PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 230, 19 March 1866, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

TUESDAY, 13th MAECH, 1866. The Speaeeb opened the proceedings at 7.15 p.m. The minutes of last sitting were read and confirmed. RIVEBTON GOLD FIELDS. Mr. PEAESON laid on the table a report by Mr. Commissioner Weldon, on the Eiverton Goldfields. MR. MARCHANTS CLAIM. Dr. MENZIES moved " that all the papers connected with Mr. Marchant's i claim for compensation be laid on the table." In moving this motion the hon. member said that it was extremely desirable that the Council should be put in possession of all the circumstances that may have transpired within the last few months, with reference to this particular claim. The exact position of the matter would be better understood when the correspondence had been laid upon the table. That some correspondence had occurred, he was aware, inasmuch as he had been communicated with on the subject, and he knew he was not the only one so corresponded with. It might be desirable that he should give the Council a little explanation on a few points, in order that they should be made fully aware of all the circumstances connected with the case. Sometime ago when the Council proposed to form a Eailway to the Bluff, Mr. Marchant was engaged by the Government to act as Eailway Engineer. At that time he was acting as Engineer to the Town Board, and one of the stipulations which was made by the Government was, that his primary duty should be to the Government, and any spare time lie might have, he would devote to the work of the Town Board. The work of the Government was to be done, that was clearly stipulated. After the lapse of sometime the Government proposed to the Council that a railway should be constructed to Winton, and when the Council agreed to that, when the plan was determined upon, and the line designed, and laid out, this work was given to Mr. Marchant ; no stipulation was then made with him, that he should receive any further remuneration, nor was any objection made at that time. Sometime after, when both railways were drawing towards completion, and the greatest part of the work in an advanced state, it might be in March or April, 1864, the Government found that its financial position was such that all officers who were not necessarily required Bhould be discharged, and if possible the salaries of those officers that remained should be diminished. In order to ascertain what reductions could be made upon the staff compatible with efficient Avorking and what redactions of salaries to the officers that were engaged, an application was made to the heads of Departments. At first, Mr. Marchant objected to a reduction, but, finding that there was no alternative he agreed to a reduction of £150 on the amount of his salary, to accept a salary of £450 in Meu of £600, Subsequently another reduction was made in, his salary, when a pro-

cannot speak. Sometime afterwards it became publicly known that he claimed money for services connected with the Oreti Eailway. He (Dr. Menzies) received a communication from the Deputy-Superintendent enquiring as to the engagement with Mr. Marchant, his opinions as to the salary, and whether this extra work should be paid for. Before replying to this letter he received a communication from Mr. Heale, informing him that he (Mr. Heale) had received a similar communication from the Deputy-Superin-tendent, and enclosed his reply through him, Dr. Menzies. The agreement with Mr. Marchant was really with himself personally. Mr. Heale was conversant with it and he (Dr. Menzies) presumed that from this circumstance the Government thought it desirable to make the reference to him on the subject. Mr. Heale's views differed slightly from his own. Hecommunicatedhisviewsonthe subject, and Mr. Heale's letter to the Deputy-Superintendent. Soon afterwards he found that, contrary to the opinion which he (Dr. Menzies) gave, the claim was admitted so far as to accede to arbitration on the question; and now, Sir, said the hon. member, unless the Government could show some further reason for admitting the claim it would appear to him that their conduct had been extremely inconsiderate in so far as agreeing to an arbitration at all. He was not prepared to say just now that in case Mr. Marchant had completed all the works he might not fairly look to the Government to allowing some compensation to him for carrying out the works to a successful issue, but that he had now a claim to demand remuneration for these services, is a view which he (Dr. Menzies) never had entertained, and he thought that instead of expressing opinions it would be more satisfactory to hear the correspondence read, whicli he doubted not the Government was ready to produce. , He (Dr. Menzies) moved that the Clerk read the correspondence. Mr. PEAESON stated that the Government had not the least objection to lay all the papers on the table, so far as the papers were in its possession, but, as had been stated at last evening's sitting, certain papers were at present in the arbitrator's hands, consequently the Government were unable to lay these on the table. The others were already there. As regarded the present Government, it seemed to him that the referring the matter to arbitration was an affair with which it had nothing to do, inasmuch as the matter was virtually settled prior to the present Government coming into office. He would not enter into any argument as to whether Mr. Marchant was or was not entitled to remuneration. That would be settled by the arbitrators. If there