PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4543, 12 October 1875, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

TT/VTTct-m r\-r\ tit, or, irc-T-v 'A , T;7T7T~r: xiocionj yjr xvraiitEbJirilAiTVJlijS. Monday, October 11. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.rn. NOTICES. A number of notices were given ; one by Mr. Luckie, to ask the Government whether it was intended to reduce the telegraphic charge for 500 words to evening papers. ME. BRIDGES BROUGHT TO THE BAR OF THE HOUSE. The SPEAKER at three o'clock informed the House that the hour had arrived at which Mr. Bridges was to appear in obedience to an order of the House. That order had arisen thus i Mr. Bridges, on being examined before b select committee of the House, after making certain statements which, in the opinion of the committee, affected the character of certain members of the Legislature, refused to answer any further questions. The committee reported this refusal to the House, and it was ordered that Mr. Bridges should attend. Since that he (the Speaker) had been informed that Mr. Bridges desired to be represented by counsel, and this the House must decide. Mr. MACANDREW said before the House proceeded further in this matter he wished to state that, in his opinion, the only pressure brought to bear upon the Colonial Government in reference to the Port Chalmers Railway was brought by the Provincial Government of Otago, who acted in the public interest,- or what he (Mr. Maoaudrew) believed to be the public interest. It had been currently reported that the Superintendent of Otago had an interest in this railway. Henct the pressure brought by the Provincial Government. He thought it right to state that not only was the report without the slightest foundation, but it was absolutelyfalse ; and he thought it more than likely that it would be found that Mr. Bridges had got hold of a “ mare’s nest.” (A laugh.) With regard to the Colonial Executive, he thought it would be shown that if any pressure was brought to bear upon it, it was brought by the Provincial Government in the public interest, andhedid not believe any pressure was brought by the Bank of New Zealand, because that institution had had nothing to do with the matter.

The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said he was very glad to hear the explanation which had been offered by the hon. member, and he could testify as to its correctness, because the negotiation for the purchase of this railway had devolved upon him (Mr. Richardson), As far as he could say, the only pressure brought to bear on the Government was the pressure indicated by the hon. member for Port Chalmers.

Mr. REID said after the explanations which had been made he did not think it necessary that Mr. Bridges should be heard, either by himself or by counsel. It appeared to him that the House had rather too much to do to allow of its time being taken up by persons being brought to the bar. He had seen such a course followed on several occasions, but had never known any result from it further than that the House for a certain time neglected its proper functions, and had made an exhibition of itself not at all calculated to raise it in the estimation of the public. He should like that any information Mr. Bridges was prepared to give, or which could be forced from him with any reasonable pressure, should be taken before the select committee, and not at the bar of that House. If it were necessary to pass a resolution or an Act placing him in a position of greater security—for he understood it was the want of security that caused the refusal to give evidence —he thought that should be done without bringing Mr. Bridges up to the bar. They did not wish to lose a day listening to Mr. Bridges or his counsel, and, as far as he could see, without any result. Let them take any action that might be necessary, but not lose time at that late period of the session. He did not see anything about the matter on the order paper, or he would move that the House proceed to the next order of the day; but he should like the Speaker to inform him which would be the best course in order to give Mr. Bridges the protection he desired, free him from responsibility, and allow him to give his evidence in the committeeroom, which was the proper place, and not in that House, which was not the proper place.

The SPEAKER said the hon. member would be in order in moving that the House proceed to the orders of the day, or a resolution or an Act might be passed, giving Mr. Bridges the indemnity he required. Either course would be in accordance with parliamentary practice, but hon. members must remember that Mr. Bridges had made statements reflecting upon the character of members of the House, and had, when asked to give further explanations, refused to answer the questions put. After a few words from Mr. McGlabhan,

