The Hon. Mr. McLEAN did not intend to review the Bill in any way, because it had only been put into his hands that day. He would like, however, to point out to the Council this matter: They were increasing the powers of the Public Trustee, and shunting everything into the Public Trust Office. It was like shunting everything into a dust-bin. They were overtaxing the Public Trustee's abilities; and they should protest against everything being shunted into that office. Instead of doing that, they should consider how best they could deal with these matters in some other way. The powers of the Public Trustee were far in excess of the powers of any Minister of the Crown, and far in excess of the powers of the Governor of the colony. In his opinion, they were far excess of the powers of any other man in the colony. Were they going to continue that, and to take everything out of the hands of the Minister ?

The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY said the Bill did not give the Public Trustee any more power. The Hon. Mr. McLEAN said it did. It gave him additional power. He only wanted c point out that, if this went on, they would probably realise that some other process was required for treating these leases, instead of placing them under the Public Trustee. He had pointed this out before, and would again draw attention to it.

The Hon. W. DOWNIE STEWART was understood to say that he agreed with what the previous speaker had stated. He thought the Council would find that this particular Bill was really to perfect the power the Public Trustee had already. He must confess, however, that the present Public Trustee seemed to be thoroughly familiar with the details of this very complicated subject; and he knew that the Committee to which the Hon. Mr. Stevens had referred proved that under the late Trest Board a great muddle existed. They had found that everything was in a state of chaos. Leases had been granted which were said to have been in excess of the powers that existed, and the Legislature had been guilty of very great inconsistency in dealing with portions of these reserves. At the same time, as far as he could understand, the principles of the Bill were necessary to be given effect to in some form or other, and, for that reason, he did not think anything could be said against the Bill. Bill read the second time.

STAMP BILL.

The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY, in moving, That this Bill be now read the second time, said this was a Bill of a somewhat technical character, and he would ask leave to refer it Also to the Statutes Revision Committee. Not that there were any very great technicalities about the Bill, but there were one or two things which probably might be put right better by that than by any other Committee. As honourable members were of course aware, as the law stood at present there was no duty

law had been evaded to such an extent that a Bill of this kind had been considered necessary. The fact had come to the knowledge of the Government that ever since the law had been altered in that respect leases had been obtained for such long terms as nine hundred and ninety-nine years, upon which no duty had been chargeable, and the residuary value of the properties in such cases was a merely nominal value, so that the revenue had consequently suffered. There was also in this Bill a provision with reference to the subject of the future valuation of land upon which duty was chargeable, notwithstanding any encumbrance in the way of lease or mortgage, except in the case of a lease for twenty-one years. A lease for twenty-one years was not liable to duty. There was also a provision for stamping policies of insurance where the existing law had been affected. Another important feature was the proposal to exempt from stamp-duty receipts for the payment of wages and salaries. That was a portion of the policy referred to in the Financial Statement, as far as he remembered, and it was proposed to give effect to it in this Bill. He had no objection to the Bill being referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, if the Council thought fit, with a view of obtaining suggestions that could not be obtained in any other way.

The Hon. Mr. BONAR considered the Bill very much one of details, with the exception of those parts relating to the duties chargeable upon leases or licenses. The other provisions of the Bill were very much the same as those under the present law. He noticed an alteration proposed in subsection (1) of clause 3. The present law made it necessary that all insurance policies should be stamped within thirty days, and the Bill proposed to make it fourteen days. No doubt that provision would receive the attention of the Committee. With regard to the 4th clause, he thought it was time the Government made some exception in connection with receipts for wages. It was most unfair that people receiving wages or salaries should have to stamp their receipts. He presumed that this would also apply to the wages of members of Parliament. Prizes for rifle. shooting were supposed to be given by the Government; yet every man was called upon to pay a penny-by way of refund, he supposed. As the Bill was going to a Committee he did not think it was necessary to waste any time in discussing it.