was not the slightest grounds for claiming compensation the arbitrators doubtless would give none. If, on the other hand, the principal part of the evidence — the replies made by the hon. member for Invercargill — justify Mr. Marchant's claim, they will give the compensation sought. On the 25th July last there was a meeting of the Executive, when it was agreed that the opinions of Dr. Menzies and Mr. Heale should be obtained, and after that the question should be referred to arbitration. He (Mr. Pearson) joined the Executive on the 25th November ; when the questions were returned the answers appeared unsatisfactory, and the Government tried to come to some agreement with Mr. Marchant on the subject. At the meeting it was expressly stipulated that the Government considered the claim too high and declined to exceed to it. Then Mr. Marchant fell back upon the arrangement which was made long prior to his (Mr. Pearson's) having anything to do with the Government. It was decided to refer the matter to arbitration sometime in December. At last session of the Provincial Council the Provincial Solicitior stated distinctly that a claim had been, made for some compensation for Mr. Marchant's services, and that the claim was considered too high by the Government, consequently the Government had determined to refer it to arbitration. No objection was then made, and it seems to him surprising that objections should be now raised. The time would have been then, and had any objections been raised, the Government would have refused to go to arbitration, and have allowed Mr. Marchant to seek Ins redress at law. Had any objection been raised at the proper time, the Government were in duty bound to carry out-the thing to its utmost in refusing arbitration As regards the course pursued by the Government, an_ which has been designated by the hon. member for Invercargill as inconsiderate, the Government had not any option in the matter, it "having been settled beforehand. It was a question with them whether they should break faith with an officer. Had the Council expressed its opinion at last session, he (the hon. member) speaking for himself, would have been only too happy to get out of the responsibility. No such opinion had been expressed. No dissentient voice had been heard when such might have been of some use. The blame rested entirely with his late Honor (Dr. Menzies) for the loose manner in which the engagement had been made with Mr. Marchant. No man with any business capacity would have made so foolish an a greement. Mr. AEMSTEONG said that the Council had only been informed that the mattei" existed, not that it was to be brought to arbitration. Mr. PEAESON said he had s> distinct recollection of the House being informed that a claim had been made by the Engineer for his services on the Oreti railway ; that the Government considered it too high, and that the matter would be referred to arbitration. Mr. COWAN said one point had not been sufficiently alluded to. If Mr. Marchant had voluntarily submitted to the reduction of his salary first of £150, and afterwards of another £100, without eQ&ditipaj^tke ply claim, it appeal tft.

him, could be made to make up the salary so reduced. He hoped the papers would; be read. Mr. WOOD agreed with the lion. member for Oreti, and explained the difference between a mah taking simple distinct contracts to do certain work, and a public servant employed on a salary and characterised Mr. Marchant's claim as preposterous, especially after his twice submiting to reduction of salaxy, without stipulations. Mr. AEMSTEONG- referred to the fact of important documents being sent out of the Province, and not even copies taken. Mr. JOHNSTON moved, Mr. SWALE seconded, that the papors be read. Motion put and carried. Mr. STtJAET referred to the fact that two most important papers had nofc been laid on the table, and which papers would require to be got, before an opinion could be come to, and further stated that some explanation was due to account for their not being before the Council, one paper was materially important — the agreement between the Superintendent and Mr. Marchant. He thought that agreement provided that in the event of the answers to enquiries not being satisfactory, that the Grovernment should be at liberty to refer the matter to arbitration or settle it themselves with Mr. Marchant. He (Mr. Stuart) did not agree with any of the members, in their decision ; in this claim he was inclined to think that Mr. Marchant was entitled to something, but did not think the Government wasbound to goto arbitration, He was not present when the meeting decided upon arbitration. He said the Council had a right to insist, and should insist, that a copy of the agreement should be got belore the Council rose, even if it had to be got by telegraph. It was generally understood [at last session, that with the exception of passing one or two bills, no business' was to be gone into. The PEOYINCIAL SOLICITOE wished to make an explanation, and before doing so desired to express his very great regret that this matter had been overlooked by the Council at last session. He corroborated the statement that this matter had then been distinctly stated. His recollection of the circumstance was very distinct. It was on the occasion of the member for Waikivi, then Provincial Treasurer, laying on the table the statement of liabilities ofthe Grovernment. The member for Invercargill asked him whether there were any other claims which were not included in this statement. He replied there were, a few trifling claims for wliich