PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5150, 25 September 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, September 24. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. Several petitions -were presented, notices of motion given, and reports laid upon the table. LAND BIEL. The Land Bill was ordered to be committed next day. THE MANAWATD LAND ORDERS BILL. Leave was granted to the Hoh. Mr. Whitaker to introduce this Bill, and the second reading appointed for the following day. HDTT-WAIKANAE RAILWAY. Mr. BUNNY,in the absenceof the Chairman of the Hutt-Waikanae Kailway Committee, asked for an extension of time of fourteen days for bringing up their report. The same time •was also granted' to the Press Telegram Committee, the Sheep and Cattle Committee, and the Fencing and Impounding Committee. EDUCATION BILL. The further consideration of the Bill took place in committee. The schedule relating to the definition of the Educational Districts came on for discussion. Mr. SHEEHAN moved, among other alterations in the Educational District of Auckland, to have Cook County annexed to it, instead of to Hawke’s Bay. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN explained that the reason of the County of Cook being attached to Hawke’s Bay was that the residents of that county specially desired it. Sir GEORGE GREY proposed that the county and borough of the Thames in the Auckland District should form a separate educational district. Dr. WALLIS thought there were already too many educational districts. Instead of the number being twelve as at present, there should be only five throughout the whole of the colony, the Middle Island forming three, otherwise every county would be an educational district. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE, while approving of the districts being increased in numbers, was not prepared to support the proposition of the hon. member for the Thames, as it would be reducing the district to too great an extent. Mr. ROWE wanted to know if the limits of a district were to be based upon its population 1 The Hon. Mr. BOWEN stated that having the districts too small would cause great difficulty in fairly distributing the funds. It was therefore necessary to unite the populous with the sparsly peopled districts. It was only from Cook County that any representation had been made with a view to alteration in boundaries. Mr. SHEEHAN was opposed to the amendments put forward by Sir George Grey and Dr. Wallis. He (Mr. Sheehan) thought that for financial and administrative reasons the educational districts should be kept as large as possible. Dr. HODGKINSON would support the motion of the hon. member for Rodney, with any slight alteration that might be rendered necessary through the topography of the country, in order to make the boundaries of Auckland District more complete. Generally he thought the districts as defined in the Bill wco as nearly correct as they were likely to get them. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD supported the motion of Mr. Sheehan. Mr. BOLLESTON opposed the motion of the hon. member for the Thames to have the Thames Borough and County foitn a separate educational district.

Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS supported the diyiaion of Auckland into small districts. Mr. MACFARLANE was in favor of the Thames being a separate district. Sir George Grey’s amendment being put, it was negatived on a division by a majority of 29—Noes, 12 ; ayes, 11. Mr. SHEEHAN’S amendment for Cook County to be included in the Auckland District was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. The division was 29 on each side. The proposition of Dr. Wallis to make Hawke’s Bay, Wanganui, Taranaki, and Wellington districts one district, was negatived without a division. On the motion of Mr. Harper, it was decided to exclude Kaikoura County from Marlborough, and make it part of North Canterbury. Mr. STOUT moved for Canterbury to be one district. —This was negatived on the voices. Mr. SHRIMSKI proposed to have the Waitaki county added to South Canterbury.— This was also negatived on the voices. Mr. THOMSON proposed as an amendment for Mataura to be the boundary between Otago and Southland instead of adopting the county boundaries. This amendment was subsequently lost on a division —Ayes, 26 ; noes, 19. Amendment lost by 7. Mr. Lurasden, Mr. Joyce, and Dr. Hodgkiuson opposed the amendment; Mr. Stout supported it. Mr. STOUT proposed for Lake County to be excluded from Southland, and form part of Otago.—A division ensued, when the amendment proposed was lost by 26 to 13. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS opposed the division of theprovinoeof Otago into two educational districts. One Board had managed affairs before, and no complaints had been made.