Address in the City Hall.

Enthusiastic Gathering.

On the 22nd of July one of the largest audiences ever gathered in the City Hall, assembled at that place to hear an address from Sir Robert Stout, on political matters. The Mayor (Mr. J. J. Holland) presided, and amongest those on the platform were—Hon. E. Mitchelson, Messrs, J. H. Upton, W. R. Bloomfield, Craves Aickin, J. T. Steele, J. McLoughlin, G. M. Bead, John Kirkwood, George Dunnet, Alex. Watorn, Gabriel Lewis, D. H. McKenzic, William Culpan, Andrew Bell, Kent, T. W. Leys, Hoyburn, T. Hutton Johnston, Dr. Cox, Wm. Berry, Hildreth, A. H. Bankarb, Cheal, Hampton, H. N. Abbot, Edward Morton, J S. Jones, John Reid, Samuel Vaile Bond, etc. The body of the hall and dress circle were crowded to their utmost capacity, and the proceedings throughout were most enthueistic, though it was evident many Government supportors were present.

The Mayor's Opening.

The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, expressed the hope that Sir Robert would speak as to the great banking inquiry. (Hear, hear.) Personally, he thought these banking inquiries were more detrimental to the colony than anything else. ('No' and 'yes') It would prove itself detrimental to the colony in the end, and he hoped Sir Robert Stout would be able to show some way out of the trouble or give his views upon it.

Sir R. Stouts Address.

Sir Robert Stout, who was warmly received, did not think it would be proper for him, during an investigation by a commit-tee of the House dealing with banking matters, to refer to that subject that evening (Hear, hear.) He would rather wish to speak on what might be termed some of the principles that lie at the root of political questions. He understood from the past, and he supposed be might still accept it for the present, that a majority of the people of Auckland called themselves Liberals, and that they were determined to stand by the banner of Liberalism. (Applause.) He claimed to be a Liberal. ('No') He claimed to have been a Liberal when the gentlemen who said 'no' did not know the meaning of the term. (Applause.) It might be well for those who called them-selves Liberals to think for a few minutes what the meaning of the term Liberalism find. They might them find out where they stood, and where Liberalism stood in the colony.

Liberalism.

Now, Liberalism in the olden days meant getting a change in political machinery. When the great Chartist movement in England was in progrees, the whole aim of those who took part in it was to get a change in the political machinery of the country. They paid no attention to social questions. They thought if they got the five points of their charter, they would have accomplished what they wanted. They wished bullot, annual parliaments, payment of members, equal electoral districts, and they demanded manhood suffrage. The Charliests thought if they got these things, they would obtain freedom; that they would have a free House of Commons; that in addition to that, they would get equal rights; that all men would be allowed to express their opinions without fear or favour, or threat of punishment. They imagined also they would have pure Government, no sinecures and no corruption. Now almost all the five points had been obtained and some-thing more even than the Chartlats demanded, They now had manhood suffrage and, in New Zealand, womanhood suffrage. Those who gave that were forced to do it against their will. ('No') The gentleman who said no had had his political education neglected, or had forgotten to read his Hansard, for those who voted in 1893 for woman suffrage had opposed it on every occasion before. (Applause).

A Pointed Question

The people had, as he said, these things, and it was their duty to ask what was the result of this political reform? Was the Parliament in the present day better than the Parliament of 20 years ago? ('Yes' and 'no') Was the Government purer than Governments had been in the past? ('Yes' and 'no') It would be his duty to show that the Parliament was not as free and able as it was 20 years ago, and to point out that there were things done now by the present Government that sapped the very foundations of Liberalism, and that would have been repudiated by every Chartist. Could he and his audience agree first of all what a Parliament should be, and what a Government should be? If they were Liberals, he presumed they would agree that Parliament should be the place into which the electors tried to put the ablest men. Surely in the Parliament of the colony they should try to getable, self respecting, and upright men. (Hear, hear.) Of course, the men elected would be expected to carry out the views they had expressed on the platform which would be the views of the majority of the electors. But it was also expected that they should have some ideas and opinions of their own. When members were sent to the House it could not be expected that upon all questions on which they would have to give their votes, or to express their opinions, the electors had decided. Therefore the members were not called delegates but representatives, because it was expected, on many occasion?, they would have to bring to the exercise of their duties great ability and he (the speaker) hoped conseientions conviction.