future sanction would be asked, and when the hon member pressed to know what these claims were, Mr. Stuart said "a few small accounts not sent in." He (the Provincial Solicitor) then gotup andstated that he had omitted to mention one thing, a claim by Mr. Marchant for remuneration. The ' Grovernment did not entertain that claim, but the matter was to be referred to arbitration, and might probably be settled before this sitting of Council. He also referred to the persistent manner in which Mr. Marchant's claim had been urged, which induced the Grovernment to appeal to Dr. Menzies and Mr. Heale. The Grovernment was actuated by a spirit of fairness, and he regretted the answers to the questions were not on the table, that the Council might judge. The hon. gentleman expressed his surprise to hear that the G-overnment had admitted its liability for some claim. The G-overn-ment all along denied there was any grounds for such a claim up to this time. . This agreement could be had by Saturday if telegraphed for. Dr. HODGKINSON presumed this correspondence had been asked for in order tha,t the Council might ascertain whether the Government had exercised a sound discretion in referring this matter to arbitration. Erom all he could gather he was inclined to think the Government did quite right, and that the whole result was owing to the loose manner in which, the business of the province had been previously conducted by Dr. Menzies — the former Superintendent. Mr. Marchant had been too much for him. Yet he thought Mr. Marchant might have a legal claim ; it was very doubtful if he had earned what the province had already paid him. The hon. member for Invercargill would be able to say whether Mr. Marchant undertook this work without remark ; when Mr. Marchant pressed the matter it was simply a question with the Government which was the most judicious course to take — law or arbitration. Mr. BLACKLOCK thought the aub) ject was in a nut-shell. Though not in the Government at the time, he would endorse all that they had done. He could not see that the Government by going to arbitration had admitted a claim. And engineers had been chosen as being the only parties properly capable of judging in the case. Dr. MENZIES said he did not know whether any other gentleman wished to address the Council. If not, there was one or two points which had been elicited on which he wished to make some remarks. One point was the remarks of the hon. member for Waianiwa, with reference to the absence of any discussion on thia question in the session of 18th December in regard to which the Provincial SoUcitor had expressed his regret that no notice was taken of his remarks then made, and complimented he (Dr. Menzies) on his business capacity. That session was a particularly short one. The business was carried through with railway speed. At the time the remark was made by the Provincial Solicitor, he (Dr. Menzies) must have been occupied in some way, as he had no recollection of the remarks. The business was well nigh concluded, and he thought after the estimates were brought up, uot half an hour elapsed before the Council was prorogued. His remarks were made, I think, within an hour of the prorogationi of tbe Cwueil, £& (V>h Im] $$

not doubt that the remarks had been I made. Occasion should have been taken to press a further enquiry on the matter. It would appear that the Government had been so far pledged that any opinion then would have embarrassed tbe Government in carryingit out. The hon. member for Waianiwa had observed that there could be no harm in referring to arbitration If Mr Marchant had no ease the Government could not suffer. The Provincial Solicitor conceived that there was no liability. The PEOVINCIAL SOLICITOB— The Government took the ground tbat there was no liability. Dr. MENZIESVThen if the Government recognises no liability where was the case to go to arbitration ? (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that .the correspondence did not give all the information on that point. Possibly there might be no letters to fill up this, or it might be filled up by conversation only. Eegret and surprise had been expressed that the Council should not have taken action at a time when that action might have been of some use, namely, on 18th of December. Erom a letter of the Superintendent, it was found that the authority to Mr. Patterson is dated 14th December, so that any action taken by the Council -would have been after the arrangement had been come to. (Hear, hear.) The object of the hon. member had been attended by the production ofthe correspondence ; he left the matter in the hands of the Council. RAILWAYS. Dr. MENZIES moved for all correspondence or reports on the subject of the excess of expenditure over the contract prices on the Bluff Harbor and Invercargill Eailway. In putting this motion the hon. member said that the fact that the expenditure was extending beyond the original estimates became apparent early in 1864. Subsequently in April a further sum was asked and sanctioned by the Council. The Council knew that action had been taken to endeavor to obtain full explanations, and to obtain the proper examination, by competent persons, of the line, as it was left unfinished, in order to ascertain where the blame lay. He (Dr. Menzies) therefore moved for the correspondence. Mr. PEAESON, in reply to the hon. member, stated that the correspondence had been tabled three days previously, and that being so, he presumed hon. members had made themselves acquainted with it. As regarded the surprise expressed by the hon. member for