PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5437, 30 August 1878, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, August 29. Tho Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour, PAPERS, &C. Some reports were laid on tho table and formal motions mado, and several notices of motion were given. PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE. The Hon. Captain BAXLLIE moved, — That the number of the Public Petitions Committee be increased to nine, and that the names of the Hons. Messrs. Grey and Edwards be added thereto.—Agreed to. CIVIL SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. Tho order for tho second reading of this Bill was discharged from the paper and niade an order for the following day on tho motion of the Colonial Secretary, who made it at the request of Mr. Waterhouse. In doing so, Colonel Whitmore regretted the action he was taking, as be thought tho Bill could have been considered at once. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE deprecated the Colonial Secretary receiving in such an ungracious manner a reasonable request. The Bill had only been circulated that morning. SAVINGS BANK BILL. The amendments mado by the House of Representatives in this Bill were taken into consideration. The first three were agreed to without discus-ion. On the next consideration was further postponed. OA3UP.U WATERWORKS BILL. This Bill was proceeded with in committee. Tho third clause having been struck out, —on a new danse, —“ The Municipal Council of the town of Oamaru may borrow any sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of forty thousand pounds, in addition to the sums authorised to be raised by the Oamaru Waterworks Act, 1875 ; and may secure the repayment of the same, with interest, in manner provided by the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876, relating to waterworks ; and may apply the same to the construction or completion of waterworks, under the provisions of the said Act, for the supply of the town of Oamaru,” —a long discussion ensued.

A motion to adjourn was negatived on a division.

Ultimately the clause was carried by 19 to 4.

The Council then (ten minutes to five) adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, August 29. , Tho Speaker took the chair at 2 30 p.m. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Messrs. Rees, Green, and Thomson. NOTICES OF MOTION. Notices of motion were given by Messrs. Wooloock, Reeves, Whitaker, Thomson, and Murray. REPORT. Mr. BRYCE brought up a report from the Native Affairs Committee on the petition of Mrs. A. E. Keid and others, which was referred to the Government. COBEESPONDENCB. Correspondence, with plan attached, was laid on the table by the Hon. Mr. Macandrew, relative to the purchase of the Te Aro reclaimed land by the Corporation of Wellington. The correspondence was ordered to be printed. RAILWAY PASSENGER TRAFFIC. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON drew the attention of the Government to the desirability of having a return laid on the table showing the number of passengers who had travelled on the railways during the past year, instead of the number of tickets issued. The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW replied that the return asked for would be laid on the table. ErUCATIOjr ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. PYKB explained that he had intended to move the adjournment of the debate on the previous night, instead of the adjournment of the House. He therefore begged to move that the second reading of the Education Act Amendment Bill be made an order of the day for next Wednesday week. He wished by this means to correct the error he had committed in moving the adjournment of tho House, instead of the debate. The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN intimated that the Government would have no objection to the course proposed. (Hear, hear.) The second reading was then fixed for next Wednesday week. WAIKATO RAILWAY. Mr. HOBBS asked the Minister for Public Works, —When the promised reduction in the rates on coal and settlers’ produce on the Waikato railway will come into effect ? The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW replied that since he visited the Waikato the rates for carrying coal had been very considerably reduced, and no further reductions would be made until the Government saw what the effect of the present reductions were. With' regard to grain and other agricultural produce, the matter would be fully inquired into, and if redactions could be made consistent with making the railway pay, they would be made accordingly. PETITION OF SAMUEL FALLOON. Mr. TOLB asked the Government, —Xu what manner they intend to carry out the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Samuel Falloon ? The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN replied that the Government would enquire into certain points in this case brought under their notice. COUNTY OP EDEN. Mr. TORE asked the Government, —If they Intend to abolish the system of tolls in the ■ County of Eden at an early date ? The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN replied that the Government would be moat happy to abolish the tolls if the local bodies provided the funds for maintaining the main roads of the county. LOANS. Mr. STEVENS asked the Colonial Treasurer,—Whether he will lay before this House a return showing the total loans issued by all local bodies throughout the colony ? The Hon. Mr. STOUT replied that the Government would make inquiries with a view to lay this return on the table, but some time would be required to collect the information. FISH PROTECTION ACT, 1877. Mr. ROWE asked the Minister for Public Works whether the Government intended to” amend the Fish Protection Act 1877 ? The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW replied that the only intention of the