Mr. J. E. BROWN said the House must recollect that the committee had reported a fact, viz., that a person refused to give evidence or to go any further unless given an indemnity. That was the position of affairs at the present moment, and in his opinion the House must either commit witness for contempt or give him an indemnity, so that whatever he chose to state before the committee should be privileged from any injurious consequences that might follow. That was his idea of how the matter stood; and if he were correct in his premises, ho thought the first thing the House ought to consider was whether the witness should be granted an indemnity. Under the rules of the House, rule 219, a witness giving evidence was to a certain extent protected, and if the House gave further protection it was in this position, that the witness might make a statement of the most reckless character, and no one could proceed against him. He would be free from all responsibility. The Privileges Act of 1865 allowed the House to take proceedings against a person for perjury, and did not give power to anyone to make reckless assertions before a committee. When the witness came before the House the members would have no power to ask questions ; all the House could do would be either to oblige the witness to give evidence before the committee or commit him for contempt ; though he took it that that House was in the same position as the Supreme Court, and that a witness need not give evidence to criminate himself. In this case he did not object to answer questions because he might criminate himself, but somebody else. He believed witness should be placed in the same position as if he were in the Supreme Court, and that he should be compelled to answer the necessary questions, and compelled to stand the consequences if his statements were false.

On the question being put, it was resolved that Mr. Bridges be requested to attend; and the Sergeant-at-Arms conducted him to the bar of the House.

Mr. Bridges : I am desirous of my counsel being here. Can I be heard by counsel. The SPEAKER : You may have counsel, but you must yourself answer the questions which the House may be pleased to put to you. Mr. Travers then entered the Chamber in professional costume, and took up his position alongside Mr. Bridges. The SPEAKER then recapitulated the questions which had been put to Mr. Bridges by the committee, inquiring if the committee had correctly reported that he had refused to answer the questions; to which Mr. Bridges replied that he had done so. The SPEAKER : Why did you refuse to answer these questions ? Mr. Bridges : Because X believed I should by answering them render myself liable to legal proceedings for libel The SPEAKER : If you were again examined before the committee, would you still persist in your refusal to answer these questions on that account ? Mr. Bridges : Ou that account; —yes. Mr. BUNNY : Would you object toanswer the questions supposing an Act of Indemnity were passed by the Legislature ? Mr. Bridges (After consulting with Mr. Travers for a minute or two) : I have no objection to answer the questions if an Indemnity Act is passed. Mr. BUNNY ; Then, sir, I think we should adjourn this inquiry, to allow the Government to at once bring in a Bill to indemnify Mr.

Bridges from the consequences of Ms answers to these questions. It is very important that this matter should be thoroughly sifted. _ If what he says is true, let it fall upon the right shoulders ; and if Mr. Bridges be mistaken, it is only fair to those said to be implicated that an be held, in order that the public mind may be freed from any such impression as would result from the matter not being cleared up. The Government should at once —this very day—bring down a Bill indemnifying Mr. Bridges from the consequences of any statements he may make. Mr. Bridges ; I am desirous of making a statement which will prevent difficulty. Since I gave evidence, on Saturday last, I have received information which shows me that the evidence I had previously given when I expressed the opinion that pressure had been put upon the Government by the Bank of New Zealand to purchase the Port Chalmers railway, was made upon incorrect and erroneous grounds. Therefore, I desire to retract the whole of my evidence upon that subject. The SPEAKER then further examined Mr. Bridges upon some of the fencing answers he had given to the committee, after which Mr. Bridges said : I desire to say that I did not volunteer any of the evidence given by me. I merely replied to questions. I wish to point out th't to the committee I only expressed an opinion, and said I did not know that I could prove what I said. Nothing was stated as a positive fact. After some further remarks, the Speaker told Air. Bridges to withdraw. Mr. Bridges, with his counsel, Mr. Travers, withdrew accordingly. The statements were re-read by the Clerk, such being the wish of the House. Mr. LUCKIE stated that he had given Mr. Bridges the information which had induced him to retract in the manner he had. Mr. OUTHBERTSON wished to state with regard to the purchase of the Port Chalmers line, that he had been informed that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government by Mr. Macandrew, and that the tenderer would not have sold the line for £50,000 had it not been quitted at the time it was; and that after the bargain had been made he was quite prepared to give £20,000 more. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said it was most desirable that everything in connection with the Government should be clear and above suspicion. With regard to this transaction, Mr. Bridges had made serious charges against the character of certain of their public men; therefore he submitted that it was the duty of the House to probe the matter to the bottom. The retractation —or whatever operation it was that Mr. Bridges wished to go through—would not be at all satisfactory under existing circumstances. The proper course would be to pass an Indemnity Bill, to secure Mr. Bridges from any consequences of an injurious character, and to remit the matter to the Public Accounts Committee for a thorough investigation of the whole circumstances of the case. If that met the views of the House, the Government would be prepared, in the course of a few minutes, to introduce a Bill indemnifying Mr. Bridges from any consequences of the evidence he might give. The Government would have taken the initiative in the matter, but the Speaker had considered that the more constitutional way would be to give the House an opportunity of expressing some opinion on the subject. The Hon, Mr. PITZHERBERT expressed concurrence in the sentiments of the Colonial Treasurer. It seemed to him that that gentleman apprehended most exactly what was the duty of the Government on the present occasion, but he would make one recommendation to the hon. gentlemen, which was that in the Bill he intended to introduce he should extend the indemnity beyond Air. Bridges to all who might be concerned in facilitating the discovery of truth by giving evidence on the enquiry. The SPEAKER having explained the practice which obtained in the House of Commons, ' Air. GEORGE McLEAN asked if this Bill alluded to would relate simply to the Port Chalmers purchase. Air. SHEEHAN had no doubt the Speaker was - right as to the law laid down regarding witnesses, but as the existence of a doubt was admitted, he suggested that the proper course to pursue would be to frame a general law, by which witnesses giving evidence before- these committees should be assured of protection from all the consequences of their evidence.