Invercargill, as to some of this expenditure he (Mr. Pearson) said he was surprised that the hon. member should be surprised, as he found bim on the 4th Eebruary, 1864, as Superintendent, writing to the Colonial Secretary a letter, a portion of which he read, having reference to a rapidlyextending trade, an enlargement of the railway works, an increased order for rolling stock and double lines in place of forming the bridges for single lines, and asking afurther £40,000 for the purpose. He also referred to a letter of 6th April from the Superintendent to the Colonial Secretary, explaining that theextraeost was necessary for the proper working of the line. He (Mr. Pearson) said he read the correspondence because the hon. member for Invercargill had stated that when he left office the investigation was going on, and that it seemed to have suddenly Btopped; in facthe thought no work had been done upon the railway from a time long before he retired. It would have been judicious to have had the .investigation long prior to the date he retired. His successor could hardly be blamed for not investigating what appeared, from all the reports which bave been printed during the honorable member's term of office, to have been satisfactorily accomplished. Dr. MENZIES said be had nothing to add, except to thank the hon. member for Wainanwa for refreshing his recollection. It appeared that the impression was that all the works had been contracted for. The loan for £40,000 was required by certain extention of the works, but not meant for very expensive works which were not contracted for. *■ Mr. WOOD, in aspeech of considerable length, moved that the standing orders be suspended in order to give him permission to bring forward a motion on tbe conduct of the Government with respect to sending Mr. Marchant's claim to arbitration. Permission was granted' and a discussion followed in which Mr. Pearson, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Blacklock, Dr. Hodgkinson, and Mr. Cowan took part. Mr. CUTHBEETSON wished to propose an amendment, he thought Mr. Wood's motion did notgo far enough.. He would make but few remarks. The feeling of the Council was what he wished to test, and he based his motion on that ground. He felt that the explanation given by the Government in regard to Mr. Marchant's claim was entirely unsatisfactory. He scarcely believed that one single member of the House, with the exception of the gentlemen who had spoken on the part of the Government, did not feel it to be so. Ever since he had heard of this extraordinary action on the part of the Government* he had felt that a very serious case must have* been made out before the claims of any public servant could have been so far admitted as to refer them to arbitration ; especially "as in this case, when the services of the gentleman were well known to have j hitherto been anything but satisfactory, j An attempt had been made to show that the Council had been committed to this course. He denied this. He was not present at last Council; but it was intimated and understood that it was a meeting for the passing of formal bills, in order to meet some financial emergency, and he put it to the members of the Government whether they did not obstruct j other business. If they had invited the resolution of the Council they should have got such a* resolution passed. He 'asked the Government why they did not. He suggested that they were already tied

the letters appeared to indicate some such solution. The hon. member would not speak of any legal claim Mr. Marchant might have had to some greater remuneration. Had his conduct as a servant been throughout entirely satisfactory — had he nev.er placed himself in opposition to the Government— ever authorised expenditure on his own responsibility to an extent which he (the hon. member) feared to name, but which was well known to every gentleman present — had his conduct been that of a man in the interest of the Government, and not that of a man in the interest of the contractors in every case before the Government, he then might have had some show of reason for his expecting increased remuneration. But when it had been shown from letters read that he was not acting in the interests of the Government, no compensation could be given after the conduct evinced by the Railway Engineer. The hon. member argued against any need for arbitration in this case. The Eailway Engineer was not entitled to any such indulgence. The hon. member also disapproved of the appointment of engineers as arbitrators. This was not a professional question, but one of common sense and justice. The proclivities of professional men tended to make them nottogive themostunfavorable decision in a case which might become their own. An appeal to law was the only course open to the Government. No explanation had been given as to a change of views on the part of the Government after a certain date. Mr. Marchant's threats of legal proceedings are calmly passed by, instead of being resented by Mr. Marchant's dismissal, and the matter gradually shapes itself for arbitration. Another point— the specifications were prepared entirely by Mr. Marchant and were not submitted to a gentleman who then held, and who still holds, his office as Consulting Engineer. Mr. PEAESON said they were. Mr. COTHBEETSON said he withdrew his statement. He would only further state that it was clearly to be seen that the Government had considered the interests of the servant and not of the public. He therefore moved the following amendment — " That it is the opinion of°the Council that the