Government was to bring in a Bill for the protection of oyster and seal fisheries. INVERCARGILL. Mr. FELDWICK asked tho Minister of Justice, —If he is aware that, owing to the Supreme Court sitting only twice in the year at tnvercargil, great injustice is often inflicted upon prisoners awaiting trial, and hardship also upon parties engaged in civil cases ; and whether the Government will he prepared to make arrangements for the said Court to hold quarterly sittings at Invercargill V 'Hie Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN replied that a similar question had been answered on the previous day. The Government could not give a definite promise to have quarterly sittings of tho Court held at Invercargill. OTAGO COAL. Mr. MURRAY asked tho Minister for Public Works, —If Kaitangata and other Otago coal is used on the Otago Railways ; and, if so, to what extent ? Also, to what extent imported coal is used ? The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW was sorry to say that the experiment of using Kaitangata and other Otago coal had not been successful. BILLS. On the motion of Mr, Hamlin, tho following Bills were introduced in committee :—Mahurang!, Port Albert, Matakana, Wade, and Kaipara Harbor Endowment Bills, which were reported to the House, and read a first time. On the motion of Mr. Hobbs, the Kaipara Harbor Endowment Bill was introduced in committee, reported to tho House, and road a first time. On the motion of Mr. Williams, tho following Bills Were introduced in committee, reported to tho House, and read a first time': — Hokianga, Mongonui, Whangaroa, and tho Bay of Islands Harbor Endowment Bills. PETITION OP RICHARD THOMAS SHIELD. Mr. BRYCE moved, —That tho petition of Richard Thomas Shield (No. X), presented to this House last session, be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee for reconsideration. The motion was agreed to. HIGHER EDUCATION, Mr, REES moved, —That, in the opinion of this House, there should be four seminaries of higher education or learning in the Colony of New Zealand, with an efficient professorial staff in each such seminary ; to bo placed in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. Mr. Rees said hon. members Were aware of the circumstances under which this motion had been placed on tho paper. A BUI was introduced on a previous night, and on it there arose a discussion, in the coarse of which tho University of New Zealand was referred to. It was pointed out, that tho University was a more examining body, and that it was absolutely necessary each of

the natural capitals of the colony should possess an institution wherein higher education or learning could be imparted to the youth of the colony. It was with this object that he had tabled the resolution standing in his name. . • The Hon. Mr. STOUT said that in his Excellency’s opening speech it was stated that higher education required serious consideration, and that a commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. The resolution was therefore premature, as the commission would not sit until during the recess. Their report would be presented to Parliament next year, and as nothing could be done in tho matter this session he would suggest the propriety of withdrawing the motion. Mr. ROLLESTON said tho Government had adopted a wise course in determining to appoint a commission to inquire into the subject. He felt sure the results of such an inquiry would bo beneficial to all parts of New Zealand. Ur. HODGKINSON suggested the amending of the resolution so as include Invercargill. After some further discussion the motion was withdrawn. HARBOR WORKS. Mr. REES moved,—(l) That, in the opinion of this House, all questions affecting the construction of harbor works in New Zealand should be dealt with in accordance with general rules, and on a general plan; (2) that no money vote should be made, nor any landed endowment given, for the construction of any such works in the colony until the opinion of a competent engineer had been obtained approving of the proposed work. The hon. member objected to the present system of individual harbor boards constructing individual harbor works, as he believed a great deal of money had been wasted through the absence of a general system. Ho did not think the House was justified m giving so many enormous endowments, unless it was satisfied that tho works could be carried out successfully, and that they would benefit the colony when completed. Ur. HODGKINSON opposed tho resolution, believing that one system would not be found to answer the requirements of the various harbors in the colony. Mr. WHITAKER considered that they must husband the land fund as much as possible, or else give up their railway proposals. If they were to endow all these harbor boards with waste lands of the Crown, they would not have money with which to carry on the system of railway construction. He begged to move that all the words after the word “ that*' in tho second resolution be struck out, with a view to inserting the following words:—“No endowments in land should be granted for harbor boards except lands below high-water mark and land abutting on harbors and requited for the purpose of conveniently carrying out harbor or protection works.” The Hon. Mr. STOUT said that if endowments of land were given to all the Harbor Boards that applied for them, there would be nothing left for railway construction or anything, else. (Hear, hear.) The Government thought the time had arrived when it was necessary to put a stop to these harbor endowments. After the various Bills were reported on, the House might consent to make grants in money to such Harbor'Boards as the House might think fit. After some discussion the debate was adjourned for a fortnight, THAMES GOLDFIELD. Mr. ROWE mo vcd—Th a t the correspondence between several parties on the Thames goldfield and the Government, having reference