Voting Machines.

But what was the system that had been inaugurated in New Zealand? Was it not a fact that men had gone into the House having given written pledges to the Premier, and practically prepared to vote as they were told? Was that a free Partidment? ('No') What was the use of having representatives at all if they were going to be mere voting machines at the dictation of whoever might be the Premier of the day? (Applause.) They might just as well, instead of paying representatives £20 a month, send in proxies to the Premier to use at) his discretion. (A voice: 'You have done the same yourself.') 'If I ever did,' said Sir Robert, 'I did wrong, But I deny I ever did.' (Applause) Passing on, he said, whenever a charge was made against the present Government, instead of manfully and honestly meeting it, and either showing it was incorrect or giving some excusee, they continually harked back and said 'somebody else, some years ago, did the very same thing,' (Applause.) Was it Liberalism that the only defence of actions was to bring up alleged improper or illegal actions of those who had gone before? That was a very fine and new defence of Liberalism indeed! It was not Liberalism and no person had a right to call himself a Liberal, if when he went into the House he had to give up his individual opinion, and surrender his vote at the bidding of any other person. Such was not even a delegate of the people, but simply a voting machine. Just as one would touch an electric button, so had the Premier to touch a button with such men, and they went in to the lobby that he pleased. Such men had no right to the term Liberal. (Applause)

Personnel of the House.

So far as the personnal of the House was concerned, though be regretted it, it was at all events too higher than it had been 20 years ago. Then they had most able men. It might be many of their vtews were more conservative then the views of those in the present House. But it ability and high character were looked at, it could not be said that, at the present moment, the House of Representatives in New Zealand could compare with that House twenty years ago. (A Voice: 'You are insinuating.') 'That gentleman,' said Sir Robert, 'hardly knows the meaning of the term; I am not insinuating; I am making a direct charge,' Proceeding, he said from the political reform which had been secured it would be expected that political machinery would be perfected. Had his audience thought what an ideal House of Parliament should be? He apprehended, first it should not be a House of men who voted or spoke simply as they were did. It should be a free House, where the rights of the minority were respected, and where a person would have ample opportunity to discuss every question in the freest possible way. But how was the House of Representative now? Why, it had not the liberty that, for example, obtained in every friendly society. Such societies had their standing orders, and by those they were bound. In the House of Representatives at the present moment, the Standing Orders were so framed, that free discussion was often impossible. A mere majority could suspend the Standing Orders, whenever they chose, and might deprive the minority of their rights. The speaker then went on to give instances. In the House of Commons it was considered the greatest privilege that before Supply was given to-the Government every member had the right to ventilate his grievances and move any amendment. What did the New Zealand Government do last session? They brought in supply always on a Tuesday, so as to back debate, for it was provided that there should be no debate on that day when in Committee of Supply. They, too, had kept back the Public Works Statement, which meant that the country was not to have any details of railway expenditure, railway management, road expenditure, lands improvement expenditure, purchase of native lands etc. This they had kept back till Parliament had been more than a hundred days in session. It had then been brought down on a Monday night: at 7.30, when the House was sitting continously bill early on Tuesday, and on Tuesday night they said 'we will now go into the Public Works Estimates.' Permission had been asked to discuss the public works management during tho past year, but that page 2 was denied. The House had been asked to vote £750.000 without having had a single opportunity of discussing the management of the Government in the past year or the policy disclosed in their Statement. (Shame.) Could that be called Liberalism? (No) Could the autocracy that existed at the present moment in the Parliament of New Zealand be called Liberalism? (No.) He (the speaker) had moved that the Statement be taken on the Wednesday, and the excuse given was that he had wanted to get away to a concert. Suppose he had, was the whole Parliament of New Zealand to be debarred from discussing the policy of the country simply because he held a certain position? Surely the Parliaiment had not sunk so low as that . But it was not correct. The result of the Government's action was that the Opposition very properly left the House, and allowed the Government party to do with the large sum he had named just as they pleased. He could give other instances of the autocracy that ruled the House. The Government would come down and decline to answer questions; there was no chance of getting on private motions; they could not get a return even unless the Government chose. In the House of Representatives of New Zealand there was less liberty, and less freedom than existed In any Parliament in the world, and less than over existed in a New Zealand Parliament before. (Loud applause and no.)

