PARLIAMENTARY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WELLINGTON.

Waikato Times, Volume IV, Issue 216, 27 September 1873, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WELLINGTON.

Wednesday. The following in Featherston's late despatches was omitted:-- "To Mr Stuart — July 10: Having received information through Mr Favu.ill, late emigration-agent, Belfast, that you are able and willing to organise a party of speri.il settlers for New Zealand, I lose uo time in acquainting you with terras on which tbe New Zealand Govei nnru'iifc will be ptepaicd to assist your enterprise The Government wil give you light of selection over the whol6 lands of the Province of Aucklaud, whether general or provincial, and will be prepare 1 to set apart a block of from 10,000 to 20,000 acies for the purprse of such special settlement. Although the grant to an} family under the Auckland Homestead Act is 200 acres, the Government will be prep.ued in this instance to stretch it to 300 notes. The Government will be further prepared to grant to the leader of the party, at least 500 acres for himself, and 40 acres for each member of his family. I may add, that 1 shall be glad to offer to porsons of the labouring classe?, who may desire to accompany your parly, the same facilities and privileges that are extended to other emigrants who huve complied with the regulations, and have i been approved. Both the General Government und the Provincial Gevernment of Auckland are equally anxious to promote jour proposed settlement; and it the Superintendent is unable to set apart first-rate land from Provincial territory ,!the General Government will bo ready to grant land lor the purpose nt Taurangn, on the East Coast The lion. Mr O' Rorkc states that he would endeavour to enlarge the blocks to 20,000 acres, if he thought the first body of immigrants would be supplemented by relatives and the friends of the pioneers. I need scarcely assure you of my read moss to give you all the assistance in my power, and to do anything I can to promote so desirable an object, as the location of a body of special settlers of the kind contemplated by the Government. — I. 0. Fbatiierston." Speaking of his conduct of emigration, on the 13tb June, he writes : " I venture to add, that if Her Majesty's Emigration Commissioners were appealed to, they would willingly bear testimony that no emigration service has ever been more efficiently conducted than emigration to New Zealand, for which I have been responsible." Brogden's able letter appears in the same paper. They make out the case against the Government as before wired. , They say of emigration, "Wo wish l-ero (o observe that we had no define to enter into this undertaking; of emigration: It was at Ltho request of the Government of New Zealand nml yourself that we did fO, and fiom the fint we informed you that we looked for no prolit, but only sought to be covered against any loss. We »cnt_aut_ini»» ; « JJ * ttnt -^-»n_Eexeral .of the early ship?, as we suppossed unon this understanding, and informed our firm in New Zealand that there would he therefore no necessity to consider, in settling the price of work, any cost or loss arising from the immigration." '• his is the gist of their complaint. The opinion of the commit lee i*, that from the evidence produced they have no claim, cither m Jaw or equity. Keport and evidence, or moved by MrFitzhfrberl, will be printed. The evidence shews the existence of another despatch from Dr Featiierston, nol published Jicretoforc. It takes Brogden's aide, and was produced before the committee, after pressure. The Hawku's Bay Lonn Ordinance Empowering Bill was rend a first time. Mr Ormond moved its second reading. Mr J. E Brown opposed the bill, the principle, and the action of the Government. Mr Pyke said the Government had abandoned the principl which they had staked their existence on. It was useless to oppose the bill, for the Superintendents were banded together. He placed his protest on record. He did not object to the bill if the principle that land should pay for the works were included. Mr Reid blamed the Government foi* causing the worst log-rolling ever witnessed m the House. The unanimity was wonderful, but was not due to principle but to rapacity. The borrowing shomd bo done by the General Government. It would be better to wait a \ear. Mr Webster said the proceeds of the land should be devoted to improving internal communication, not to making harbour work*. Mr Johnston objected to provincial reveiincs being pledged. In committee he should move amendments iiccoi dinjy. The provinces might give security