to a tunnel from Karaka Creek to Tamm Creek, be referred to the Goldfields Committee, The motion was agreed to. JACKSON’S BAY SPECIAL SETTLEMENT. Mr. BARER moved, —That the Government be requested to take immediate steps to cause a public and impartial inquiry to be held into tho working of the Jackson's Bay special settlement, and that any persons who may feel themselves aggrieved may have ample opportunities afforded them of giving evidence, on oath, before any tribunal which may be appointed. The hon. member said that but for the promise given last year by the Premier that a commission of inquiry would have been appointed during the recess, he would have given particulars as to the manner in which this special settlement had been mismanaged. Since the commencement of the session he had received letters from persons whom he had known, containing charges of gross mismanagement, and a petition was* sent up by persons with most of whom he was personally acquainted, and whose statements could be believed, but that petition could not lie presented in consequence of an informality. The hon. member read extracts from the petition, setting forth charges of extortion and mismanagement, and praying for a full investigation into the circumstances of the case. The people of Westland, the Bailer, and the colony generally would not be satisfied unless there was a full inquiry made, which was only fair not only to those who petitioned for it bub also to those who were charged with gross malpractices. Tho Hon. Mr. GISBORNE seconded the motion. „ ,

The Hon. Mr. STOU'JL’ said it was, and is still, the intention of the Government to cause an inquiry to be made into this matter. It would be too expensive to appoint a commission, but an inquiry would be made on the subject. In connection with this matter, he might say the Government had a communication from the resident agent, stating that he was on his way to Wellington to demand an inquiry into what he called the gross libels that had been circulated against him.

Mr. PYKE supported the motion, remarking that nothing • but gross mismanagement could prevent this settlement being made a grand success. Mr. WOOLCOCK considered that an angel from Heaven could not make the Jackson’s Bay settlement successful. jlr. BEEVES felt that the non-success of this settlement must be attributed to jobbery and peculation. Thousands of pounds had been spent in it for the benefit of three or four individuals, and even if it cost £SOOO or £IO,OOO, ho .thought a commission ought to be appointed to make a full and searching invest!-, gation. Mr. B ABFF having replied, tho motion was agreed to. MUNICIPAL AND COUNTIES ACTS. The debate was resumed on the question,— That, considering the extent of the amendments proposed to be made in the Municipal and Counties Acts by the recent Conferences sitting in Wellington, this House is of opinion that it would be unwise to give effect to the bulk of them until members have had, during the recess, : an opportunity of examining the recommendations made ; but this- resolution not to refer to any technical amendments of cither Act urgently required. After some remarks from Mr. M.VNDEBS, The Hon. Mr. STOUT suggested the withdrawal of the motion, as the subject was dealt with in Bills which had been introduced in another branch of the Legislature, and when the Bills came into this House the hon. member for Wakatipu would have an opportunity of re-opening the question. Leave was given to withdraw the motion. JUNES act, 1877. The debate was resumed on the question,— That it be an instruction to the Goldfields Committee to ascertain whether it is not practicable to amend the appendices and regulations of the Mines Act, 1877, and the Act itself, so far as regards the necessity of advertising claims tor water-rights, leases, and other matters to the extent at present enforced by said Act. (2). That it also he an instruction to said committee to frame an abstract form of advertisement that shall be considered a sufficient “public notice.’’ (3) That they bring up a report, in so far as they see fit, showing where it is desirable to amend the said Act, appendices, and regulations, so that they may work in greater harmony one with the other, —And tho amendment proposed thereto, of tho previous question. Tho House divided—Ayes, 44; nocs, 8. ' Tho motion, and not tho previous question, was therefore earned. FENCING BILL. Mr. HUKSTHOUSB moved, That all correspondence between the Government and the Motueka and Waimea Boad Boards, regarding the Fencing Bill, be laid before this House. Tho motion was agreed to, IIETUBNS. Mr. HANDERS moved, —That a return bo laid before this House showing, (1) Tho ebst of each water-race or sludge-channel constructed or subsidised, under tho Public Works Act, and specifying which ; (2) the locality of each work so constructed or subsidised ; (3) the nature of tho security held—whether a first or second title or mortgage,, and, if a second title, tho amount of tho claim of tho first right; (4) the moneys expended for maintaining' said water-races and dams for tho year ending 30th June last; (5) the amount of interest or returns received for tho money expended upon tho said works, specifying ' the year of payment thereof ; (C) the amounts, if any, voted or asked for to purchase any water-right, race, or dam ; (7) tho gross

total amount expended for maintenance only of such works. The Hon. Mr. STOUT said the motion was unnecessary, as the information required would be found in the appendices to the Public Works Statement. Consequently ho would suggest the withdrawal of the motion. Motion withdrawn accordingly. Mr. SUTTON moved,—That a return be laid before this House (to supplement the return of native lands under negotiation by Government), showing in each case the financial year in which the advances were made. The motion was agreed to. LAND TRANSFER OFFICE.