Mr. MAOANDREW wished to learn ■whether Mr. Bridges would be prepared to give any further evidence after the Bill of Indemnity was brought in. ■ Mr. REDD said it appeared to him to be a work of supererogation to pass a Bill to indemnify a man for giving evidence in a case, when he had stated that the evidence already given was based on wrong information, upon finding out which, he had withdrawn the statements made. It appeared to him that they were making too much of it. • Mr. BUNNY thought they could not make too much of this matter. He hoped the matter wotdd be sifted'to the bottom.

■ Mr. J. SHEPHARD supported the Colonial Treasurer's proposition. Mr. Bridges was then recalled. Having arrived at the bar, The SPEAKER said the House was not satisfied with the position in which the matter had been left by the statements he had made. Imputations of a very serious nature having been made by him (Mr. Bridges) affecting the character of public men, the House insisted upon such an investigation being carried on as would enable the absolute truth or falsity of those imputations to be determined. However, as there was some doubt about the extent of responsibility in giving evidence in proof of the statements made, it was the purpose of the Government to introduce an Act of Indemnity, by which he would be entirely protected. The pleasure of the House, therefore, was that Ke should now withdraw, but he must not consider himself discharged until the House had determined upon what course it would pursue. Should the Act pass, he would be required to attend on the committee again for the purpose of giving further evidence. BILLS INTRODUCED. On the motion of Mr. .Thomson, the Native Lands Purchase Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday next. RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. The above Bill was received with a message from the Legislative Council. The amendments made by the Council were agreed to. THE PORT CHALMERS RAILWAY. Mr. GEORGE McLEAN asked if the Government would be prepared'to lay on the table a return of the purchase money of the Port Chalmers railway. So much had been heard about it of late, that it was desirables complete statement of the cost should be in the possession of the House. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON stated that full particulars would be found in page 25 of the printed papers laid before the House in the session of 1873. IMBECILE PASSENGERS ACT. The above Act, which provides for the extension of time within which informations may be laid against captains of vessels, was read a second time on the motion of the Hon. Major Atkinson; its third reading being made an order of the day for the day following. STAMP DUTIES BILL. The report on the Stamp Duties Bill having been read, the Bill was read a second time. INVERCARGILL PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL. The Invercargill Public Offices Site Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed next (this) day. GOLDFIELDS ACT AMENDMENT BILL, NO. 3. The House went into committee on the Goldfields Act Amendment Bill No. 3, Amendments to which had been made by the Legislative Council. On the proposition to pass the amended clause referring to compensation, by which all sums were made chargeable against the goldfields revenue, Mr. J. C. BROWN asked the Government for some reason for submitting to the dictum of the Legislative Council. The Hon. Major ATKINSON stated that the Bill was one of great importance tothegoldfields, and feeling sensible of this, the Government