The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS was understood to say he desired to call the attention of the Statutes Revision Committee to section 3, which was of a very important character. When the fire occurred on board the " Ruahine" a difficulty arose in connection with the recovery of the insurance, as some of the bills of lading had been destroyed in the fire, and could not be stamped within thirty days of their supposed arrival within the colony. He thought the Bill should provide a remedy for such things as that. He hoped the Statutes Revision Committee would look very carefully into that pro

The Hon. Mr. STEVENS asked the Hon. Sir P. A. Buckley whether the effect of the Bill would be that any documents which now escaped taxation, or, he would say, passed under the penny stamp, would be rendered liable to a heavier rate of taxation than they were now subjected to. He had looked up the section of the Act, and it appeared that this Bill brought these documents-bills of exchange and promissory notes-under clause 12 of the Act of 1885, which referred to the Act of 1882, and there was a series of provisions here affecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, one of which was that any one receiving a note unstamped should affix the proper duty-stamp. All he wanted to know was, how the Bill affected that particular question.

The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY said it was to settle such points that they proposed to have the advantage of the assistance of the Commit

tee.

Bill read the second time.

POST-OFFICE BILL.

The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY, in moving, That this Bill be now read the second time, said it was a Bill of some importance. For instance, it was proposed to add, in addition to what were known as post-cards, a document which was known as the post-letter, which was also to be one of the things which could be sent through the Post Office at a cheap rate; and, in order that honourable members might understand the nature of the document referred to, he had several of them with him. They were in use in other parts of the world. He had some even from Paraguay, some from Home, and some from the United States, and no description which he could give by word of mouth would be so effective as to allow honourable members to look at them. The objection taken to the cards in some quarters was that they were liable to be read by any person, and the contents perhaps made use of. Under this system communications would be kept secret, without being subject to high postal rates. The Bill would also enable a Postmaster to stop publications of an objectionable character passing through the Post Office. Any Postmaster could also, under the Bill, detain publications of an indecent character, and newspapers containing indecent matter, and such matter could be destroyed. The Bill also proposed to guarantee what were known as registered letters up to £2, in the event of their being lost. There was another important point to which he would

call the attention of the Council. It was not proposed to limit the currency of postal notes, for the reason that at the present time they were limited up to one year, and people who got postal notes, it was found, rarely sent them in for collection. The result was that, if they exceeded the year, they were liable to a second or third commission. It was therefore proposed to extend the currency.

The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS thought the Bill would have provided for the reduction of the

was a proposal made about two years ago, he thought, that the postage-rate should be reduced from 2d. to 1d. a letter throughout the colony. He would like to ask the honourable gentleman if the Bill provided for that. The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY.-No; except in clause 3.

The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS thought that was hardly a satisfactory answer.

The Hon. Mr. PHARAZYN had no doubt that the Bill was an improvement as a whole, but he must confess he did not like clause 3. It gave to the Postmaster a very considerable power, as he could pry into the contents of any communication. He did not see how a Postmaster could effect his object otherwise, and it seemed to do away with the absolute secrecy of the letters carried by mail, and it did seem to him to be open to a great deal of improper interference. It was always considered very important that nobody should have an opportunity of examining the contents of a letter. Of course the Postmaster-General himself would have nothing to do with the matter, but in the hands of clerks and persons who might not be very responsible persons it might be a rather dangerous power to give.

The Hon. Mr. OLIVER did not think that it enlarged the power which the PostmasterGeneral at present possessed, for he could do all that clause empowered him to do at the present time. Even in the case of parcels and Customs dues an examination could be made, and was frequently made.

The Hon. Mr. BONAR said the honourable gentleman who had just sat down had said exactly what he (Mr. Bonar) had been about to say, so that he would not repeat it. The only other point he would refer to was clause 5, as to payment for registered letters which were lost. The law made no provision for that at present. It seemed to him that £2 was a very small sum of money to pay, because he thought there were very few registered letters sent through the post that did not contain more than £2. He thought the Bill ought to provide for a larger sum being paid when a letter was lost that the sender had taken the trouble to register.

The Hon. Mr. SWANSON said he saw there destroyed. He thought, while they were about was a certain class of literature that might be it, it would be as well to see that money going through the Post Office to be invested in sweeps should be confiscated, or, at any rate, detained by the Treasury. Might not that be added to

the Bill?

The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY said there was such a power already.

Bill read the second time.

The Council adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock p.m.

Thursday, 7th September, 1893.