Mr. STEVENS moved,—That it is expedient that the Government should make known, for public information, the extent of the liability of the assurance fund of the Laud Transfer Olfice in respect of titles which may have been accepted and exchanged for land transfer certificates in the event of valid claims bein" subsequently made. The Hon. Sir. STOUT thought it inadvisable to state publicly what he considered the full liability of the Government might be In respect of the titles referred to. Tho motion was withdrawn, TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.

Ur. WALLIS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said its principle was consonant with the electoral reform brought forward by Ministers, and together with a proposal for the distribution of seats ought to have formed a part of tho Government scheme. He reviewed the history of English Parliaments to show that although the Septennial Act was passed as ,a tentative measure necessary in the troublous times of George 1., yet the nation had always recognised the expediency of short Parliaments as being the best means of ensuring the feelings of the people being reflected in the Parliament, and their well-being given effect to. Though in theory the English Parliament was septennial just now, contrary, he believed, to the wishes of the people, yet since the commencement of tho septennial system the average life of Parliaments had been little more than three years, owing to frequent dissolutions, resulting from a constant desire on the part of statesmen to keep themselves in harmony with the country. In New Zealand dissolutions were rare. Governments would not dissolve the House, and our Parliaments lived on till worn out with old age. It was desirable, he thought, as the New Zealand Parliaments would not give themselves the “happy despatch, the law should be amended so as to curtail their lives to three years. He quoted, the case of America and a number of Continental countries to show that five years was an unusually long term, and further, said it was contrary to the practice of the Australian colonies. But apart from this, a short tenure of office was required to prevent members giving way to the temptation of the corrupting influence of power, and the foibles incident to colonial political life. There were all the shams and pretences of a puny metropolis like Wellington ; there was a Chamber of nominees, there was the extravagance of the Government and Civil Service, there was the large patronage placed in the hands of the Government in consequence of the expenditure of the millions borrowed on the security of the sweat and the grounddown bone and muscle of the artisan class. These afforded gieafc temptations, and no man could stand for five years against these alluring influences, triennial elections, then, were necessary to secure the purity of the Parliament, and they were also especially necessary in view of the rapid advance of public > opinion in the colonies. The onward march of progress was so rapid nowadays as to render it exceedingly improbable that a man who represented Ilia constituents to-day would in the slightest degree represent them at the end of five years. He also claimed for the new system a great educative influence, and contended that the constant political excitement likely to result from more frequent elections was absolutely necessary to secure the health of the body politic. He admitted that the logical consequence of his argument was that there should be annual Parliaments, but the element of must be taken into account in dealing with the question. Till the people were more highly educated and less ignorant, members of Parliament could not be reduced to mere delegates. Public men must for a while lead, and not follow,' public opinion, though he saw in the not very distant future delegation and annual Parliament. (Applause.) Mr. MANDEBS, as a representative of the working classes, did not care if he went to his constituents to-morrow, but disapproved of a measure of this sort emanating from a private member. Mr. THOMSONthought the reference of the mover to history proved more than he wanted, for it showed that in England public questions, were continually referred to the people without regard to tho duration of the Parliament. That was a good thing, and he thought they might hope to see the same thing ia New Zealand. It was no use constantly going to the country unless there was some broad question to go upon. For instance, if a dissolution occurred now what could members go to their constituents on ? There were nothing but general questions, unless it was the constitutional question—the question as to whether New Zealand was to remain one united colony, with the seat of Government at Wellington, and all affairs administered from Wellington; or whether there should be two provinces, with a Federal Government at Wellington. He should oppose the Bill. Mr. MURRAY-AYNSLEY expressed surprise at hearing nothing from the Government, and had hoped the Premier would have brought down the BUI, after the opinions he had expressed in past sessions. Generally he was in favor of a change ; but he preferred a Government measure, although he still should support the Bill. He hoped there would be a dissolution immediately, and a new Parliament called together to consider the questions now pending. Ur. HODGKINSON heartily supported the Bill, but would even prefer biennial Parliaments. It was to be feared that members under