on the wharf dues. Sir C. Wilson opposed the bill. Mr T. B. Gillies opposed. He argued that the Government hud robbed the provinces > ear by year of their revenue, and t lie provinces now had a right to demand tnat the colony borrow for works necessary to complete the colonial policy, and which bad been Ihru*t on the provinces. The Government shifted necessary works to the Bhouldera of the provinces because they dare not fa co the alternative of taxation. He would have supported the Government if they had proposed tho taxation nnd rating clauses of the old bill — its best features. Mr Tolmie moved, ns an amendment, that it was inadvisablo to permit provinces to borrow |apart from the colony. The Premier replied. Ho dwelt on the advantage- the various provinces derived from the expenditure. The proposals limited borrowing lor the year to £280,000. The cry of high wnges amounted to nothing. The principle that the colony must borrow for the provinces was bad. It would be rajected immediately, if applied to gaol*. Mr Gillies, while opposing the principle set dov\n by the Government, had introduced a bill based on it. That was a sample of the opposition the Government had to meet. Ministers had not changi d their fn n*;. The b 1< b. firetl.e Bouse were tbe 6ame as. originally passed, iiegarding the argument of colonial inability, two thirds of the provinces wou'd be able to meet their liabilities. Others could be dealt, with separately if their railways were in a forward stnto. It was not certain that the colony could not borrow for them. Mr Fitzherbert wild that the question was one of worlts out of money, and how it wns to be got. Tho provinces must do the works or bo abolished. He argued agmnst the colony borrowing for the provinces. He said it would be a renewal of tho old objectionable system of provincial charges, und would result in reckless extravagance. He defended the Government in the pontion taken up regarding the Upper Home. Ho hoped to ccc the Council elective. Messrs Collins, Murray, and E. Bronn opposed. Messrs J. L. Gillies a«d White supported. Mr Siicehan condemned ,tho provinces being drhen into the money market. MrT. B. Gillies cxpla ned the bill, .do had framed it totally different to the one before »ho House. Mr Ormond replied, and tho amendment was loot, and the second reading of tho bill was carried by 43 to 12.

Thursday. The papers and House are full of Brogden to day. The suppressed dispatch from FeathecHton reccoinu)»nd« relief to lirogden. The Public Works Commit toe, when investigating the allegations against the committee, became convinced of the existence of another letter f.oin the agent, and only succeeded, afte* consldirnble trouble, in getting the extract placed boforc tlie committee. Tbe Gorernment said the despntch was marked confidential, and the Post enquires how many more of three c nfulential despatches there nre. The Colonial Secretary, in tlie Upper ITouce, to whom all Featberston'* correopondenre is nddresed, opened and vend it in the Colonial Reeretitrv's office, nnd tlnn sent round t > to diil'erent departments. The head of every department can thus answer for all the correspondence retoired from tlie Colonial Secretary. Brogdon will get no compensation. Wlion the strangers were ordered out of tlie House, Mr Gillies, in readng the evidence, pointed out that the immigration contract w»» distinct, from the railways, nnd eridenco of which the Governor was tlie pos&et-.or had 1011 01 mppressd. Tho Pott says the despatches received from Hall have not been published. Tbe Independent want* £280,000 for thi« year, to be borrowed by the colony, and handed over to the prorinees to spend tie interest and smltmg fund, payable to tho colony by I he provinces. 'Hie generally recem-d opinion is that the bills will be thrown out of the Upper House or modified. j i lie Poif fullb foul of the wr.tir in the Herald ou Xom

j?.-al.uid'i» fu; ura and 1 !>i' iiiuiagerof Ihe Anglo Aiict^aiian Agency. He characterises (his 'article as about the mobt illogical, absurd, offensive, and inone productions ever seen in type, and allud-* to Broil's denia's of the autlionhip of tho lelegrim that the articles wore creating v a profund sensation in Auckland, and says the manager has usod the Agency Ur political and puffing purposes. M -mle-s are petting very weary, x They hope to get OF"y novfc week, of which, however, there ii little chano**? la thp House List uighfc the debute ou the Hawkes Bay Loan Act was resumed. On the motion of Mr T«>lmie a ti w elaiue was added, that all works constructed under the Act ah.