A Just Executive.

Passing on, Sir Robert said one thing which he supposed lay at the basic of Liberalism, was that they should have an executive that would administer the laws justly. Ono of the things the Chartists so strongly objected to was that privileges were given to people of a certain class. But the Chartiets could get all the information they wanted, and knew the officers, sinecures and pensions. They could that get any such information in New Zealand. If a Minister chose to give information he might. But if he said 'No' then no information was forth coming, and thus they had never been able to get the list of the officers created and political jobs made by the present Government. Liberalism demandad that there should be equal liberty to all, and that there should be no privileges given to a class. If any executive gave privileges to a class—he did not care whether the class was in a majority or minority—it was not true Liberalism. All should be one level and all have equal rights. (Applause.) When he had been done in this respect. He did not apprehend anyone is that audience would think of propose any man for his religious creed, let that creed be in ever a small a minority. And if that was to apply to religion, was it to be placed on different ground when applied to politics? ('No.') There was no more right to punish a man for holding political views than for religious opinions. And no Government that attempted such a thing had any right to the glorious name of liberal.

Spoils to the Victors.

But what had happened under the present Government? Men were appointed to office because of their political opinions. He would assume there were two men of equal ability and character, and they applied for an office; one was a supporter of the Government and one an opponent. Which would get the office? The supporter (A voice, 'Quiteright.') Those who said that were old Tories. (Laughter.) Let them frankly discuss the matter. Why should any man be debarred from holding office because of holding certain views? There was just as much right to insist on a religious test as a political one. He, however, would tell them what was done in 1886. Mr. Ballance had been a party to the Bill. The Civil Service Reform Bill had been brought in, and its object was to take political patronage out of the hands of the Government. . This Bill had been carried in that form. The wish had been to open the doors of the public service to the young people of the colony, both male and female, and he (the speaker) and those with him said these young people would have to go into the service as cadets, and would have to pass an examination once a year, and those who stood highest in the examination list were to get the office. (Hear, hear.) They were not to be asked what their views or opinions might be. If they stood highest, and were physically fit, they had the office. That was a Liberal measure. But what had been done? That law had been violated and got aside. Cadets had been appointed because of their father's opinions He would give one instance. A young cadet stood 73rd on the list; there were 50 cadets before him on the list who were entitled to the office before him. But he had been appointed. Why? Because of his ability? No, but because his father was a political supporter. If his hearers would go to the Free Library and look up the Blue Books, they would see 24 cadete appointed who had no right to be appointed, and who had been so in violation of tho law. Some of these did not pass any examination at all. Some did not even compete. Why should a cadet who had spent time and trouble trying to pass, and who succeeded, be set aside simply because be might have, perhaps, no father behind him with Strong 'Liberal opinions?' This was not only not Liberalism, it was a violation of the law, and chose who talked of carrying the banner of spoils to the victors were degrading the name of Liberalism. (Appiause.) The Government, too had attempted to bribo the press of the colony. Let people look at the returns made, and they would find the larger share of the advertisements given to papers of the right colour. Sir Robert then went on to give instances. Passing on, he said in a Liberal Government they should have an executive that was law-abiding How much democracy depended on this, Democracy could not exist except it existed by law; whenever an attempt was made to violate the law, it bacame an autocracy. Respect for the law must be at the basis of true Democracy. [f there was no respect for the law and no obedience, then it was admitted that democracy had failed. Hardly a month elapsed but what the Government brashed aside the law when it came between them and any scheme they wished to carry out?. They had done this in scores and hundreds of instances. They set aside the Public Revenues Act, and declined to give information about the accounts. At the Christ-church election they wilfully held back the writ in order to see if they could not got that eminent statesman, R. M. Taylor, to stand. They paid no attention be the law. And he (the speaker) warned the people of New Zealand that if they allowed the young to be trained in a want of respect to the law which the people themselves had made then they could not call themselves a Democracy.