Sinking Funds-Seddonville Track-Engines for Dairy-factory Work-Port Chalmers Police Case -Roslyn Constable-Lyttelton Harbour Reclamation-Government Legal Business-Riverton Harbour Board Bill- Fishing at AshburtonFlounders - Mount Egmont Mineral SpringMarton Small-farm Associations - Friendly Societies-Licensed Hotels-Shearers' Accommodation Bill-Mahinapua Creek and Lake Reserves Bill-Harbours Bill-Ocean Beach Public Domain Bill Fencing Bill-Shops and Shop-as

sistants Bill.

o'clock.

PRAYERS.

SINKING FUNDS.

Mr. RICHARDSON asked the Colonial Treasurer, What amounts from released sinking funds have been passed to the Public Works Fund from the 30th of June to the 31st of August, 1893? He regretted very much having to be continually asking these questions, but the reason for doing so was that there appeared to be no other way of getting information. On the 18th of last month the Colonial Treasurer informed the House that the matters relating to the conversion of Imperial-guaranteed debentures subsequent to the 31st of March last, and the whole correspondence and particulars, were in the hands of the Government Printer, and would be laid on the table of the House very shortly. He had then asked whether they would be laid on the table in time to be used during the present session, and the honourable gentleman said, "Certainly." They had not yet been laid on the table of the House, though over three weeks had elapsed; and he was forced to keep on asking questions, as the only way of getting information. The reason for the question was this: The Government, since March last, and without informing the House, bad converted £500,000 of Imperialguaranteed debentures, at a premium of 17 per cent. They had given the Bank of England 4565,000 to get hold of £500,000 of debentures, and as they had to discount their 34 per cent. inscribed stock by selling at 95 per cent. to cotain the money, it amounted to a loss to the colony of 22 per cent. on the transaction; and the annual cost of additional interest to the colony for fifty years was over £1,500. This appeared to have been done for the purpose of releasing the sinking fund. The only information they could get were the returns published the Gazette of the 3rd August, in which they found that more than half the amount of the Imperial-guaranteed debentures had been then converted, and that £96,000 of released sinking fund had gone in redemption of debentres issued, since 1884, against increases of the sinking fund of the loan of 1863, and £16,000 to the credit of the Public Works Fund on the 30th June. He could only suppose that soch a ruinous financial transaction had been undertaken for the purpose of getting the sinking fund into the Public Works Account for

of work there, and the honourable member knew as well as he did that he could not do anything to get it done except in the ordinary way. There were many urgent things required by the House: this was one of them; and in due course the correspondence, upon its return from the Printing Office, would be laid on the table. He would repeat that he had no desire whatever to withhold any information from the House upon this matter. He had stated upon a former occasion that there were, of course, times when it was not desirable that the operations which were being carried on in connection with the financial business of the colony should be allowed to be made public. He thought any honourable gentleman who knew anything about the operations of finance would concur with him in reiterating that it was so; and he would repeat that there were very good reasons why the information asked for in certain questions which honourable members on the other side of the House had put concerning these Imperial-guaranteed debentures should not be furnished to the House-not in the interests of the Government, but in the interests of the country; and for that reason the information had been withheld. He wished to say, however, that he did not accept the statement which the honourable gentleman had made that day concerning these operations as being essentially correct. He thought it was a question which should be discussed fully, and he did not think the statement of the honourable member should be accepted by the House in an offhand way. In reply to the honourable member's question, he might say that there was credited to the Public Works Fund, from the 30th June to the 31st August, 1893, £146,620 7s. 11d.

SEDDONVILLE TRACK.

Mr. O'CONOR asked the Minister of Lands, Whether he will, this year, provide for the improvement of the pack-track and bridges leading from the railway terminus to Seddonville, Mokihinui? The length of the track referred to in the question was some two miles and a half, and there was really no passable road. He might mention that an accident had occurred there lately which had nearly resulted in the loss of life, and he trusted something would be done in the matter.

