PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 991, 10 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

; Monday, July 9. 1 The House met at 7.30. NEW MEMBER. Mr J. McDonald, the newly-elected member for Bruce, was introduced by Mr Macandrew and Mr Driver, and, on being sworn, took his seat. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT. Sir G Grey moved the second reading of the Constitution Amendment (No 2) Bill. He had introduced it last session, when the motion for the second reading was lost by four. The complaint was that he had not -nfficiently explained the provisions of the measure, and he would endeavor to remedy that defect on this occasion. The original constitution was framed by a Parliament in Great Britain that had little or no knowledge of the colony and the matters requisite for its good Government. It was the. Parliament of a period, and they had no guarantee that a Parliament of a different period and cjnstitution would not be prepared to make the constitution different, at all events modified in its parts. The power was given to the colony to alter or suspend any part of that constitution which might be deemed desirable by the colony itself. In that he contended they had the power to make the alterations proposed by this Bill. It had been said that the change was unnecea* sary, as they could make whatever laws they chose, and if the other Chamber would not agree, then they could compel the Government to swamp the other t Chamber, and by that means get the particular law passed. That would be a most uolent proceeding. Independence was an Htet reut right in the constitution of both Cham'ui'iw, and if they had the power to swamp the’Upper House, it was only fair and in pursuance of that independence that the Upper House should be able to exercise a corresponding power towards them. What his Bill aimed at was that no constitutional law should be made until the people had been heard in the matter to determine under what form of constitution they would live. This was, he contended, an inherent right of the people, and on the abolition of provinces au appeal to the people was the course which should have been followed. A change that could only be brought about by vio ence or else by the promise of a lavish expenditure of money. In either of the e cases an irreparable injury was done to the country, an injury which years would not be able to wipe out. In the case of abolition, as in many similar changes, nothing efficient was given in place of the constitution swept away. Years must necessarily pass before the local bodies could settle down properly to the efficient discharge of their functions, and in the meantime grave monetary abuses were being practised. The Bill sought to make a repetiiion of such impossible. With these explanations ho would move the second reading. The Hon Major Atkinson said that if the previous Bid had not been fully expained they would all admit no sufficient explanation had now been made to justify the passing of the measure now before them. The mover had not given a single instance which would justify 'the Bill being adopted, or yet showing the necessity for such a measure. At the abolition of provinces no violent change took place. A Hill was framed and put before the country, and it was not until after the o-enoral elections had taken place that abolition was given effect to. In that respect the argument was altogether unsuccessful. If corruption could be practised under the existing law, there was nothing under the Bill before the House that could possibly check such a state of things. If the House and the elections were as corrupt as Sir George Grey represented them, there was nothing in the Bill that even proposed to check the evil. In fact, it would make corruption easier. The Bill, in effect, proposed to abolish the power of the House altogether. A greet constitutional change might come down from the other House, and if this House disagreed with it, then the question, under the provisions of this Bill, was relegated to the vote of the people. Before their established rights and privileges as

representative Chamber were interfered with in this way, fuller and more explicit reasons ought to be forthcoming. Mr Shephard argued that the pr< per course was an appeal to the country, and not to refer a constitutional question simply to the vote of the constituencies. In that case the country districts would be entirely swamped, as it was the la-ge towns that would attend in great numbers to record their votes. To bring the people, as it were, between the two branches of the Legislature when they happened to get into a dispute would be tantamount to producing a revolutionary fermentation in the country. Mr Macandhbw could not allow that abolition had been agreed to by the voice of the people of the colony. He contended that the taxing power of the colony —Otago and Auckland—most unanimously were pledged against abolition.' It- was such over represented places as Taranaki that returned the men who earned abolition. He would say nothing on the merits of the Bill. All he desired was to correct a misstatement re abolition. Sir George Gret replied, urging that although the plebiscite proposed by the Bill would perhaps not check corruptions, It would hare the effect of placing another Government on those benches, and by that means he was hopeful of checking such corruption. The House divided on the motion for the second reading.—Ayes, 24; Noes, 46. EIGJT HOU3 BILL. The Eight Hours Bill was considered in Committee. After a long debate, the Bill, as amended, was reported, only the short title remaining. On the question that the Bill, as amended, be considered on the Bth Augustythe Committee divided.—Ayes, 28; noes, 30. The Bill was accordingly dropped. t LAW PRACTITIONERS. Sir George Grey moved the committal of the Law Practioners Bill. The. Committee divided. —Ayes, 34 ; noes, 31. In Committee the Bill passed without amendment; and on the question that it be read a third time the House divided.— Ayes, 32; noes, 32. The Speaker gave his vote with the ayes as a further stage remained. The Bill was read a third time, and on the motion that it pass the House divided. —Ayes, 34; noes, 34. The Speaker said that as the House Was so undecided on this measure, and as Parliament had last year opened wide the door for admission into the Profession, he felt constrained to give his vote with the noes. The Bill was accordingly thrown out. The House adjourned at 12 o’clock.