Debating Hypocrites.

Sir Robert then went on to speak of the civil service on a point which he had overlooked for the moment There were great number of people in the colony who called themselves Socialists: they wished State functions increased. He admitted he was not a Socialist. (Applauae.) But he did believe that as the world went on, and as Democracy progressed, the State would be undertaking many things it did not now undertake, and that there would be a gradual extension of State functions, Now, how were they to get this gradual extension of State functions, and make it really beneficial to the community as a whole, if they did not draw into the public service the ablest, to carry out the great State work. If they were going to limit the administration of the Government to one party, or to select people because of one political colour, how could these ablest be got? By such a system as he had condemned, they were not only casting disability upon these men, but were creating hypocritee. (A person who had several times interjected observations, was here approached by a constable, but Sir Robert asked that he be not interfered with, as he was just the person he wanted to educate). (Laughter).

Not Mr. Balllance's Policy.

Continuing, Sir Robert said some people said they supported the present Government because they were carrying on Mr. Ballance's policy. (Applause.) He (the speaker) was in favour of the policy Mr. Ballance laid down when he took office, and he would prove, in several instances, that the present Ministry had departed from that policy. Indeed, they had reversed it. They had done things with regard to that policy that were simply disgraceful, considering the relations they stood in in regard to Mr. Ballance. What had been the key note of his first and second Budget? It had been a policy of self-reliance; that New Zealand was not to be dependent upon the foreign capitalist; that there was not to be a borrewing Government; that the New Zealand Government was not to be a mere agent, as it had now become, of what some Socialist friends called the 'fat man.' Mr. Ballance's policy had been self-reliance and non borrowing. (Hear, hear,) What had happened? Since the 31st March, 1891, the colony's borrowing—without including the guarantees given to the Bank of New Zealand, which means nearly £5,000,000 more—New Zualand's borrowings had amounted to £4,928,581, and the interest to be paid was gradually going up.' The colony's interest this year would be £81,000 more than last year. Up! Up! Up it was going. The colony now owed foreign capitalists something like £42,000,000. What was the use of denouncing foreign capitalists, the 'fat man,' the absentee money lender, when year by year the colony was getting more and moro in his grip? The whole principle of Mr. Ballance's policy had been destroyed. He would give an illustration of what had been done. There was the seizure of the sinking funds. He mentioned this because it was a technical subject, and because it had been so misrepresented by Ministerial advocates. In 1886 an Act had been passed to aid local bodies by loans which would be paid off and the debta extinguished In 26 years, a page 3 percentage being put by as a sinking fund. Mr, Ballance in his Financial Statement in 1891 said he considered it his first duty to create a sinking fund. It was wrong finance, it was not honest to future poeterity, that when the 20 years came to an end that the burden of the loans should be cast on the colony. Mr. Ballance held that when an interest-paying asset ceased to pay interest, at the end of 26 years the loans should be paid off. To carry this out, Mr. Ballance brought in a Bill in 1892. Now there were £800,000 that had been borrowed under this Act, and £64,000 sinking fund had accrued. What did the present Government do? They seized the sinking fund; they issued debentures against it, and then refused to give information about it at all. They also seized the current sinking fund amounting to £20,000 and wiped out the whole sinking fund, carrying £85,000 to revenue account. This year they have proposed to seize £20,000 in the same way, so that the result would be heaped up at the end of 26 years. When that time came the entire burden of these loans would be cast upon the colony.