desired to make suoh concessions as would moke the Bill acceptable to the Tipper House. Alessrs. T. L. Shepherd, Reid, and Alacajidrew supported the clause, which was ultimately carried. The Bill was reported with amendment to the House, read a third time, and passed. WELLINGTON RECLAIMED ACT AMENDMENT BILL The above Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed next (this) day. OTHER BILLS. The New Zealand University Reserves Bill passed through committee and all its stages. The committal of the Registration of Electors Act Amendment Bill was postponed for one day. SAN FRANCISCO MAIL SERVICE. The House went into committee to discuss Mr. Reynolds’ motion for the ratification of the contract. The Hon. Air. STAFEORD having withdrawn his amendment, . The Hon. AIAJOR ATKINSON moved the following amendment in the resolution moved by the Hon. Air, Reynolds relative to the San Francisco Mail Service: —“That the words ‘approved of, and,’ in first hue be struck out. He said the Government deemed it advisable to make some modifications in the resolution, but at the same time it must be clear to every one that the contract having been entered upon should be ratified. What Air. Vogel had done must be regarded as the action of the Government, and the original letter, in which the terms of the contract were stated, would have been laid before Parliament if it had not been for the hurry and bustle of the closing of the session last year. There had been no attempt to encroach upon the authority of Parliament, although he could not defend what had been a great oversight. In the letter to the agents, and in the contract itself, it was specifically laid down that the contract must be ratified, and the Government therefore could not be so very blameworthy. The House had not been consulted as to the terms of the contract, but power was reserved to Parliament to ratify or reject it ; and considering that the limits were only slightly exceeded ; that the Government were mixed up in the transaction with the Government of another colony, whose Parliament had ratified it; and that the directors of the company had already made arrangements for its boats, he thought it would be wise of the House to spare the extra £SOOO, and ratify the contract.

Sir F. D. BELL said the House last year had been asked to vote a certain amount for the service, and to enter into certain arrangements, and the House agreed to this. Those terms had been departed from, and he cast the blame upon Sir Julius Vogel. He contended that it had not been done by accident, but that it had been done intentionally, and that a very great wrong had been perpetrated on the colony. The House had agreed to vote £40,000 for a period of six years, or a total amount of £240,000 ; but while the House was sitting Sir Julius Vogel had deliberately authorised an ambassador to enter into a contract binding the colony for ten years at £45,000 a year, or in all an expenditure of £450,000, or £210,000 above ■ what the House had authorised. In further remarks he said the persistent disregard with which Sir Julius Vogel had treated the House, and the contemptuous manner in which he had treated the Parliament, deserved a strong expression of opinion from the committee. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said it was a fact that Sir Julius Vogel had intended on the morning of the last day of the session to apprise the House of the terms which had been forwarded to Mr. Russell, but in the hurry of business and pressure of other considerations the desired explanation was net made. Mr. CUTHBERTSON was sorry that the explanation was not accurate in all respects, for a letter written to Mr. Thomas Russell three days before the session closed contained instructions to Mr. Russell, and in this letter there were three deviations from the terms laid down by the House. First, the rate of speed was reduced from twelve knots to ten knots, the subsidy was increased from £40,000 to £45,000, and the time was increased from six years to ten years. Sir Julius Vogel gave an explanation of what had been done oh the last day of the session, without referring to the deviations which had been authorised. It was not convenient to make that explanation, and therefore it had been suppressed. In reference to the amendment of the Government, he should like to know what could be saved by the useless coastal service, for he hoped the amount could thus be reduced to £40,000. The whole matter lay in a nutshell. Mr. Vogel entered into a contract for a mail service at 50 per cent, more than the House authorised, and now it was to be reduced to the original sum ; but the House had a right to have explanations, so that it might know exactly what the country was to have.

Mr. SHEEHAN thought the House should accept the amendments of the Treasurer, but animadverted upon the conduct of Sir Julius Vogel, who had not acted properly. He said the House must accept the contract or suffer in reputation, and then proceeded to refer to the conduct of the members of the Government in that House, in having damned with ■ faint praise their absent colleague Sir Julius Vogel. He said although in opposition he should have been much pleased to have seen the Government stick to him on whose words and breath they had lived for five years, and say, “His mistakes are our mistakes, and if you don’t like it turn us out.” That would have been a manly course, but in dropping him for a single error of judgment they had acted just as was done by low publicans, who got all they could out of a man, and then when his money was gone kicked him out. It was a spectacle that he hoped never to see repeated Mr. THOMSON made a few remarks, after which