action of the Provincial Government in so far admitting the demand made by Mr. Marchant forextra remuneration for his services as Eailway Engineer, as to refer the same to arbitration was not warranted by the circumstances, and meets with the entire diapproval of the Council." Mr. JOHNSTON, who had seconded the original motion, desired to second the amendment, as he considered the former not strong enough. It seemed, he said, the fate of this province to have money squandered, and in this case the explanations were not satisfactory, and strict inquiry should be made in order to discover who was to blame. Mr. WOOD, with leave of the House, withdrew his motion in favor of Mr. Cuthbertson. Mr. PEAESON said that, in replying to the hon. member for Invercargill, be had abstained from entering into all the reasons which influenced the Government, because the resolution did not require it. The resolution had now been put so pointedly it would be as well to go into these reasons. The going into arbitration was not the doing of this Government. It was a matter of perfect indifference to liim to have the reins of power, but it was only in justice to the members of the Government that explanations should be given. Mr. Marchant was employed originally by the member for Invercargill (Dr. Menzies) at a specific salary for a certain work. He was at that time engaged as Engineer for the Town Board. The arrangement on the part of the then Government, he believed was a verbal one. As for the supposition, that because he was engaged for this work, he was engaged for fifty other works, the absurdity of that "line of agreement was perfectly apparent. If you engage a man to do a certain work at a given price, you cannot expect him to do another work for nothing at all. At the Hme he was engaged, the Oreti Eailway was not contemplated. Some time afterwards it was determined to make this railway. Thelate Superintendent (Dr. Menzies) without displaying that capacity which any business man would have j done, viz., made no fresh arrangement witb Mr. Marchant to do the work for the same money, instructed him to do both works, viz., Bluff Harbour and Oreti line. He seemed to be surprised that because no objection was made, it must consequently be considered as one work. The hon. member did not know what the Engineer's reasons were for not speaking; at any rate, when he determines to resign, 'then comes the question as to remuneration. It was referred to the hon. member for Invercargill and Mr. Heale. The reply of the former was to the effect, that if Mr. Marchant was entitled to anything, Mr. Dundas was entitled to a great deal more. It was rather a case of "take care of Dowb." It established the fact that something was due to Mr. Marchant. Mr. Heale's answers were stronger still. This then is the basis upon wbich all the action was taken— the answers to those questions It was either arbitration or the Supreme Court. The trial might have been removed to Dunedin, and the whole subject investigated — which course would not have redounded to the credit of Dr. Menzies. Ther result arrived at by either course, would be much the same. The case was referred to professional men, because when no special agreement bad been made, these professional men would have been able to say what was the custom, 21- per cent, or 5 per cent. Mr. Marchant offered to refer the matter to the two men who were most cognizant with the facts— Dr. Menzies, and Mr. Heale. The hon. member declared the Province of Southland had been more than once in court, and the last time the •Jpppee $ key newlsfti-Qg M ?y?t*

approach any nearer to tbat of tbe rose. With regard to dismissing Mr. Marchant, on his threatening legal proceedings, that gentleman had resigned already. If the motion of the hon. member for Longwood wasmeant as a vote of censure it had probably taken the Government by surprise. The standing orders bad been suspended upon a motion which misled. Advantage was then taken to bring in an amendment. Notice of this motion should have been given, that the Government might bave been prepared to defend themselves. Mr. STHAET thought there was some show of reason in these remarks. He moved an adjournment till next evening, though tbe request first came witb a very bad grace from a gentleman who did not give all tbe papers. Seconded by Mr. CLAEKE. On a decision being taken, there voted for adjournment. Messrs. Pearson, Nurse, Clarke, Macdonald, Blacklock, Hodgkinson, and Stuart — 7. Messrs. Holmes, Menzies, Johnston, Swale, Hay, Crerar, Howell, Cuthbertson, Armstrong, and Wood — 11. The original motion being then before tbe House. Dr. HODGINSON defended the conduct of the Government and contended that it was unfair to pass a vote of censure before tbe whole facts were laid before tbe House. Mr. HOLMES said all the speakers had come to tbe conclusion tbat up to a certain point both the late Superintendent and tbe present were blameless. They bad resisted the claim, and the present Superintendent deserved the thanks of the province ; when other councils prevailedthere was an evident change of tactics. Public opinion was decidedly against their action for tbe last four months, and especially in reference to their treatment of tbe claims of Mr. Marchant and Mr. Davies. Mr. Marchant received £600 for his primary services, and for the latter part of them he claimed £3,500 a-year. After remarks had been made by several bon. members, Mr. STHAET moved for a suspension of the standing orders to enable bim to move an adjournment. This was granted, and the motion for adjournment carried.

