WELLINGTON.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2078, 1 September 1875, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

Tuesday The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Mr Bluett presented a petition for extension of the railway to Powai Pass. Mr Macandrew gave notice of two resolutions regarding the way in which, educational reserves, land revenue and public works shall be dealt with in Ofcago in the event of the abolition measure becoming law.

The House was asked whether the debate in committee on the Abolition Bill should be reported in full. Major Atkinson said the Government were desirous of seeing so important a question reported fully, and resolved that directions should be given to the Hansard Staff to report the debate in committee fully. . QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE. Mr O'Connor called the attention of the House to a question of privilege regarding the Speaker's action upon an adjournment being asked for on Friday night, when Mr J. C. Brown was speaking. . In doing so he stated he understood the Speaker to aay there was a great difference between the hon. member for Tuapeka and the hon. member for the Hutt. -The hon. member detailed, to the best of his collection, the circumstances of the case. What he wished to put forward was, that all members of that House were equal in the eyes of the Speaker, and entitled to equal consideration. He said, therefore, tbat the ruling of the Speaker on that occasion was inconsistent with the dignity and honour of the House.

Mr Richardson pointed out that the Speaker's attention was engaged at the time talking with himself, and he had consequently not heard Mr Brown's request. (Cries of No, No.)

The Speaker explained at considerable length that he was engaged about that time in considering a recent important ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and had not the slightest idea that Mr Brown asked for an adjournment, as when he looked round he saw the hon. gentleman still standing, and he resumed his book, when immediately the hon. member for the Buller accused him of partiality. The Speaker explained also the reference to the member for the Hutt. He had been speaking over two hours, and the member for Wairarapa came iip to the chair and requested that the usual short adjournment should be accorded the member for the Hutt, who was tired. The Speaker ajso dwelt upon the impropriety of making accusations of partiality and favoritism.

Sir Donald McLeau pointed out that

the whole tiling was a misapprehension, and he hoped the matter -would drop. Mr Ormond then made a personal explanation regarding the statement by the member for Auckland City West to the effect that the member for Clive insulted the Auckland people by saying they were a rotten community, fie at that time told the hon. member he did not think he had used the words complained of, and wpuld not apologise until he saw the ■proof sheets of what he said. He found vow that he had not used the words complained of in the way attributed to him. The hon. gentleman then read from the proof sheets to show that what he said was that " the system of Provincial Government at Auckland was rotten." He hoped now that as this injurious statement had been sent all over the colony to his detriment, that the hon. member for Auckland City West would express his regret for his hasty language and aspersions. ■ Mr Eolleston asked for information as to whether certain land transactions did not gome under the Disqualification Act Sir D. McLean had already answered that question as far as it was possible to answer it at present. Mr Eollestion said there were several other cases besides the one replied to, which information was wanted upon. Sir George Grey asked, in reference to what fell from the member" -for Avon, whether the opinion cf the SolicitorGeneral on the matter should not be placed upon the table. Mrßowen said it was a very unusual procedure to place law opinions of law-officers upon the table. It was not the custom in the Imperial Parliament, and the demand for it was generally resisted by Ministers, unless upon exceptionally and very important occasions. Altogether the practice was very inconvenient, as had already been found by the present Government. Their legal adviser was placed at a disadvantage by not being present to defend his opinion. - . Mr Sheehan dissented from such, a doctrine altogether. When the Government had not a legal adviser who was also a member of the Government, the least they could do would be to lay his opinion before them.

Mr Atkinson said, in reference to what fell from the member for Avon, that supposing any member of the House came under the Disqualification Act, it did not affect the Government in any way, but the House. .-,.'.. r> ".-.,"■

Mr Stout, while agreeing with what fell from the Minister of Justice, maintained that upon this question of privilege brought forward by the membqr for Avon, the by their own act, made it an executive question, though it was not really one at all. THE ABOLITION BILL. Upon the motion for the Committee of the whole House to consider the appropriation clauses of the Abolition Bill, Mr Atkinson hoped, this would be treated formally, and that on Thursday they should go into the entire discussion of these clauses.