Sir DONALD McLEAN said the Government proposed to make the best arrangements they could during the recess, and would next year apply to the House to ratify their transactions. The Government had made the best arrangement they could, and the service as in the past would add greatly to the prosperity of the colony. The hon. gentleman who had remarks about the conduct of the Government in respect to Sir Julius Vogel, had not spoken fairly. The Government * had always held themselves responsible for the acts of their absent colleague, and the remarks of the Treasurer that evening showed that. Sir F. D. BELL said the omission of the words “approved of,” proposed by the Government, was a direct invitation to the House to censure Sir Julius Vogel. He disapproved of the omission of the words, because he thought the contract a good one. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD pointed out that the- effect of the resolution would be merely to ratify the contract, leaving it to subsequent action of the Government to make modifications. The Government in omitting the words had merely deferred to the wishes of a section of the House, and asked a ratification of the contract, without any expression of feeling on the subject. He did not consider there was any slur cast upon Sir Julius Vogel by his colleagues; they merely deferred to the opinion of the House. Mr. CUTHBERTSON would not agree to the ratification of the contract, for ho considered the authority of Parliament had been grossly violated; but he should prefer to pay the £15,000 rather than accept less value for their money, for that would be the effect of the reduction. He was not disposed to grant any more discretionary power to the Government, seeing that the House had been so unfairly treated. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said it would be impossible to face the contractors, and ask for a modification of the contract, with a resolution expressing tho approval of the House with tho contract. The Hon. Mr. FITZHERBERT did not think much of that. (A laugh.) When the Government asked the House to express approval, and then a member of the Government came down and asked the House not to give its approval, it was significant. That could not be got over. It seemed to him like inviting express disapprobation. In the letter to Mr, Russell, the Premier had said the Government would ask the House to “approve” such a contract, but the Government having first taken up tho position the Premier promised they should take up,

then deliberately receded from the position, and asked the House not to approve it. He disapproved of the contract, the want of skill in its negotiation, the want of regard for the authority of Parliament, and the concoction that the expressed opinion of Parliament should be laid aside. Looking at the correspondence, he observed that the reply of Air. Russell had been written on the »yme day as the letter of Air. Vogel to him, and therefore he concluded that the matter must have been concocted beforehand. The CHAIRMAN then put the original question—that the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the resolution. Agreed to. The Hon. Major ATKINSON proposed the following new clause : “ That, in the opinion of this House, the annual charge imposed on the revenue of New Zealand for the Atail Steam Service ought not to exceed £IO,OOO, and that it is the duty of the Government immediately to enter into negotiations to procure such modification of the terms and conditions of the contract as, subject to future ratification by this House, will effect that object.” Air. REEVES said he wished before the question was put to move the following amendment :—“That whilst the House disapproves of the action of the Government in authorising Air. Thomas Russell to offer, without the knowledge or sanction of the House, £450,000, in face of the fact that the maximum sum authorised was only £240,000, and that it is in such action calculated to diminish the control over public expenditure, further expresses the opinion that the contract should be concluded in accordance with the terms already authorised by this House.” It was unnecessary for him to enlarge on the merits of the amendment, which spoke for itself, and included all the objections held by gentlemen who had spoken against the proposal. He could not for the life of him see how the Government had brought itself to suoh a position. They had brought down a want of confidence motion for themselves.