WEDNESDAY, 14th MARCH, 1866. The Speakee took the chair at 7.20 p.m. PETITION. Mr. STHAET moved for the reading of a petition from Mr. H. A. Giller, in reference to bis being deprived of an appointment as Clerk to tbe Commissioner of Crown Lands. Mr. WOOD seconded, and the petition was read. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. STUAET moved that notices of motion 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, be postponed till after tbe Orders of tbe Day. Mr. AEMSTEONG seconded, and tbe motion was carried. In answer to Mr. Stuart, The PEOVINCIAL SOLICITOE replied by placing on tbe table copies of drafts of Deeds of tbe Arbitration Bond. In reply to tbe second part, a copy_ of agreement with Mr. Marchant to examine Dr. Menzies and Mr. Heale, was laid on tbe table. Thehon. member moved, and the PEOVINCIAL TEEASUEEE seconded, that the letter and papers be read. Carried. Mr. PEAESON laid on the table copies of letters from the Eailway Engineer on the subject of arbitration, of date 24th, 27th, and 30th September, 1864, and 14th February, 1865 ; and copies of answers from Mr. Heale and Dr. Menzies. The bon. member moved, and Dr. HODGKINSON seconded, tbat these be read. Motion carried. Mr. CUTHBEETSON moved, and Mr. HOLMES seconded "That tbe memorandum of agreement between the Superintendent and Mr. Marchant be read." Carried. MR MARCHANT'S CLAIM.— ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. STHAET opened the adjourned debate on Mr. Marchant's claim for compensation. The hon. member addressed tbe House at considerable length in regard to his position as a member of the Executive. He acknowledged some errors — especiallyhis being a party to signing the original agreement by which it seemed tbe Executive were bound to go to arbitration. He had not so understood tbe agreement, and should bave liked to see tbe original agreement to understand bow he bad been misled as to its tenor, and stated that be was placed in an anomalous position, and therefore would not vote on tbe motion before tbe House. Mr. AEMSTEONG reminded tbe House that tbe motion implied a vote of censure on the Government, because it bad drawn up tbe agreement so loosely worded tbat it bad given rise to tbis dispute. Mr. WOOD, tbe proposer of the original motion, remarked tbat in the letters read, Mr. Marchant was never designated Engineer to tbe Oreti Eailway. No distinction was made in bis letter for tne two works. He was Provincial Engineer, and his claim was ridiculous. The original letter carrier might as well make a claim because having been designated a " letter carrier " he had delivered newspapers. He agreed with the hon. member for Waikivi in thinking tbat Mr. Marchant should have bad recourse to law. Dr. HODGKINSON rose to address the House, but the Speaker ruled tbat be was out of order. The PEOVINCIAL TEEASUEEE said he did not stand forward as an apologist for Mr. Marchant ; on the contrary, be thought that bis conduct deserved severe censure. He should have stated when the Oreti railway was put under bis management that a charge would be made. The Government had not acknowledged Mr. Marchant's claim for a very long tiime, but be was persistent ? and would not be satis-

arbitration. They acknowledged the principle of tbe claim, and the hon. gentleman asked whether it would not have been dishonorable to have refused. It was , considered against the interest of the Government to go to law at that time. An hon. gentleman opposing the Government had stated that there was not the shadow of a claim. If there was a shadow of a claim, the Government was justified in allowing an arbitration. He (the Provincial I Treasurer) contended tbat tbe Government was justified in going to arbitration, and referred to Mr. Heale's answers to the j question put to him. Dr. HODGKINSON moved that the standing orders, No. 11 be suspended, so as to enable the Government to give ex- ] planations. j Mr. STtJAET rose to order. i Dr. MENZIES agreed with the hon. j members for Waikivi, and The SPEAKEE ruled that the motion could not be entertained. Mr. 