Mr. J. MCKENZIE said the work in question was under consideration at the present

ENGINES FOR DAIRY-FACTORY WORK. Mr. FISH asked the Minister of Lands,-(1.) Whether it is correct that his department has given to a Wellington firm an order for fourhorse-power compound engines for dairy-factory work? (2.) Whether, if this is correct, he does not think that such engines are far too expensive for the work, and that a four-horsepower engine would do the work more economically, and be less likely to go wrong in the unskilled hands that would be using them? He had been induced to ask this question from a statement made to him by one of his constituents in Dunedin that an order had been given for four-horse-power compound engines, and his correspondent was of opinion that engines that were not compound would be much better for the work, much more economical, much more easily worked, and less likely to get out of order. He did not know whether the honourable gentleman had ordered the engines or not. If he had not done so, and proposed to do so, possibly it might be worth while considering the suggestion he had made.

Mr. J. MCKENZIE thought the honourable gentleman's correspondent, whoever he was, was entirely mistaken in this matter. The Agricultural Department did not require an engine of this sort at all, and had not ordered

one.

Mr. FISH said, then he had been wrongly informed.

PORT CHALMERS POLICE CASE. Mr. FISH asked the Minister of Defence, Whether his attention has been called to a Police Court case heard at Port Chalmers, where a boy of five years of age was brought before the Court on a charge of throwing stones at the old Town Hall? A newspaper cutting had been sent to him containing the statement that a small urchin of five years of age had been brought before the Police Court at Port Chalmers on the charge referred to in his question. He simply put the question in order that attention might be attracted to it, and, as there had been one or two other cases of a similar character lately,-of children having been brought before the Courts,-he thought that the attention of the Minister of Defence should be drawn to these things, in order that he might give some instructions that the police should be a little more careful in regard to such mat

ters.

It seemed to him absolutely ridiculous that a little child of five years of age should be brought before the Court for throwing stones at the old Town Hall at Port Chalmers. He did not think the child, if it used its utmost force, could do any damage if it struck the hall with a stone. At any rate, it did seem to him very ridiculous that the police should be engaged in trumpery little cases of that kind.

Mr. SEDDON thought-he did not say this with a view of irritating the honourable member-that it was very inadvisable that members

the public records of the colony, clippings take from newspapers, without having first satisfie themselves that there was some groundworl for the statements therein made. Here was the official reply:

"The boy referred to was nine years of age on the 13th July last. He had been before the Court twice-the first time for removing youn trees from the Port Chalmers Town Belt planted by children on Arbor Day. For this he was cautioned and discharged. On the 5th ultim he was again before the Court for throwing stones at the old Town Hall, as complainthad been made by residents as to stones being thrown on their iron roofs. He was again cautioned and discharged, and his parents were asked to restrain him for the future."

That was the reply, and he would ask, under these circumstances, whether it was not unreasonable that questions of that sort should be asked, and that these matters should appear on the records of the House, and on the face of the question, making it appear as though there were something in it.

ROSLYN CONSTABLE.

Mr. FISH asked the Minister of Defence,(1.) If his attention has been called to a statement made at a public meeting recently held in Dunedin by the Rev. J. T. Hinton, to the effect that a constable who had been stationed in the Borough of Roslyn had recently become bankrupt because, in consequence of all the publichouses in the district having been closed, he no longer received his usual "tips" from the publicans? (2.) If such a statement has reached the ears of the department, will he allow the constable in question an opportunity of vindicating his character? This question, he believed, would admit of no contradiction as to the facts. It appeared that there was a Gospel meeting held at the Garrison Hall a short time since on a Saturday evening-at which the Knight of Inangahua was presentat which a discussion arose as to prohibition, and the great benefits which had been derived from the shutting-up of the publichouses in the Roslyn District; and this minister, the Rev. Mr. Hinton, in the course of his remarks, stated that, in consequence of these publichouses having been closed in the Roslyn Dis-: trict, the constable who had been stationed on: duty in that district had been compelled to file: his schedule consequent upon the loss of the "tips" he had previously from the publicans in that district. The inference intended to be conveyed was that it was the practice of publicans to bribe the police-constables so that they should not bring cases before the Court. That statement, which was made to a large meeting-although it was not published, he believed, by the newspapers, because it would have been libellous-conveyed a very improper impression, and, as a result, letters had ap peared in Dunedin papers reflecting somewhat strongly on the constable in charge. All he desired, in asking this question was that, if any ( report had reached the Government or the de

partment on the subject, the constable might not be judged upon the reckless statements of a fanatical prohibitionist, but that he might be heard in vindication of his own character, because, as he was informed by friends in Dunedin who felt aggrieved at this matter, there was not the slightest foundation in truth for any of the reckless charges made by the person referred to.