The Excuses.

Sir Robert then went on to speak of the excuses made for this procedure. The Government said first it was in accordance with the law. They did not say the law compelled them to do it. They seemed to forget that he (the speaker) had moved an amendment to the Appropriation Act of last year to prevent them seizing the fund. He had wished to see Mr. Ballance's Act of 1892 preserved in its integrity. But the Government voted against that, and got their blind followers to vote against it, and so the amendment was defeated. It was a peculiar thing that the law which allowed them to do as they had done was passed in 1891, and it was a slur on Mr. Ballance's memory to say that when his law was passed In 1892 he ever thought the Sinking Funds would be seized. The Government now, however, wished to raise a quibble on words in an Act of 1891 to excuse their wrongdoing. In this year's Financial Statement the Government had abandoned their old ground, and now said boldly that 'posterity cannot do us any good: on the other hand, we may do it good; therefore posterity must pay for these loans.' (A voice: 'Right.') 'There are some persons,' retorted Sir Robert, 'who would approve of anything the present Government does short of sending them to prison.' (Loud laughter.) Proceeding, he said he thought posterity would have quite enough to do to look after its own wants. The present procedure was dishonest. Let the present generation pay its own debts, and not to do so was a reversal of Mr. Ballance's policy. (Applause.)

Advances to Settlers.

Take the Advances to Settlers Act. Some people would say that that was a good measure. ('Very good.') Why was it a good thing? He supposed the gentleman who said that would answer that it gave the farmers cheap money. Did it? Did anyone mean to tell him that borrowing one and a-half millions by the Government was going to lower the rate of interest to the farmers. ('Yes,' and 'No.') What had happened in the past? When he (the speaker) came to New Zealand farmers were paying 17½ per cent.; then it was 15, then 12½, then 10. The rate of interest had been falling and falling for the past 34 years. Interest bad so far fallen in England that Consols, only giving 2¾ per cent., and in a few years only 2½ per cent., were now selling at 113; that was 13 per cent, premium on £100. Three months' bills had been discounted at 1/3 to ½ per cent. That showed the cheapness of money. In New South Wales they had no Advances to Settlers Act, but farmers could get money from 4 to 4½ per cent. And the Government there did not interfere at all. Money was now being lent. In New Zealand at less than the Government could lend it for—At 4 and 4½ per cent. The colony did not either get the advantage which was claimed. The Government went to London and borrowed 1½ millions from the 'fat man' at 3 per cent. But the colony had to pay about 3¼ per cent., because they did not get the £1,500,000, but only £1,394,000 That 3¼ per cent, interest on the entire £1,500,000 the colony would have to pay for fifty years, and that with falling rates of interest. The 'fat man' paid no taxes to the New Zealand Government, but he drew his 3¼ per cent., and made the Government collect it, and pay it in London. The capitalists who lent the money paid nothing, but made 1 to 1½ per cent, more than he could in England, where he would have to pay the English Government income tax (applause). And that was spoken of as a wonderful thing. He (the speaker) would tell them what Mr. Ballance's idea was. He objected to the colony going to London and becoming an interest collector. He said 'as the thrift of the people increases, the Government Insurance fund, the Public Trust fund, and the Post Office Savings Bank fund will increase; I will form a Lending Board and lend to the farmers money coming from these three offices; then the people of New Zealand will be their own borrowers and their own lenders; and we will have a policy of self-reliance, and not be indebted to outside capitalists.' That was the policy of a statesman.

Lands for Settlement.

