THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Evening Star, Issue 3895, 18 August 1875, Page 2

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph] (From our own Correspondent.)

Wellington, August 17. In the House this afternoon, Mr Wales gave notice to ask what steps had been taken towards the appointment of a Sur-veyor-General. Sir Donald M'Lean gave notice to ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the purchase of the swamp in the block of confiscated lands in Waikato by Ur Thomas Bussell and others. Sir George Grey gave notici that he would move that a building should be erected for he safe keeping of the valuable library in the General Assembly. The Spi aker made a personal explanation to the effect that, through a misapprehension, he had prevented the hon. member for Hokitika from speaking at the length he intended on Friday. The Shj aker also ca led the attention of the House to an error which had been made in the journals of the House by the Clerk in recording the introduction of the Abolition Bill. Sir Geo. Greyasked if he could not nullify all their proceedings, and raise the question of whether they should not begin oe now,— (Laughter.) Mr Stafford quoted from the question of Irish Railways in the Imperial Parliament in 1872 to show that the course pursued regarding the introduction of the Bill was usual and proper. Although the Bill 00. taiued appropriation clauses they need not be gone into until after the seeond reading The Speaker exp.aincd that there was another stranding Order which would enable them to proc. Ed with the Bill as they had done. Lie had considered the question fully, and had come to the conclusion that nothing irregular had been done.

Mr Wood pointed out that when the Bill was brought down the Government told the House they were obliged to bring the Pill down by a message from His Excellency, as it was an Appiopriation Bill, and if it was an Appropriation Bill, why not go into Committee of the whole House ? The Speaker again explained there was nothing done in the matter not in accordance with strict Parliamentary precedent and practice, This Bid was entirely different from an oi dinary Appropriation Bill, inasmuch as the main feature of the Bill was its political character, and it showed on the face of it that the appropriation clauses were quite auxiliary. He was perfectly satisfied as to the propriety of the course pursued. Mr Sheehan referred the Speaker to the mode of procedure adopted regarding the Civil Service Act inil. Sir George Giey asked whether the Bill had any relation to the precedents quoted. It seemed to him that s the Bill subvc ted one • 'onstitution to create another, and as he held that its finance clauses were wrong altogether the Bill was oi no use whatever. He held chat the Standing Orders of the House, which ought to have been rigidly observe I, were departed from. He and those acting with him were most anxious that, upon a question of such vital importance to the House and the country the course of procedure should be hedged around by every constitutional protection, and that the interests of the people and the rights of the Opposition should not be trampled upon by a powerful majority. Major Atkinson s -id that when a point of order was raised, the Speaker gave his decision, and the House generally abided by it, other* wise the hon. gentleman not satisfied gave notice that he disagreed with the ruling, and the House was then asked to give a further expression of opinion on the subject. Ho sub mitted that it was an inconsistent plan to proceed with the discussion as was being done after the several rulings of the Speaker upon the point. He took it that the decision and what the Government had done were in strict accordance with the Standing Orders and with the practice of Parliament at Home, ihe proceedings upon an Appiopriation Act were of an entirely different character. In this Bill a great principle was involved, and it was desirable the House should decide upon that matter at once. That being decided in the negative, nothing more need go before the House, and to go into discussing details before the principle would be a waste of time. The Government had gone carefully into the quesof the finance of • the Bill, but Jfrom what had been said, it was evidently quite hopeless to attempt to make the hon. gentlemen opposite to understand the finance of the Bill. There were none so blind as those who would not see. On that point he would have a good deal more to say at a future time, and the House and the country would then see who really understood the finances of the Colony and the Government J