—Dr. Hodgkinson did not see why Southland should have a separate Board, when such places as Taranaki and Hawke’s Bay were educational districts. Southland was of far more importance than either of these places.—Mr. Macandrew advised the hon. member for Port Chalmers to withdraw his opposition to the schedule of the Bill. It was evident that the Government had the ball at their feet.—Mr. Ldmsden taunted Mr. Macandrew with not being consistent. When addressing the people of Invercargill he was very lavish in his promises of conceding the control of all local matters to the people of Southland.—A division was taken on the schedule, with the following result :—Ayes, 23 ; noes, 11.—Mr. Stout gave notice that he would move that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of providing that inspectors be appointed by the Minister of Education instead of by the Eucation Boards. DISTBICT RAILWAYS BILL. The District Railways Bill was further considered in committee. Clause 58 was amended, on the motion of Mr. Ormond, so as to fix the time at seven years after the line was opened before the Governor had the right of purchase. Several new clauses were inserted, and progress was reported. PROVINCIAL LAWS EVIDENCE BILL. Mr. WHITAKER moved the second reading of the Provincial Laws Evidence Bill, which was to remove certain obstacles in the taking of evidence under Canterbury and Otago Ordinances. The Bill was supported by Mr Macandrew, and read a second time. SETTLEMENTS WORKS ADVANCE BILL. The Hon. Mr. REID, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to open up lands for settlement which were now inaccessible. The Bill was very simple, and contained only a few clauses. It gives the Governor power to make advances for roads to open up lauds, the colony to be recouped out of the sale of the lauds. Mr. BARFF desired to know if the Bill would apply to such cases as the special settlement at Jackson Bay ? The Hon. Mr. REID said the Bill was not framed with the object of referring to any particular case. It was general in its scope. The intention was to afford means to open up blocks of land all over the colony. Mr. BARFF said some time ago he saw a telegram from the Press Agency stating that it was the intention of the Government to advance £6OOO to the Jackson Bay settlement. He was opposed to special settlements in extreme outlying districts, A great deal of money had been wasted in Jackson Bay, and it was no exception to the rule. Karamea was another instance. He did not believe in our time that Jackson Bay settlement would be a success. There was some good land, but it was all taken up, and the remainder was unfit for occupation. It was said that it contained forests of valuable timber, but he knew gentlemen who had examined the district, and did not find sufficient inducement to invest in a sawmill plant. If aid. was altogether withdrawn now the settlers might starve, and he would not object to a small sum being granted to the settlers. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS opposed the Bill He could call to mind several Acts to make special advances, but he would ask Ministers how much of the money granted had been returned. Mr. MACANDREW was of opinion that the whole system of advances was a mistake. If money was to be advanced for a purpose, it should be by a vote of the House, and the special object should be stated. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE said, in reference to the Jackson Bay settlement, that from information he had received it promised to be a success, though he did not apprehend the Bill would'apply to such cases as Jackson Bay. Under the Bill the House would have the power to vote the money. What he understood was that the Government would expend sums in opening up the country, and the colony would be recouped by the increased value of the land. He supported the Bill, as he believed it would promote settlement. Mr. MANDERS supported the second reading, but would reserve to himself the right in committee to oppose advances to such settlements as Jackson Bay. Mr. MONTGOMERY said the Bill placed too much power in the hands of the Government. He knew of no better means of bidding for votes. If a schedule were brought down stating the eases in which advances would be made and the provisions under which the money was granted, he would support it. • Mr. STOUT thought the Bill should be referred to the Waste Lands Committee. He did not see how hon. members could oppose the Bill. It was only the natural outcome of abolition. The Government were now being compelled to carry out the work which formerly was done by the Provincial Governments. Mr. REES condemned the Bill as brought in with the object of affording the Government means of bribery. It was an iniquitous measure, and had no parallel. On the motion of Sir Robert Douglas, the debate was adjourned. The House rose at 12.35.