Then people said the Government had done a grand thing in the Lands for Settlement Act. He recognised the right of the State, in the interests of the people, if land was required for settlement, to resume private lands. He laid down that position 20 years ago and he was not in the habit of going back on the past like some people. (' Oh.') The difference between the present Government and those who had opposed them was twofold—the latter said if a graduated tax was put on the people who had large blocks they would soon be willing to sell and cub them up into smaller sections. This had been proved conclusively by the fact that the Government had been offered about eight times the quantity of land they wished to buy from private owners. Secondly, those who had opposed the Government said if they required the land it should be taken by a judicial tribunal, and politics and colour should have no part in the matter at all. (Applause.) The blocks that had been taken had been dismal failures. The Pomahaka block did not pay more than one per cent. on the money paid for it, and more than half was lying unoccupied. The Studholm Junction village settlement was called Strugglers' Flat, because the people could not make a living out of it. Another large estate in Marlborough had been a huge failure And did the people know what they had to pay for lands for settlement? Bonds, say, at 3½ per cent. were issued; these bonds were lifted by some Government department; the money was obtained from this department, and the vendor put the sovereigns in his pocket. Then these bonds were token to the 'fat man' in London, and he became practically the owner of the land. He held the bonds and the Government collected the rent for him, and he paid neither income tax or Customs duty. Talk about absentee landlords in Ireland; and yet there were people who threw their hats in the air and thought these were glorious measures for the good of the colony.

Land Administration.

The colony, it had been said, had got better land laws than in the past. The present land law was not so advanced as the land law of 1885. The only change that had been practically made was that, in order to obtain the unearned increment, they issued leases for 999 years at a fixed rent. There was no chance of getting unearned increment until that period had expired. If they had to wait till then they might as well abolish it. In comparison to this sir robert went on to cite the perpetual lease system, by which a lease for 30 years was issued, and at the end of that time the land was valued again. If there was any increase in the value of the land not brought about by improvements the state got the benefit of it; if there had been decrease in value the farmer got the benefit. Therefore it was fair for both. (Applause). There was no liberal in the room who would venture to say that [unclear: calling] a 999 years' lease could benefit the state. ('Of course,' and 'Give the farmers a freehold.') It would be far better to give freeholds straight out than to have a humbugging lease of 999 years. (Applause.) He held it was the duty of the state to keep a grip on its land. (Applause.) One of the greatest curses of the farmer when he got a freehold was that he had to go to the money lender; the ideal of farming life was where there was no mortgage at all, and it was far better for the state to have a lease of the land. He did not believe that the mortgage system that had been encouraged by the state was at all beneficial to the farmers. (Hear, hear.)

Public Works.

Passing on, Sir Robert said the Public Works Department had in many cases been simply frittering away its money. Votes had been made for roads that ought to have been dealt with by local bodies. As to some of the votes, they might just as well vote [unclear: ney] for metalling Queen-street for the [unclear: pose] of opening land for [unclear: ment.] [unclear: aughter.)] Take [unclear: the] Northern rails It would have been of enor[unclear: mas] service to Auckland to have a [unclear: necting] line with Wellington. The [unclear: le] of Auckland had been their worst [unclear: mies] in this respect; they had frittered [unclear: y] their energies about the line to [unclear: naki] instead of pushing on the central [unclear: .] Once the Central line had been [unclear: eted] it would have been quite enough to have had feeders. But what bad [unclear: ned] in reference to that line. He had that the Government had actually [unclear: wed] about £5,000,000 without count-[unclear: b ill] Bank of New Zealand's guarantee, they came into office in 1891, there [unclear: er] £700,000 in the Public Works that practically they had spent page 4 About £6,000,000. And the railway for which money was set apart had not been completed, and there was not a penny to spend on it now. It had gone in roads, and and in taking snags out of the Wanganui River, the purchase of native lands, and all sorts of things (a voice, 'give us a railway to Waihi') I believe said Sir Robert, it is necessary, but you will not get it.' In the present Budget, he went on, there was about £1,200,000 to be voted; out of that, only £250,000 was for the whole of the railways of the colony. (A voice: 'Take it out of revenue.') 'Take it out of revenue,' was the reply, 'There is actually a deficit on the year's transactions of £109,000.' There was actually a loss on the Advances to Settlers Act, in the first year of £31,000, and it would take six years, by official computation, to recover that. What would be thought of a loan company with one million and a half to lend, who lost £31,000 in the first year?