-niM be paid for in cash. The bill was reported w. h air endments and passed. , N> The Marl, or.mgh, \\ clliugton, Ofcago, Nelson, Taranaki, and Auckland Loan "Bills passed. Mr Kolleston severely criticised the purchase of Native Lands iv the North Island. He said the Bill defeated any attempt to solve the difficulties between the JNorth and S-xith Islands. It prevented good government, and caused a monetary scramble. The Government had introduced a sheaf of bills of the most ruinous character. The house had gone in for reckless borrowing, when money might have been obtained in a more statesman 1 ! te manner. The Premier haa torn himself away from anything like prudence He had allowed the different poweis of the country to exercise such influence ove< him, that he had plunged the c douy into an meitricible dilemma Mr Vogel replied lie sai(il the first, reading was merely a formal step. The bill was read a iicst time ' ' In the House to-day, Mr Williamson moved, " That the House i esolve itself into a committee of the whole to conBidcr the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Th mas Henders>on, with a view to the adoption of the following resolutions : -That the committee does concur in tite report of the Petitions Committee, and recommends that a respectful addreas be presented to the Governor requesting 11 is Excellency to make provision on the supplementary estimates for giving effect to the recommendations of the Petitions Committee." The committee locommend a grant of 5,000 acres of land, and a money grant of £950. Mr Fitzherbert moved that the evidence taken bt-fore th? Select Committee on the Brogden petition be printed. He taid bis position of responsibility m having presented the petition himself m>ved him to this step. Tlio report on I lie petition recommended that the evidence should not be published. The report 6tated that there was no ground for such a claim either in law or equity : then w liy not give the evidence upon which such u conclusion was ba->ed ? The House was placed in a wrong position. Brogden's claim was on a parallel with that of Mr Webb. Tlie Government in the latter case to,ok amo9t lenient view. Granting Brogden had no legal claim, yet the petitioners bad expended £39 por head in introducing 2,000 immigrants. They had lost a eocsiderahle sum of money, and had only received a small amount. The petitioners made a great loss, and the colony a great gain. The same argument was used in favour of the remission of Webbs penalties. Was the colony to boast in hdVitig over-reached Brogden, and being beneiitted by their lo«- ? It was wrong to make ono arrangement with one contrac o , and another with a second. Mr lleevos opposed the u.otion He regretted that Mr Fitzherb-rt was not present when (he comuutt< c decided upon the report. They had armed at their opinion with great care. The opinion of the committee was that it was not m the interests of the country to publish the report. Mr Hichardson said the question munt come up in another shape, therefore it was injudicious to do anything to prejudice the ciwe. Mr Tribe said there was a rumour afloat that a btter from tlie AgentGeneral bad been suppressed by the Government, and only a garbled extract given. The firm had been to a loss through no fault of their own, bat through the constant changes in the immigration system here. He hoped some member of the Government would be able to deny the accusation of suppression of the evidence. Mr Bunny supported the motion- A wrong had been done to Brogden by suppressing the evidence, the whole of which should be placed before the House. Mr T. B. Gillies said he wits one of the membtvs of the committee on the petition from the lh'6t ; he saw the case had been prejudiced against the Brogdens There was nothing in the evidence that should not be published. The evidence not being sworn to, could not bo used in any law court. It was competent for any member of the Honse to read the evidence on the table. Mr .Reynolds said the Hou^e should be guided by the views of the Government, but it was right to furnish Brogden with the evidence which might be used against the Government in the law courts. Mr Ormond said there was nothing in the evidence to eti'ect any casf . Mr Pyke supported the motion. The admission that there was something ni the evidence which might be used in a court of law proved that Brogden had a good case. Mr Thomson moved that the eridence be now read, which was seconded by Mr Camngton. Mr Gillies was pioceeding to read the evidence, when Mr Fox called attention to strangers in the House. The naileries were cleared, and the debate coutinucd with closed doors.