a quinquennial system seemed to think they had a five years’ lease of political life, and would not support a Government which proposed measures likely to result in a dissolution. It also led to a great expenditure of money on elections, because men would pay more for a five years’ lease than they would for a three years’ lease. The present system favored the money influence at elections. He must again express regret at the non-appear-ance of a Distribution of Seats Bill, especially in view of the necessity for dealing with the constitutional question, and raising up new institutions in. the place of those which had been so ruthlessly destroyed. The Hon. Mr. STOUT had been waiting to hear arguments against the measure ; but the House unanimously seemed in favor of the Bill, and another sign had been given of tho progress of liberal ideas during the last year. He hoped the political education of the House would be complete in time. He approved of the Bill, and looked forward to annual Parliaments, for he believed there would be less evils arising from delegation than arose under the present system. Xt would be well if more deference, were paid to the people and less to party. Personally ho should vote for the Bill, but as it was not a Government question each member would please himself. Hr. BOWEN was sorry to bear that the political education of the Government was not yet complete, for that was the logical inference to be drawn from the remarks of the AttorneyGeneral, and he hoped the hon. gentleman would in time succeed in educating his colleagues. Ho challenged the historical arguments of the hon. member for Auckland City West, and denied that ho had correctly represented English history. The Septennial Act was passed to cure abuses which had long troubled the nation, and to prevent the vast expense of triennial clectipns. He admitted that the average duration of tho English Parliaments of late had been three years, hub that showed the people always had opportunities of expressing their opinions on public questions, a practice which would fall into desuetude if the Parliaments were of shorter duration. Burning questions would then be held over till a general election, and would then bo so mixed up with other. questions that tho will of the people would never be known so exactly. In New Zealand dissolutions had been rare in tho past; but that was owing to tho existence hitherto of a number of Legislatures. However, now that tho Parliament was face to with the people, dissolutions would bo more frequent. Ho denied that tho examples of Continental nations were in point, and said American thinkers attributed many of tho political evils of that country to the constant ferment occasioned by tho frequent elections. Ho repudiated the idea of delegation, as inimical to tho best interests of the country, and tending to demoralise tho Parliament, for no man of thought would seek a seat when his only business was to do as ho was told. If the Bill were passed it would lower the inclopendence of members, lesson tho responsibilities of electors, and increase tho power of temporary majorities, who already had too much power. It would also lead to groat waste of public time. The Bill was uncalled for, unnecessary, and . represented a fantastic crotchet,

brought forward for the purpose of getting up a cry, and was altogether opposed to liberal ideas, in that it tended to destroy individual liberty and was opposed to the promotion of equal and just laws. Ke moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. _ Mr. MOSS said his reading had taught him that the Septennial Act was passed by persons possessing power to enable them to retain that power, but the analogy between England and New Zealand would not hold good, because the English Legislature had never abused its trust like the latter had done, notably in the case of the Public Works scheme and Abolition, In neither case was the country consulted until the Legislature had come to a decision, and held out dazzling prospects to the people to endorse its action. He regarded triennial parliaments as a necessary institution in view of recent constitutional changes. The people had been robbed of much of the power bestowed upon them by the Constitution, and it was necessary to restore that power, to a certain extent, in the shape of more frequent elections, more particularly in view of the new scheme of public works now before the House. Public opinion was wiser than a single branch of the Legislature, and the oftener recourse was had to that public opinion for guidance the better. Sir GEORGE GREY should support the Bill, but said the Government had not wished to imperil their position by bringing forward a Bill of this kind when so many other questions were pressing. Replying to the argument of the hon. member for Kaiapoi, he urged that the Bi’itish Constitution could not be followed too literally, because it wasiconstautly changing. It would be altogether different in another half century; but besides that the Septennial Parliament had committed some of the greatest acta of injustice to which the people of England has had to submit. Au aristocracy had been created by bribery and corruption, the land bad been taken from the people, and many social disadvantages created. Triennial Parliaments were especially necessary here, in view of the posi* tion taken up by the Homo Government that a Governor was not to allow a dissolution until the House had been exhausted—that was