"•Mr-Reid wanted some information rei garding a certain table as to provincial expenditure made' v by the Colonial Treasurer; ;He thought it was the duty of that hon., gentleman to inform them how he made out such large sums that would be available for expenditure in each province. Speaking, for Qtago, he : could riot make the Treasurer's figures: correspond. There were several discrepancies in the statement he would like to see explained. (Colonial Treasurer : Hear, hear.) He was afraid these figures were calculated to mislead the people of the colony on this important question. These statements were simply deluding and misleading. He hoped the hon. member would take an early opportunity of correcting the erroneous statements, which were" not becoming to that House. The hon. gentleman proceeded to criticise. the figures submitted by the Treasurer, and asked could not the sums the Treasurer said would be available have been just as available without any Abolition. The revenue of the country was not affected one way or the other,, and to• .pretend • that any more, means would be available under Abolition than there would be without it, was only made with the intent to deceive.

Mr Wood said the House was not fairly in a position to debate these appropriation clauses, as the Treasurer had not furnished them with any information to show them what would be their effect upon the land fund. He regretted that the statements made by the Colonial Treasurer, showing the great surplus available for different provinces should have been circulated, by means of the Press before hon. members had an opportunity of seeing how these surpluses were obtained. ' .

Takamoana would like to have the Abolition Bill translated.

Mr Atkinson replied to Mr Reid and Mr Wood. He should only be too happy to furnish all necessary information, such as that asked for now. One tiling, however, he could not agree with, and that was the making out that the Government had a considerable mine of wealth that the country was not aware of. All he claimed was that the revenue of the colony was ample to provide good government for the whole of the colony, and it was by the proper management aud division of this that the Government intended to supply the deficiencies of government in different parts of ihe colony. The hon. gentleman here examined the Otago Appropriation Act, and quoted from that to support the figures he had laid before the House, and which were denied to be correct by the hon. member for Taieri. These figures were susceptible of proof or disproof. All that Otago had to meet the various public works she voted money for was £163,000. The hon. gentleman went very minutely into financial details to show that his proposals were fully justified by facts he submitted to the House. The question should be looked at as a whole, but when hon. members got up like the member for Taieri and told them that Council voted so much, he should also have informed the House how far the Council was aWo to meet those votes. It was time a change should be made in the system of distribution, or they, would never be able to deal with such provinces as Auckland and Westland. The. Government believed that by their proposals local bodies would' receive more certain and larger income, and that the House would be free to consider the requirements of the various parts of the colony, and iusist, irrespective of the way in which the revenue is collected, that good and reasonable government be given to the people in all parts of the colony. As regards the charges of juggling about the way in which a land fund was to be created for. Auckland, lie might inform the House

that Auckland would be very well off regarding a land fund, as it was intended to provide for her out of confiscated lands. If any hbn. member had any better plan to propose, it was his duty to lay it before the House. The Government had not the slightest desire to keep any information back from the House on any point whatever.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole; and a desultory discussion took place here.

The Treasurer promised Mr Sheehan he would furnish an approximate return of how he expected to be able to save £30,000 in Provincial departmental administration. He also promised Mr Wood he would cause to be prepared all information required regarding the land fund in different provinces. Before agreeing to the resolution in committee, Sir Dillon Bell gave his opinion upon the present position of the country. He said the two great difficulties before the countiy were how to deal with the land fund and the general revenue, and he thought it would be the wisest course to make only such financial provision as would keep everything going quietly until the new Parliament was elected. They would soon have to take into consideration the relative burdens of taxation, and to impose taxes upon property which had so increased in value by public works.

The resolution was reported in committee, and the appropriation clauses are to be discussed in detail on Thursday next.

The House rose at 5.30 p.m.