'COWAN thought the matter before the House must now be well understood by every member. It appeared more clear since the fresh papers were read. It seemed to him extraordinary that the Government had not provided these papers the previous night, and thus have saved all this evening's bickering. By these papers the Provincial Government is bound to abide by the final award; and this calamitous position must be a matter of regret to tbe majority of tbe members of the Council. It was deeply to be regretted that a servant engaged at a certain salary to do a specific work, should have had tbe opportunity to make such an.exhorbitant demand as a percentage on the cost of a great work, and that he should have had the courage to make it, and have been allowed to remain a single day afterwards a servant of the Government. The claim made for professional services in connection with the Campbelltown jetty was disalloAved, as tbe work was considered purely one in connection witb tbe railway. When a fresh work was offered to Mr. Marchant, and when he knew he was looked upon as Provincial Engineer, it was clearly his duty as servant then to decline undertaking a fresh work without a fresh engagement. The position he (Mr. Marchant). took said little for him. The Province fell into financial difficulties, and now we had a claim by tbis worthy official for no less a sum than £7000, a claim that any rightminded man would not make. Any claim that would reasonably be made, would be one in amount as tantamount to the loss that Mr. Marchant had sustained during the time his salary was reduced. Up to ISth July, the position of Mr. Marchant towards the Provincial Government was clearly shown. He was most persistent in his demands, and these demands were firmly resisted up till 18th July. The letter of the Superintendent (Mr. Taylor), might be characterised as a most masterly one. Had Mr. Marchant been dismissed then these difficulties would never have existed to tbe extent they do. The hon. gentleman said he would not impute any unworthy motives to the Government of that time, further than that it was an unfortunate position they took up. Had the matter in dispute been confined entirely to what annual remuneration a jjrofessional man was entitled to, seeing tbe small salary received for a large amount of work done, the matter could not possibly have assumed the magnitude it has done. [In the subsequent part of the debate nothing materially new was elicited in addition to what was advanced on tbe previous evening. We therefore merely give a very short statement of the different members who took part in the debate.] Mr. NTJESE moved an amendment— " Tbat it is tbe opinion of this Council tbat the Government in referring the claim of tbe Eailway Engineer to arbitration bave not admitted any liability to such claims on the part of the Government." Mr. HOWELL seconded. Dr. HODGKINSON spoke on behalf of the amendment, and argued that as the bands of tbe Government were in a manner tied up arbitration was their only resource. He contended that tbe want of a definite agreement at first was the root of the evil. Mr. AEMSTEONG said the mover spoke of the Government being enabled to give further evidence. No more was needed to convince the Council. No amount of it would free the Government from not having distinctly brought the matter before the Council for its opinion. That was tbe root of tlie matter. The PEOVINCIAL SOLICITOB referred to the remarks made by the bon. member for Waikivi, and defended tbe action taken by the Government. He hoped the bon. member who bad proposed the motion censuring tbe Government would be prepared to form a new one. Mr. JOHNSTON said tbe government was highly censurable in other respects besides admitting Mr. Marchant's claim. The Government had shown a great desire to bave short sessions. It seemed to him that the Government bad made a mistake and wished to cover it. Mr. STUAET referred to the impropriety of admitting Mr. Pearson into the Executive, on account of tbe well-known advocacy of Mr. Marchant's claim. He (Mr. Stuart) had resisted, but Mr. Pearson's admission was forced upon, him. Mr. PEAESON, in some sarcastic remarks replied to Mr. Stuart's personal observations, characterising them as being botbinbadtaste. The hon. member then defendedtheaction ofthe Government. The course taken was the only one left to them. The whole mischief had been d one previous to the government taking office. In regard to the unworthy conduct attributed to the Engineer, the hon. gentleman again referred to tbe fact that all reports by tbe previous Government, and especially by the late Superintendent (Dr. Menzies) werefavorable to that gentleman's capacity and conduct. The hon. gentleman also made some reflections on the conduct i pf. ita fete S^ersatotot w seg&yd to.