until every possible combination had been tried to prevent the people expressing their will. If the people were to enjoy their liberties untrammelled by the caprice of one man there must be triennial elections—if the principle laid down by the Home Government, that colonial statesmen were inferior men, were not to be trusted with local affairs, was insisted upon, and effect attempted to be given to it, the only way the people could secure their liberties was by triennial Parliaments. The alteration was necessary because of the rapid change of public opinion in the colonies, and that it did change rapidly was evidenced by the other night’s division, 61 to 2, in favor of a proposition which was hooted at two ydars ago in the House, and by the colonialisation of the Land Fund at the end of last session, when at the beginning of the session only twelve could be found to vote in favor of it, and it was necessary to give effect to electoral reform. What was the use of giving men power if they could only exercise it once in five years. He had not proposed this Bill this session because he was unaware of the feeling of the House, and he did not care to risk his position on the Bill, seeing a new Parliament would soon come into power, when the matter would have been dealt with, he was sure, in a satisfactory manner. Still, as the Bill had been brought forward he should support it, and he hoped the golden opportunity would be seized, and that the Parliament would in its last days render itself illustrious. He believed that if triennial Parliaments had been the law of the land a short time ago, the Governor would not have acted so unconstitutionally as he had done in reference to the Abolition Act. He would, before that Bill was passed, have sent the House to the country, and then that act of tyranny—more shameful tyranny was never known in modern times—would not have been committed. To prevent such an act of injustice being committed in the future this Bill should be passed. Mr. MOORHOUSB denied he was a conservative in the sense in which the word had been used of late in the House ; but he desired to save everything worth saving, yet was sincere in his desire to go with a progressive policy. He gave the Government credit for their objects; but could not approve of the means they proposed, nor could he agree with this Bill. He criticised the arguments in favor of the Bill, and denied incidentally the statement of the Premier as to the tyranny of the Abolition Act. That question was debated throughout the colony, it was debated for a session in the House, and then stood the test of a general election. Where was the tyranny ? He defended the principle embodied in the position of the Governor of the colony, and hoped that there would be no change in the Constitution so far as the position of that officer was concerned. He proceeded to say ho claimed to be a Liberal, and took his stand on justice to all men, and while he wished to see colonists free lie copld not seo that that end would be attained by having fresh elections so soon as a representative had got into harness, putting him to great trouble and expense. In his opinion the people could better spend their time in increasing the wealth and exports of the country than in rushing about here and there to elections. There were quite enough elections now, taking local elections into account. There was at present too much excitement and too much law-making. It would confer a great benefit on the country now if the House were to pass one or two measures, vote supplies, and adjourn. He hoped the House would pause for a few years before taking this further step. The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN had intended to oppose the Bill, because it had come from a private member, and because he had thought the matter should be dealt with by the new Parliament; bat with the Premier he thought the opportunity was too good to be lost. In speaking on the subject he said he believed if the colony were polled to-morrow the decision would be for the reversal of the policy of 1871-6 with respect to abolition, and he.confirmed tho opinion of tho Premier that the Abolition Act was an act of tyranny. The law was passed contrary to the will of the people as expressed in petitions by a power behind the throne, and with the aid of bribes and promises never intended to bo carried out, and which were not and could not be carried out. The matter was remitted to the people not as au open question but as a settled question. He proceeded to argue at some length in favor of the Bill, urging that it was necessary that members should return to their constituents as often as possible, in order to preserve the political life of the colony, though it might be inconvenient to lion, gentlemen. There could not be snob a thing as “ political rest” in a colony like this. Supposing there were changes in the personnel, was it right that a certain class of men should monopolise the whole faculty of representation. There were plenty of good men waiting for their turn. Mr. WAKEFIELD complimented the languageof tho Premier,but characterised hisavguraent as weak. His referred to tho Septennial Act as having been tho cause of particular acts of misdoing in England, but bo had not shown that a similar state of things would not have existed under a Triennial Act. The only result of more frequent elections would have been to intensify corruption by increasing the transactions in rotten boroughs. He