Mr. SEDDON said attention had been called to this matter, and Mr. Hinton had been called upen to state the ground upon which he had based his statement. His reply had not yet been received by the department. He might say that, if such a statement were made on a public platform, and if the constable were in the service still, he (Mr. Seddon) should have considered it his duty to insist upon the constable instituting proceedings against any person making such a statement as that: that was the only way, he thought, by which it could be put a stop to. As the case was now, the Government had asked Mr. Hinton for the grounds upon which he made his statement, and when his reply was received a course would be decided upon.

LYTTELTON HARBOUR RECLAMATION. Mr. JOYCE asked the Minister for Public Works, Is it the intention of the Government to allow all the land which has been reclaimed by prisoners outside the breakwaters in Lyttelton Harbour to be gradually washed away, in consequence of the material deposited not being faced with large stones; and will the Government communicate with the Lyttelton Harbour Board as to providing cranage appliances to lift stone of the required weight on to the face of such reclaimed land?

Mr. SEDDON said this matter was under ecnsideration. The work of the prisoners on Ripa Island and Quail Island was not yet completed.

GOVERNMENT LEGAL BUSINESS.

Mr. DUTHIE asked the Government, If they can now state when the return ordered by the House on the 5th July last as to the cost of legal business transacted for the Government will be laid before this House? He trusted the Minister would now be able to give a favourable answer to this question.

Mr. SEDDON said the officer in charge of this department reported that some returns had only arrived yesterday from the departments, and they were now compiling the return. It would be ready, he hoped, by Tuesday next.

RIVERTON HARBOUR BOARD BILL. Mr. EARNSHAW asked the Government, If they will secure and place before the House, -and before further consideration of the Riverton Harbour Board Bill,-a copy of the full report of Mr. Leslie Reynolds, M.E., upon the | Riverton harbour-works construction, which report was made at the instance of the Riverton Harbour Board?

VOL. LXXXII.—4.

Mr. SEDDON did not know that the Government could call on Mr. Reynolds to do what the honourable gentleman asked without paying him for it, for, as he took it, this was a private report. The report which the Government had received had been laid upon the table.

Mr. EARNSHAW said that, seeing that the Riverton Harbour Board was trying to get a Bill through the House, surely they would have no objection to furnishing the Minister with a Before the Bill copy of the report referred to. went further, the House had a right to be furnished with the report.

FISHING AT ASHBURTON.

Mr. WRIGHT asked the Minister of Marine, Whether he will give effect to the petition of H. Zander and thirteen others to allow fish to be netted at the mouth of the River Ashburton? Some time since a petition was sent to the Minister of Marine on this question. The subject was one of some importance to the Town of Ashburton. The regulations at present in force precluded the netting of fish within half a mile of the mouth of any river, and the people had petitioned that the regulations be modified to enable the fishermen to have the benefit of flounder-fishing at the Ashburton River. Objection had been taken that trout-fishing would be interfered with, but his fear of that. He thought it was scarcely necescorrespondents assured him that there was no sary to bring such stringent regulations into force to preserve a few additional trout, and flounders. He hoped the Minister would be thereby shut up a valuable fishing-ground for able to give him a favourable answer.

Mr. WARD might inform the honourable member that the Government did not think it desirable to remove the restrictions. He might say that a Commission was appointed to consider this question, and that they had recommended that the size of the net should be altered. He regretted that the Government could not see its way to do what the honourable gentleman asked.

FLOUNDERS.

Mr. WRIGHT asked the Minister of Marine, Whether he has yet had time to consider the report of the Flounder Fisheries Commission, and, if so, whether he will give effect to the recommendations of that Commission, either in whole or in part? This was a question as to the general subject of flounder-fisheries. This was a matter which had been before the House for the last six or seven years, and, after much agitation, the Government did appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject. That Commission reported about six months ago, and he had put repeated questions to the Minister of Marine as to what the intentions of the Government might be, but he had not been able to obtain any reply. It was an important question, and he intended to read two or three paragraphs from the report, in order to give wider circulation to the information than it had hitherto obtained. He would not read the