negotiations connected with 'a loan from the Bank of - Otago, and stated that all the difficulties had arisen from the gross mismanagement *of bis late Honor, Dr. Menzies, Dr. MENZIES remarked that the- hon. member for Waianiwa having "no case " had taken to abuse the opposite side. The amendment was then put and lost. Mr. CUTHBEETSON said he believed that tbe motion was very simple, and would express what he thought would be the opinion of tbe Council, that tbe circumstances of the case did not warrant the Government in so far admitting Mr. Marchant's claim as to refer it to arbitration, and tbat their, conduct on the matter met their disapproval. He admitted that the motion was intended as a vote of censure, and he had felt it his duty as a member of Council tobringitforward. Hehadbeenasitwereforcedintothe position, and be took tbe responsibility. The hon. gentleman reviewed the different points on tbe debate, and left the question in the bands of the Council. Tbe originalmotion wastbenput — that it is tbe opinion of this Council that the action of the Provincial Government in so far admitting tbe demand made by Mr. Marchant for extra remuneration for bis services as Eailway Engineer as to refer the same to arbitration was not warranted by tbe circumstances of the case, and meets tbe entire disapproval of tbis Council. A division being called for, there voted for - tbe motion — Messrs. Cuthbertson, Armstrong, Johnston, Crerar, Cowan, Wood, Swale, Holmes, Menzies, Clark, and Hay— -11 Against the motion — Messrs Pearson, Macdonald, Nurse, Howell, Blacklock, and Hodgkinson — 6 The PEOVINCIAL SOLICITOB moved that the House be adjourned till next evening (Thursday) at seven o'clock. Motion was seconded, and carried. Several notices of motion followed, and tbe House adjourned.

THURSDAY, 15th MARCH, 1866. Tbe Speaker took tbe chair at seven | o'clock. The minutes of last meeting were read and approved of. ESTIMATES. The Clerk read the Provincial Auditor's report on tbe statement of receipts and expenditure for six months, ending 31st December, 1865, witb balance sheet and statements of assets and liabilities. MINISTERIAL CRISIS. Dr. HODGKINSON informed the House that for himself and colleagues he bad waited upon His Honor the Superintendent, and had tendered their resignation, and bad at the same time requested His Honor to call in Mr. Cuthbertson and invite bim to form an Executive. Mr. CUTHBEETSON said he had had an interview with His Honor, and had been requested to endeavor to form a new combination for tbe purpose of carrying on tbe Government. Owing to the lateness of the hour, however, at which that interview took place be (Mr. Cuthbertson) bad been unable to complete arrangements. He said there were before tbe Council some important bills now approaching completion, and which were entirely unconnected with the late dispute, tbat for tbe convenience of country members, and in order to bring the sesson early to a close, be suggested that tbe Council should proceed to consider tbe Orders of tbe Day, and that the gentlemen in charge of these bills should proceed with them as private members. Tbe course be recommended was unusual, but he thought hon. members would accede to it as be would move later in tbe evening that the Council should adjourn till Monday. By that evening be hoped to bave a definite programme. He moved that notices of motion be postponed, and that tbe House proceed to the orders of tbe day. Mr. CLAEKE seconded, and the motion was carried. CATTLE TRESPASS ORDINANCE. Mr. HOLMES moved that tbe House go into committee on tbe Cattle Trespass Ordinance, 1866. Dr. HODGKINSON seconded, and the motion was carried. The Council went into committee on the Ordinance. Considerable discussion took place. On the motion of tbe PEOVINCIAL SOLICITOE, seconded by Mr. HOLMES, the bill passed with amendments, and was made an order of the day for next sitting. FENCING- ORDINANCE, 1866. This bill was read a third time and passed. SHEEP ORDINANCE, 1866. Mi^. CUTHBEETSON moved an amendment to the motion that tbe con-^ sideration of this Bill be delayed till next meeting of Council. Carried. Tbe bon. member also moved that the Council adjourn till Monday evening next q4- -y fy f*lof*l_ ' Seconded by Mr. HOLMES, and carried.