed his seat there were cries of “question,” “divide.” After a pause of some minutes, during which the Colonial Treasurer was out of the House, someanxiety prevailed. TbeColonial Treasurer returning, was received with cheers, and his reply and a division seemed imminent, when Mr. J. C. BROWN, in a lengthy speech, announced his intention of supporting' the second reading of the Bill, but would propose certain changes in committee, which he trusted the Government would deem acceptable. He would suggest that the number of members in the Upper House should be reduced to thirty, half that number to be elective.

When eleven o’clock arrived, and Mr. Brown was still speaking, there were cries of adjourn, and Mr. Brown, in a low tone, said that he would like the usual adjournment, but the Speaker evidently did not hear the hen. member.

Mr. O’CONOR lose to a point of order, and wanted to know why a privilege should be extended to one member and not to another. Mr. MURRAY cried “hear, bear” in the peculiar manner which is his wont. The SPEAKER said there was no point of order, and that the lion, member (Mr. Brown) could go on with his speech.

Mr. MURRAY asked if one member were not equal to another in the eyes of the Speaker, and if the same courtesy were not to be extended to all ? The SPEAKER drew the attention of the House to the fact that on the occasion an adjournment was last granted to a member whilst addressing the House, it was granted to the Hon. Mr. Eitzherbert, an old and honored member of the House. Mr. O’CONOR asked if it were not in the power of any member to move for an adjournment of the House ?

The SPEAKER ; “ Certainly it is.” Mr. O'CONOR then moved that the House have its usual adjournment. Mr.. BROWN then desired to put himself right with the House and the Speaker, and stated that he had asked for adjournment as he had been called upon to speak in a hurry and his notes and ideas were disarranged.

The SPEAKER said he was not aware of Mr. Brown’s request, that had he been he would not have refused it. He expressed his regret, but objected to being dictated to by members of the House, Ho desired to tell the lion, members for the Buller and Bruce that that was the last time they should speak to him in that way—(Mr. Murray ; Hear, hear.) —but he would be happy to leave the chair if the member for Tuapeka wished it. The adjournment was then taken. On resuming, Mr, J. C. Brown continued speaking until twelve o’clock, when he eaid that ho would take a subsequent opportunity of completing his remarks.

Mr. O’CONOR desired to intimate that a breach of privilege had occurred that evening, and that ho would bring it before the House on Tuesday next. There were again cries of “question,” and after a space

The Hon. Major ATKINSON rose to reply. He thought that part of the weariness to which the present debate had given rise came from the fact that the country had practically settled the question at issue. Ha would not trouble the House by speaking at any length, but might point out that the speech of Mr. Stout had disappointed him, as that gentleman, though he had been heard of out of Otago, seemed to know little of the colony out of that province. The admission by Mr. Stout and Mr. Macandrew that few in Otago knew anything of the general finance of the colony, was the best proof of the utility of the Government measures. Both the gentlemen under mention seemed to think Otago was the colony and Dunedin was Otago, Those gentlemen had said that the Government measures were meant to provide for the poorer portion of the colony at the expense of the- rich. It was true that the object of the measures was to provide Government for the whole colony out of the revenues of the colony. The measures were the work of the Government alone, and the abolition of all the provinces had been determined on a month before the sitting of the House. A great point had been made of the Government not having taken the opinion of the law officers at Home. That was a point on which the Opposition disagreed ; for in Sir George Grey’s memorable memorial the great complaint was that the Premier had been sent Horae to confer with the Imperial authorities, and no one else had been authorised, which meant, if it meant anything, that in Sir George’s opinion, though he had lately said New Zealand was being built up into a nation, he still thought the people were not fit to be entrusted with the management of their own affairs. When ho (tho Colonial Treasurer) alluded to tho financial condition of the province of Aucldand being a scandal, ho hod in reality thrown the burden on that House,

which had by the continuance of provincialism promoted that state of affairs. He quoted the words of Mr. Header Wood in the Auckland Provincial Council to show that he might, had he chosen, have applied the word indecent to the state of affairs in Auckland. When Mr. Wood had boasted that Auckland was out of debt, he should have admitted that an advance of £OOOO had just been paid by the Colonial Treasurer in order to pay the bank overdraft. He contradicted the assertion of Sir George Grey as to the matter of the Auckland police. He repudiated, and quoted figures to repudiate, the assertion that the colony was sponging on Auckland. He would not refer to the speech of Mr. Eitzherbert, owing to the lateness of the hour. The supporters of the Bill contended that provinces should be abolished because they were no longer necessary—that until they were abolished the, general finances of the colony could not he put on a sound footing, and that in abolishing the provinces tlie land fund should be localised. He referred in detail to the objections made to these proposals by various speakers. He twitted the Opposition with not fulfilling the promises of unfolding a magnificent project far superior to that of the Government. In conclusion, he announced the intention of the Government to carry the Bill through that session, accepting reasonable suggestions in committee, hut standing or falling by the abolition of all the provinces. The question was then pnt, and the Speaker declaring that the ayes had it, a division was called for, with the following result : —Ayes, 52; noes, 17. The following is the division list

AYES. Messrs. Andrew Messrs. O’Conor Gibbs Cuthbertson Tribe Ballance J. E. Brown Harrison Bluett O’Neill Ormond Curtis .Richmond McGillivray Reynolds "Wilson Wales Richardson Pyke Atkinson Katene Williams Mervyn Carrington Murray J obuston W. Kelly Basstian J. Shephard G. McLean T. L. Shepherd C. Barker Von der Heyde May Bryce Bowen Buckland Wakefield Parata Sir D. McLean T. Telly McGlashan Luckie Stewart Stafford Webb Creighton J. C. Brown Pearce Ingles 1 Tellers Bowen Jackson ) lellers - NOES. Sir George Grey Messrs. White Messrs. Reader Wood Fitzherbert Thomson Reeves Dignan Hunter Sheehan Swanson O’Rorke Reid Stout Montgomery Macandrew Bunny Takamoana PAIRS. FOR AOAIN3T Messrs. Parker (G. B.) Messrs. Kolleston Kenny Ward Bradshaw Brandon. The Hon. Major ATKINSON, after intimation from the Speaker, moved that the House should go into Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill on Tuesday next. This was carried, and the House adjourned at a quarter to two o’clock.