In the short- discussion which took place immediately the report had been read m the House the Premier remarked that three members were included m the censure of the com mittee, namely, Major Steward, Mr Pea cock (the member for Newton), and Sir Julius Yogel. Judging by the last paragraph of the report there appears to be no donbt that the committee in-, tended to include Sir Julius Vogelij though on. the somewhat flimsy ground of bis opinion and : not on' account of anything he had done or permitted; If the committee had- meant to censur* Sir Juliua Yogel for having negotiated with Major Steward it should- hare been 80 stated .m the report, and there ahould hare been no ambiguity of expres sion. In claiming that the committee had included Mr Peacock m the censure, the Premier gave a very pretty exhi bition of party tactics.. Mr Peacock belongs to the Opposition, and, m the debate on: the motion for the adoption' of the report, it would of course tell immensely m favour of the Government if it could be shown that, m endorsing the opinion of the committee, blame, ■would be , ; imputed not only to the Colonial. Treasurer and Major-S teward, but to one •of the Government's opponents. It is.however, by no means clear that the committee intended to include Mr. Peacock, or that the words of the report can be made to bear that construction. Mr. Peacock is alluded to m the third paragraph of the report, and then only «s having given evidence which, m the opinion of the committee, shows 3 t h at the. board of " directors jo f the Hotor'ua Railway Company looked upon Major' Steward's position 'os a member of Parliament as likely to : make his services valuable m dealing, with the Government for the sale of the company's debentures. But. the Bting of the • paragraph, if it has a sting ' as far 'as' -Mr Peacock is [ concerned, is that lie is one of i the directors • of. the Rotqrpa Railway Company. The Premier seized upon that point at once, an,d apparently, and perhaps rightly: assumed that;-Mr Peacock was a consenting party to- the employment of Major Steward, whereas Tie (Mr Peacock) should, as a member of rParliatnent, have objected to Major Steward having anything to do, with the negotiations. 