HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4139, 28 October 1884, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at 2.30 p.m. Monday. The City Electorates Bill was read a first time. The Premier moved that the Government business take precedence on Thursdays for the remainder of the session, agreed to. Sir G. Grey moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of bringing under notice, the statementrnadeby the Premier last Friday night, and as he considered the remarks of the Premier on that occasion quite uncalled for, and as quite subversive to freedom of debate he desired to obtain some explanation from tho Premier. Mr Stout said the preponderance or the North Islands members in tho Legislative Council was uundoubtcd.and consequently it was evident their intention was to pass only measures which beneftod that island, if the Goventmont policy was to be interfered with in another place the Government would either have to resign or take some steps in checking the action of the Legislative Council, he thought it peculiar that no member of the late Government had replied to the statement. He certainly failed to sco what explanation was required. Mr Bryce thought if the Government had such a strong objection to the Council yrejectiiig bills sent up, they should state how they intended to prevent the Council exercising their undoubted right. If the Government intended to bring tho Council to their senses by punishing the House, it •would be most unfortunate for tho House. The hon. member had undoubtedly groat power, but ought not to curtail freedom of debate. Mr Levestam considered the Council only acted within the prerogative in rejecting tho Bill. Sir Julius Vogel considered the statement of the Premier cloar, and failed to underetand how it had been misunderstood. Tho Public Works Statement was brought down for certain proposals for the construction of certain railways, and the Government finding their policy likely to be altered, had a perfect right to make a statement, and it was made so that the Council should understand the Government policy. Tho Government had determined that no one part of tho colony should suffer to the advancement of the other, this was the explanation he gave. Mr Barrou thought the explanation unsatisfactory, and considered the Council acted within its right in opposing the District Railways Bill. Mr Grigg considered the action of the Government showed irritation on their part, and it was quite unjustifiable for the Government to assert that the Council had j. rejected tho Government policy bills this 'session, for the railway bill referred to was tho only policy bill, which the Council had thrown out. Mr Brown thought tho Government had acted justifiably. Mr Wakefield combatted the assertion of the Premier that colonising had been dead for some years. He was quite opposed to a policy of spending money all over the colony, because it was decided to construct reproductive works in certain districts. He opposed the assertion that the depression existed or would exist if money was spent in one district and not in anorher. He failed to see thaf the Council had been precipitate in rejecting the bill. There had .been hasty legislation in the House, and had the Government seen n't to amend the bill before it went to the other Hoasc tho bill ■ might have passed the Council. The statement of the Premier certainly did appear as if the Government intended to hold over members the threat of a dissolution if they did not agree with the whole of their proposals. Mr Turnbull said the Government found industries in tho country iv a paralysed condition, and felt assured if the proposals of the Government wero not agreed to by the House the thing would be very much •worse. He regretted that the Council had negatived the very keystone of the Government policy. He would support tho Government, as thero was no other course to pursue than to again appeal to the country if these bills wero thrown out. Mr Rolleston thought older members in the House should enter a strong protest against the statement of the Premier. The House had been told that the bill was to encourage colonising the country, but he ■would assert it was" to encourage private oompanies, and it was absurd for the Government to say they would go to the country on a District Railway Bill. The Premier and Treasurer knew better than to ask for a dissolution. He considered the country owed its thanks to the Council for their action. # Mr Seddon supported the action oi the Government. Mr Shriruski, as one who opposed tho bill thought tho House should give the >- Government fair play. He was surprised at the action of the Opposition, considering they had endeavored to smuggle the same bill through the House in a former

Mr Thompson said the obscurity of the statement was intensified by the speeches of the Premier and Treasurer. Sir George Grey regretted the speech of the Premier. They were pure threats, not only to the House, but to the Council. The people of'the country were to have anew tax imposed on them by persons interested in the bill, without even having an opportunity of saying a word on the subject. .Let the matter bu put before the country, and not allow it to bo brought on in the sudden manner it hail. Tor this reason he thought it his duty to bring forward the motion for an adjournment of the House, as lie conr sidered that the threat was moat, unwarrantable, and one calculated to interfere with the righta and privileges of the House, more especially as the Premier and Treasurer were interested jn the Mils he referred to. —The Premier desired to explain that he was so far interested in one of the Conipany's as being the solicitor to it, and therefore he declined to vote.—Sir George Grey considered the purchase of these railways now would be a very injudicious act, especially as the bill brought down was solely for the purpose of relieving wealthy people, who constructed these railways in

order to improve their properties. He had taken the present action at the instance of several leading members of the House who were convinced that the Premier had taken an unwise course in making the statement. Tho motion for adjournment was lost. The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill was read a third time.

The Police Offences Bill was reported. On consideration of clause 13, Mr Seddon moved that the bill be re-committed with the view of the amendment of this clause, which deals with Sunday trading. The discussion was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. On the Police Offences Bill on the question that amendments be agreed to, Ayes 29, Noes 16, the Bill was read a third time and passed. _.„ . Road Boards Amendment Bill was read a second time. The House went into committee on the West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Bill in clause 2. New clauses giving extended power, copfirming the leases, and for surrender of leases for new leases were added to the Bill, which was reported with amendments. The House went in committee on the Land Act Amendment Bill, clause 5 dealing with the repeal of sections 75 to So of the Land Act, 1877, after discussion was retained on the Bill by 59 to 1C votes. In clause '1 which repeals section 9 of the Land Act, 1879, after a long discussion was retained by 30 to 21 votes. Clause 7 after discussion was agreed to on the voices. Clause 8 was passed and agreed to. Clause 14 being put, Mr J. McKenzie moved that progress be reported. The amendment was lost on a division, Ayes 17, Noes 23. After further discussion the clause was agreed to. Clauses 15 to 20 were agreed to after which progress was reported. Tho House went into Committee on the Life Assurance Bill, when progress was reported. The House rose at 3 a.m.