Mr. REYNOLDS replied, and before referring to the amendment first placed before the House, dealt with some of the speeches preceding it. The Government had already expressed their intention not to shirk from responsibility, and as to the question of modification, he believed that the contract might be so modified as to reduce considerably the amount, say to £40,000, or even below it. As to the amendment, he hoped the House would not give it countenance. With regard to what had been said about the House knowing nothing of the Premier’s intention last session, _ he might state that it had been the intention of Mr. Vogel to announce the fact ; in fact, he (Mr. Reynolds) imagined it had been done. Sir GEORGE GREY said he saw indications which told him that the beginning of the end approached. He perceived undoubted symptoms that at length the schoolboys, hitherto held in thraldom, were about to rise up and revolt against their masters. He gathered from the countenances he saw around him, and from some words spoken that evening, that the limits of forbearance had been passed—that what the House and the country had so long submitted to would not now be much longer borne. The member for the Hutt had indisputably shown that there had been a concerted plan to set that House at defiance. No man accustomed to official correspondence could doubt that Sir Julius Vogel and Mr. T, Russell had agreed what the terms of their mutual letters should be before those letters were -written. Indeed, he thought there were undoubted proofs of those letters having been written in each other’s presence; and it was certain that the terms of those letters were such as to set at defiance the whole of the authority of Parliament. He looked upon it as an unexampled Act, and that in the terms of the resolution the House should express its disapproval of the action of the Government in this respect. The present attitude of the House was a revolt against constant misuse of authority ; why, it was a notorious fact that Sir Julius concealed from that Parliament his intention to return to England the moment he had got rid of the Assembly. He would ask was this Parliament —so august in its nature, and so skilled in debate—having no respect for its own dignity, to allow itself to be thus treated. Each of these facts were insults to the Parliament—that Sir Julius Vogel should have gone Home in such a manner, and that before going he should have set this House at defiance. Then, when at Home he had remained there instead of returning to discharge the duties pertaining to his office. Mr. LUCKIE: Because he was iU.

Sir GEORGE GREY : If ill why did he not allow some other person to take his place, and content himself with his just salary ? He was astonished to hear the member for Nelson make such an answer. No sick man should draw such large sums as he had. But this Ministry also set the law at defiance in every respect. (Ministers : No.) He said yes. How many instances had been brought before that House. Even the name and attributes of their august sovereign had been used by the Ministry,for unjust purposes. Mr. LUCKIE: And by yourself. Sir GEORGE GREY : How by himself ? What he said was a fact known to all. He could give instances. [The Speaker then proceeded to show how the Queen’s right of preemption had been used in the acquirement of native lands, and so using the Queen’s name to take away the rights of one subject in order to give them to another.] He for one hailed the revolt, and he should give his best support to the amendment proposed to the resolutions of the hon. the Colonial Treasurer. Mr. LUCKIE : It was not a difficult and not a courageous thing to assail an absent man. (Mr. Reeves : Hear, hear.) Tho hon. member for Selwyn said hear, hear ; but there were members in that House who would not have dared to speak as they had done, had Sir Julius Vogel been in the House. There was more noise made about the thing than it was worth, and he had no doubt that time would show the arrangement made was the best which could have been made.

Mr, BRANDON thought it high time that the House should assert its authority in the matter of contracts. He spoke of Sir Julius Vogel’s conduct in reference to other contracts, mentioning the Brogdens’ contracts, and trusted the House would accept the proposition of the Government. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said the Government were fully sensible of their responsibility in this matter, and thinking it right to ask the House to ratify the contract, did not think it right to ask the House to say it approved of it. The Government believed that the contract was a good one for the colony, but of course the Opposition might think otherwise, and he admitted that the Opposition had the right to consider otherwise. He defended the contract, and hoped the House would not refuse to ratify it. It was not perfect. Even Mr. Bussell, who had negotiated it, was not satisfied with it, and in his letter, which had been laid on the table with other correspondence, expressed that opinion. In negotiating, he had to consider the other party—New South Wales—but when New South Wales come to see the benefit of tho service, no doubt she would consent to a modification of this contract. Mr. MONTGOMERY asked the Government had they received any further information from the Agent-General than had been already laid on the table ? The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS replied in the negative. Mr. MONTGOMERY then proceeded to remark upon the question. He did not blame Sir Julius Vogel, who was an absent man, but he blamed the Government for overstepping the limits of power assigned to them. They had seemingly conceived that Sir Julius Yogel as head of the Government could do whatever he might propose with impunity; but the time had come, as Sir George Grey had said, when the Parliament would assert its independence.

In reply to Mr. Rolleston, who stated that the letter was not laid on the table at the end of lost session, The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS stated that the letter, after much search, was found in a box belonging to Sir Julius Vogel. That was the explanation regarding the letter.

Mr. Cl. MoLEAN followed, and expressed regret at the shady appearance of certain matters connected with the contract. He read

extracts from one of Harper’s papers—the Weekly News— one of which related that a gentleman had been examined before a tribunal as to the expenditure of £7OO, unaccounted for, on the .Frisco contract. With regard to the office of Sir Julius Vogel, he regretted and thought it improper that whilst the Government had an agent at Home they should have employed another. Mr. Pykb (who supported the Treasurer's resolution), and Mr. McGillivuay, then addressed the House.