Mr lleid said the explanation of the hon Treasurer amounted to this: that if hon. members disagreed with the decision of the Speaker they should submit a motion to the House so that the majoiity at his back should endorse the course proposed. It appeared to him that •V ) £? per courfie was to discuss the matter with Mr Speaker. He would maintain that if the financial portion of (be Bill was not worthy of discussion until the main principle of the Bill was affirmed, then they ought not to have anything to do with it. The Speaker said it was quite competent for the House vo couic to a decision contrary to the ruling of the Speaker, Mr Luckie said four times the Speaker had given a decision, and Mr Buuny had admitted the Speaker was to hold the balance between parties, yet by hie objection he nullified his statement. It appeared to him that this policy was that of obstiuotion and delay—of weiring objection after objection—anything in order to gam time, Mr Bunny said the Speaker had no power to overrule the Standing Orders, and that being so, the only course open to the Government was to move that the Standing Orders be suspended. Mr Header Wood said the Standing Orders were statutory law, and the House could not alter or set aside a decision given in accordance with them, and on that point he disagreed with the Speaker. The Si eaker pointed out that the clause in the Constitution Act which made it necssarr tor the Standing Orders to be approved of bv lus Excellency had been repealed. a r B aid that when the member for Auckland City West was such a stickler for the Constitution, it behoved him to inquire as to how much of it remained. The hon gentleman recounted a revision of various Standing 1 o ders of the House, and said there was no statutory law about them at all; He was able to say they were bound irrevocably by thorn. . hoy were merely intended as aids .in conducting business of the House, He had been always

jealous and watchful of the privileges of the House in regard to money Bills and the power of the purse, but he could not admit that any surprise had been attempted by the Bill. The House had not been asked to appropriate anything ; as yet it had only been asked to read a second time a Bill containing appropriation clauses which must be fairly debated and discussed in committee of the whole House, where every member would be able to apeak as often as he liked—but whether that should be done before the Bill is read a second time was simply a question for the House As for the Standing Orders, they were not statut ;, y or obligatory at all. Mr O’Korke said the hon. member was confounding two sets of Standing Orders. Those for public business had been passed without a dissenting voice, while those for private Bills were very materially altered. Mr Fitzherberfc said it was cold comfort for the minority who venturned to disagree with the Speaker that his decision was final. As to the doctrine laid down by the member foi Timaru, that the Standing Orders were not statutory, if that were so, the sooner they altered that the better. He hoped the House would never allow its business to be proceeded with while such an unwise provision remained in force.

t The Speaker again gave a lengthy explanation of his sition and duties. The question he had to decide was: had the Government acted in accordance with the procedure of Parliament ? He did not look at it as a political question; that was not his business. To remove doubts, ne went to the fountain head, the House of Commons. The hon. Speaker then read to the House the words of the Speaker of the House of Commons on a similar question, except that it involved an expenditure of seven millions of money. The decision was to the effect that it was no infraction of the Standing Orders of the House to take the second reading of such a Bill before going into Committee of the whole. He then hoped the House would excuse his taking any further part in the discussion.

Mr Montgomery pointed out that the Civil Service Bill of last session was not treated in the same way as this Bill, and referred to the journals of the House, which showed a different mode of proc dure in the two cases. Mr Sheehan said that if it was the final ruling of riir Speaker, he would move that the ruling be taken into consideration by the House to-morrow, and no business proceeded with till then. This was not done for delay, because there were countless other means of delaying the progress of business. Having gore into the nutter very care ully, he could rot find in the records of the House that any Bill of a like nature had been dealt with in a similar manner.

Mr Reaves seconded the motion, ftnd said that if the Government had exercised as much ingenuity in the preparation of this Bill as they had in their novel mode of bringing it before thi* House, it would have been a great deal better for the country.

t'ir Donald AlM.ean said the Government must oppose such a motion. These delays on technical grounds merely were not becoming, and only delayed the business of the House and country.