The Tariff.

As to the tariff, the Government last years raised the Customs duties. Additional taxation had to be placed on the people for £81,000 more interest had to be paid this year than last Departmental expenditure had also gone up. It was absurd for the Government to say their finances were in a flourishing state. He (the speaker) had said last year that the new tariff meant from £50,000 to £80,000 Increase in Customs duties; it came very near; it was about £78,000. Passing on, Sir Robert said he had intended to deal with the question of an Elective Executive, which he thought a very proper thing. (Applause.) He believed party organisation would not be got rid of. That was impossible. But they would [unclear: be] rid of the present autocracy that existed in the House and the country. With an Elective Executive, the House would not be ruled by the will of one man. The ballots would be cast for the best administrators, and he believed many of the evils of a party system would be got rid of. Then he believed the referendum would be for the benefit of the people. (Loud applause.)

The Remedy.

He would now deal with one thing that was a bugbear to many (people. He might be told, 'You have been speaking against the Government; you say they are demoralising the House; that they are autocrats and not Liberals; you are charging them with having been guilty of political corruption, and of having defied and been disobedient to the law; you say their policy measures are not the policy measures of Mr. Ballance, and not statesman like; but what is going to happen if we turn them out, and if this move of progressive legislation is stayed? Don't let them believe anything of the sort. He believed that at the next election, if the people were fully alive to their interest, and were thoroughly educated in political subjects, an independent Liberal party would arise which would carry out Liberal measures. An old farmer was once pulling thistles from his garden—though he was a Scotchman—and a cautious neighbour said, 'Yes, you are pulling up the weeds, but what are you going to put in afterwards?' The answer was, 'Well, I have not yet made up my mind, but these are weeds anyhow, and they have to come up.' When people asked what was going to be in the future, he replied, 'They were weeds at present, anyhow, and had better be pulled up.' (Applause.) There was no danger of reaction. In the smallest thing the Government evaded the law.

Sweating.

The law provided there should only be six paid Ministers. They had had eight Ministers some time ago; they had seven now. The Government said that only five were paid. He thought in a great slur upon his friend Mr. Thompson that he was not fit to be paid a salary. (Laughter.) The Ministry had brought in a Masters and Apprentices Bill by which there was to be no sweating; every apprentice who went into a shop was to get a wage. There should be no sweating in the Cabinet. (Laughter.) If it was wrong for an apprentice to be taken into a workshop to learn his business without payment, why should the State take these two new Ministers without salary? (Renewed laughter) Passing on, Sir Robert said he had just received a request to speak on questions—one was the licensing question. He was never afraid to express his views, but he had spoken on it the other night and time would not allow him to deal with it then. It would take a whole night. He, however, believed that, that like every other question, should be settled by the majority. (Applause) In conclusion, he said he desired to impress upon all their duty in the present crisis in the colony's affairs. It was said that the Democracies of the world were watching New Zealand. He did not know that it was so. He did not know that the working classes had been benefited by the legislation passed. In the great political crisis in 1875, Auckland came nobly to the front, and he now appealed for a purer Government; that there should be a free Parliament, and that the ablest men should be selected, pledged not to be a delegate to any one man. If the present Government was to be maintained in power, there need be no talk about Liberal legislation. He appealed to the citizens of the colony at election times not to be swayed by beer, bluff, or bunkum, but let them ascertain the true bearings of political questions, uphold no autocracy, and show themselves determined to have pure, honest administration, and progressive legislation. (Loud and prolonged applause.)

A few questions having been answered,

A hearty and unanimous vote of thanks to Sir Robert Stout was passed, on the motion of Mr. Upton, seconded by Captain D. H. McKenzie, 'for his interesting, able, and Admirable address.'

This vote having been briefly replied to,

A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the proceedings.