Mr. DONALD REID opined that they were reaping what they had sown ; they were beginning to feel the effects of their past recklessness. But he was glad to see that the House were beginning to have a sense of their responsibilities. They were prepared to ratify what they had already agreed to, and if they were to ask an additional vote, the whole question should be opened up de novo . Unless the service was not to be carried out in its integrity, they should open the question anew. He should vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Selwyn, and he believed that if the House acted from conviction in this matter, a large majority would vote for that amendment ; and further, he felt so assured of the large development of conscientiousness in some members of the Government, that they would retire from office did they not support the amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS strongly opposed the amendment of the member for Selwyn, the latter part of which, to his mind, was a virtual repudiation of the contract already made. He would move an amendment to this effect—“ That this committee disapproves of the Government authorising Mr. Thomas Russell to put the colony to an expenditure for the California Steam Mail Service, in excess of the amount authorised by a resolution of this House, and that it will ratify any contract involving no greater sum per annum than £40,000 for six years.” Mr. MACANDEBW again spoke in favor of the coastal service.

Mr. WAKEFIELD said he should vote for the resolution of the Treasurer, because he trusted it would lead to other modifications of a desirable character.

Mr. CARRINGTON said he should vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Selwyn, because he believed it was a want of confidence motion.

The original resolution was put, and upon the Chairman declaring the ayes to have it, a division was demanded.

The division list showed—Ayes, 46; noes, 18. Mr. MACANDREW moved the following addendum to the foregoing resolution,—" Provided always that the terms of the said contract shall be so modified as to comply with the conditions sanctioned by the House in a previous session, that is to say, that the term shall not exceed six years, and the cost not to exceed .-€IO,OOO a year ; and that the outward route shall proceed through to San Francisco, calling at Port Chalmers, Wellington, and Auckland."

The Hon. Major ATKINSON said it was impossible that the Government could accede to such a proposal, which would be stultifying their previous action. After some further discussion, in which Messrs. Fittzheebeet, Gibbs, Wales, and Bonny took part, Mr. Macandrew’s motion to add the proviso was put, and on a division being taken was lost by 18 to 46. Mr. WILLIAMS moved another addition to the original resolution, after the word Francisco in the last line, —“That the committee desires to express its disapproval of the Government having authorised Mr. Thompson to put the House to an expenditure in excess of the amount authorised by a resolution of that House.”

A division was taken, which resulted in the motion being negatived by 39 to 21. Mr. WHITE proposed another amendment, —“ That although this House has approved of this transgression of the authority of the House, it expresses the hope that Ministers will abstain so far as they can in future from committing, similar excesses.” (Cheers and laughter).—This amendment was negatived on the voices.

The main resolution was then put, and declared to be carried on the voices.

Mr. MURRAY called for a division, which was taken with the following result;:—Ayes, 41 ; noes, 11. On the amendment of the Hon. Major Atkinson being put, Mr. ROLLESTON moved the insertion of the following words : —“ And the duration ought not to exceed six years." The amendment was negatived on the voices, and a division taken on the main motion, which was carried by 80 to 24. Mr. WALES moved a proviso to the above, that such a modification shall not extend the time of the contract, nor alter the sth clause thereof.

The amendment was negatived on the voices. .

The resolutions were then reported to the House. • .

The Hon. Major ATKINSON moved that the resolutions be agreed to, which was carried. ■ ■ ~ ' PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ACT.

The Hon. Major ATKINSON moved for leave to introduce a Bill entitled as above.

Mr REID being assured that the Government intended to carry the Bill through all its stages that morning, hoped they would not do so, inasmuch as he should wish to see the Bill made applicable only to the particular case they had to deal with. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the Bill was simply to clear up doubt. _ Mr WILLIAMS objected to persons being protected from expressions of opinion, which might be of a moat libellous character, as he believed wouldbe the case with Mr Bridges, who, he believed, was actuated solely by malice. The Bill was read a first time, and on the motion to read it a second time

Mr. REID proposed to insert a clause that the Bill should not have effect until after the prorogation of next Parliament. H e spoke to the motion at great length. [l,oft sitting at 4 a.m.]