PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1037, 1 September 1883, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

[tOTAKP HBBAIiD.J Many. people imagine. that parlianlSai?y p&ctice is a; mere matter of forms and ceremonies, without any . bearing on public affairs. jßut • those who think so are entirely misa *akeh. Strict parliamentary practice is very bulwark of sound parliamentary- government. Its principles are conclusions arrived at and agreed upon m by;ipublic men of commanding ability -in the course of many centuries, and their value, as such, can hardly be f ' It is not too much to say that the confusion, the waste of time, ; the ill-feeling and the bad legislation, which have characterised the New Zealand Parliament of late years, are mainly attributable -to the neglect and disorder into, which the practice has been allowed to fall. Two very remarkable instances of; defective practice which occurred on Wednesday last, will suffice to show that this is very far from being a mere question of external forms. Ihe School • Committees Election Bill, which "abolishes cumulative voting at „ the election of School Committees, had passed the House of Representatives by -a large majority two years in succession, and was only rejected by the Legislative Council last year for .want of time to deal with it. This session the second reading was cartied : ,in. the Legislative Council without a division,- and the Bill was con-sidered-perfectly safe. On the motion for the committal, however, it met with unexpected opposition, and owing to ■ 5 the absence of a number of its sup- ., porters, and to an accident which we will refer to presently, the votes on that • motion were exactly equal. It thus became the duty of the Speaker to exercise a casting voice. Now, though the Speaker has nominally the right to vote f: af W pleases, he is virtually bound by ’ ; f yell-established rule of practice to 4ii vdkk'iil a particular way; The rule is that when Ihe question is whether a other matter shall be further - 'considered or not, the Speaker shall m--1' variably vote in favor of further con- ■ jSldttatipn j but when it is a question of i- tjeeiding any matter at its final stage, he : shall-then be free to vote on its merits. In other words, whenever the - -“opinion of the House is evenly divided ‘ 'between going on with a Bill or rejectit, trie Speaker is required by prece- - dent*and practice to give U another chance. The principle is very obvious, The House are hesitating as to what to do. The Speaker is quite impartial. Yet he must vote. I {Therefore, he votes in such a way as to *’ give the House the opportunity of further deliberation. There are scores of precedents for this, and all the most , . eminent , English Speakers have ex- * plained the principle and invariably respected it:.’Yfct Sit William Fitzherbert treated precedent and principle alike with contempt, and voted against the committal of the Bill. But the worst Isitq' -Copie. It was found that in the • ? division - one member had given bis voice inadvertently against the Bill, when in reality he was in favor of it. . i i This.’ is a thing that often happens, and the practice is, when any member makes a mistake of this kind, and states that he has done so, to transfer his name.to .the side on which he wishes to yjSfe/ point of practice is clearer than this. Sir Erskine May, in his T >:-Ti*eariie,- which is accepted by our Parliament, is very explicit upon it. He cites the case where the Bishop of Winchester in 1862, went into the lobby with the “ contents,” and was marked on, .that side by the r Tellers, when in • reaility he was a“not-Content.” “On stating to the House ” says May “ that he. intended to vote with the not-contents,-a -his vote.' was .added to the numbers on "that side as reported by the I ellers.” Yet in the face of this explicit guidance, Sir William Fitzherbert refused to allow Mr Campbell’s vote to be transferred, and insisted on throwing out the Bill

~by his own casting vote. A more grossly improper thing, we should say, was done by any; Speaker. A. still more wonderful performance, howr .ever, took place on the same day in the ;; House of Representatives. An essen- ■ tial clausedn the Otago Harbor Board - -Bill was rejected on a division in Com';i'- ttiiifee by a : majority of one. A few = : "minutes. afterwards it was discovered •/; who,, being lame, V’ J excused from passing'between not been included in v'*ieither he was sitting in his V ! -«>lafce. : ''’"He claimed to have his -vote. !iJ, tccdrdea ; m favor of-the clause, which, Recording : to : Parliamentary practice E should payej saved it. right to have his vote so recorded is absolutely un-

assailable and indisputable. Yet the Chairman' *6f Committees refused to -c' : alioW the- division lists to be altered, on jhe absurd ground that the doors had , Vi been iinlbcked and another motion put, ,There*.is not a shadow of authority for such a decision; but, on the contrary, thdrbis a perfect deluge of authority against it. ,-, One of the most stringent Standing Orders is that every Mem- . who is present at a division, and any member refusing to vote is liable to be severely dealt, with. The division,.ip .fact, would be null and ; void ifanyi member present were omitted. The practice, however, is for the Speaker or Chairman, as soon as the nmisbinn nf a name is discovered, to Liwcaltofn-lhe member to declare himself

“Aye or “No;” and to correct the . division list accordingly. Mr Hamlin 01 gbt an f:r idea that this can only be done before the doors are unlocked, or aqyfOthec motion is put. But he is entirely wrong. It can be done, and ought to be I 'done, at any time, when it is proved' fhat' a nlember who was pre~'sehf at a division did not vote. May mentions aitf instance where it was done a day or two.after the division had taken and the Journals of the House of Commons were ordered to be corrected accordingly. This practice is so manifestly dictated by justice and common sense, that its principle speaks for itself. Yet the Chairman of Committees ruled in direct antagonism to it, and there does not appear to have been a man in the House who was able to Set him right. Things are getting • rather serious when important questions are settled in such a haphazard fashion as this. '