objected to triennial Parliament because it' was not until members had been in the House some time that they come to understand one another, their views and objects, and the interests each represented. This session the work was proceeding much more satisfactorily than it had done in tho first session, and things would go on better as as the life of the Parliament went on. It took a man three years to become acquainted with the routine of the work. He admitted that the Constitution had not been worked freely in the past, owing to tho action of the Governor in refusing dissolutions, as last year, but there was a constitutional escape from that if Ministers knew their position. If a Ministry wero to resign when refused a dissolution, a Governor would soon got tired of refusing dissolutions when deliberately advised to dissolve. Wero the Bill to bo passed it would result in spasmodic chaotic legislation. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE regarded tho five years Parliament ns a protection against tho tyranny of mob rule. In five years a representative was enabled to learn his duty, and to perform it fearlessly. Ho thought when tho Premier had referred to th 6 misdeeds which had been committed under septennial Parliaments ho should also have stated the glorious legislation whicli had taken place under the system, and should have referred to the long list of illustrious statesmen who had flourished under the law. He would accept tho compromise of four years, and to that end would support the second reading, with a view to the Bill being amended in committee. Mr. STEVENS heartily supported tho Bill as necessary to ensure Parliament reflecting tho many changes passing over public opinion in tho colony. Ho did not think men of experience would bo kept out of the House, and if they did they would soon regain their seats; and as to mon not being fitted for thoir duties in the first year and trimming during tho

rest of the .time, he thought constituents would soon perceive that, and treat such men as they deserved. The House fur its own sake should not hesitate to adopt any means in its power to bring itself more into unison with the country, now that it was the only representative body in the country.

Mr. PYICE objected to the question of provincialism and other such questions being drawn into the discussion. It was unnecessary and impolitic, but still he must reply to some remarks. He defended the result of abolition so far as the counties were concerned. The County system was a boon to the interior of the colony, which, under the previous system, was being depleted of its wealth. The County system had been a success where fairly tried, but it had been a failure where men prejudiced against the system had pretended to work it. He opposed triennial Parliaments, because under them poor men would never get into the House, In his own district, for instance, no poor man could travel over it every three years to contest a seat. The introduction of tho system would also introduce the curse of the United States into the colony —continual agitation. The people had not demanded the system, and did not want it, and the Government was unwise to demand reforms ahead of the people. As to the colonialisation of the Land Fund, a remark upon which had fallen from the Premier, he told the hon. gentleman last year that he bad given the final blow to provincialism by the action he had taken. That was true. The South had nothingto fight for now that the Land Fund was gone, and he hoped and believed that the cry of provincialism or separation would not again be raised seriously iu the House. Mr. REES quoted Smollett to show that the only object of the Ministers who introduced the Septennial Act was to prevent revolution, and save their own heads; and wanted to know how many greater men would have been brought to the front had triennial Parliaments been the law of the land. He defended the principle of introducing new men into the House at intervals of three years. Replying to Mr. Pyke, he said that some people had reason to be glad of the County system, especially Vincent County, which, while it had raised £I6OO in rates, had received aid during tho past year to the amount of £23,000. Mr. TOLE congratulated the Premier on the contrast between the reception of the Bill last year and that accorded to it this year. It was a good measure, and deserved support. He quoted the preambles of the Triennial and Septennial Acts, and also May, in favor of the contention of Mr. Rees as to the reason of the passing of the Septennial Act; and cited Toulmin Smith, to show the Septennial Act was illegally passed, and tended to destroy' local self-government in England. He urged that the Bill should be passed, if but for the reason that it was the only means of having the people represented fairly. Population increased very greatly in the course of five years, and it was very unfair that men should be so long in the colony before being allowed to exercise the power conferred upon them by law. Mr. TURNBULL opposed the Bill, because in view of the large extension of the suffrage about to be given it was unfair to tie the hands of tho next Parliament. He defended abolition, on the ground that it was necessary in consequence of the obligations the colony had undertaken that the provinces should be prevented squandering the public estate. At 12.30, on the motion of Mr. Buhny, tho debate was adjourned for a fortnight. The House then adjourned.