Sir leorge Grey would beg to affirm that this was a most important principle. The country should be allowed to become acquainted with the finance of the BilL Being a young member, he was not sufficiently acquainted with the forms of the House when a Bill was introduced, or else he would then and there have opposed it throughout. The Government were acting unconstitutionally. There were Standing Orders laid down for the conduct of business, and yet the Government broke through these Orders—(“No, no”) —and refused to take the path of rectitude when it was pointed out at every step. In regard to this Bill, it was most unusual. They had deceived the Governor in getting his name attached to it by not acquainting him with the fact. Doubts had been raised as to its _ legality, and that the advice of Imperial officers should be taken in the matter. Thev had, in fact, then deceived their Sovereign in the person of the Governor. There was, in fact, systematic tyranny and deception with this Government, which was, in point of fact, a Government for civil servants, to whom they were slaves.—(Hear, bear, and laughter.) Why not let the two parties appear to-morrow before their Speaker as suppliants, after having matured their opinion ? This question affected all time: it was whether minorities were always to be at the mercy of a tyrannical maEvery step taken with the Bill was irritating to the people and unfair to the House. Give the people an opportunity to examine thb Bill—give them all the information regarding it —and then her Majesty’s Opposition would go in with heart and hand to model a perfect measure. He implored the House, and those gentlemen who so wrongfully supported the House against him the other evening, to defer this matter till to-morrow, to allow them to plead their views before the Speaker as judge. Mr Bowen said there was such a thing as the tyranny of the minority.) The Government had token every care to act constitutionally. They were satisfied they had done so, and the Speaker had given his utmost consideration to the course the Government had taken, and declared it was quite parliamentary and constitutional j but if t hey were to listen to and entertain every doubt that might enter into the heads of every hon, member as a reason for delay, and if they were to accept from the leader of the Opposition an assertion instead of proof, and vituperation instead of argument, they would never get a discussion upon the principles of the Bill. Ho must say these delays were not conducive to the fair arguing of the Bill on its merits.

Mr Stafford referred to the Standing Order of the House of Commons upon this very point, and to the ruling of the Speaker of that House on a similar question to that now before the House. The Standing Orders of each House wore worded precisely the same. Mr Sheehan’s motion was then put and negatived on the voices.

Sir Donald M‘Lean announced that it was his intention to move, on the rising of the House to night, that the debate on the Abolition Bill shall take precedence of all other business.

Mr Wood and Mr Eoid hoped the Government would not interfere with private business on its days. The House rose till 7.30, when the Abolition debate was resumed.

Mr Rollcston said he always endeavored, when speaking in the House, te do so from a Colonial point of view, dissociating his position as superintendent from that of member of the House. He then adverted to what Provincial Governments had done already for public works and education, and to the many social benefits which had resulted, and would result, from local government. What was the reason for the Bill ? The people were not dissatisfied, 1 , i ? 16 , kad been bad administration that should have been rectified ; the shortcomings of one Province should not be made a pretext to destroy all. Neither should the question be dealt with from the narrow and monetary point of view. Even what the Native Minister called the constant display of antagonism between the General and Provincial Governments was but a sign of wholesome activity and attention to the political interests of the people. The Government in bringing forward this measure showed their forgetfulness of the first want of national life. The organisations of Government and society were like those of nature, continuous and progressiva. This Bill was opposed to all true principles of Constitutional Government. However, he was satisfied that we could not remain as we are. Circumstances have arisen which have necessitated great changes, but not ; *bo manner proposed by the Government. The financial position of the country required all their _ attention. The Colony was now in that position that the Customs revenue would pay little more than the interest upon borrowed money, and every family in the Colony contributes from L2O to L3O per head. Evidently rrif ri aroae 10D1 our financial necessities, ihe Government were mistaken in thinking they could control the affairs of the country from a centre, they misunderstood the value of local Government, and their plan was opposed to the idea of simplification of Government l n * he e^ mple , 8 °, f , and the United btates. .they should have endeavored to make the two co-ordinate Governments work together harmqniousiy, and while exercising 0 a wholesome restraint, they should have aided the Provincial Governments in carrying out their work of progression, He maintained that

I elections of . Superintendents and Provincial I Governments were an essential part of popular I government. Provincialism was, no doubt, much overgrown, but any change necessary would naturally come with time. If Provincial Governments had failed in carrying out properly thefunctions entrusted to them, the faultlay with the General Government. He referred to the survey and the gaols, and said the whole administration of the General Government had not been such as to commend itself to the people. His idea of simplification of the form of Governmentwas adivisionof the Colony into shires, .to be co-terminous with the electoral districts and to possess local organisation, and to have large powers of Government and taxation; but he saw nothing of this nature in the Bill. He thought nothing had ever been done to secure the efficient operation of Provincial Governments. They should have been more fairly represented in the Upper House. He saw great need for reform in our system of taxation—the gaols, asylums, and charitable institutions should be charged on the Customs revenue; the real theory of land revenue was to devote the proceeds of the land itself inespective of any reference to the compact of 1856. He could make nothing of the Bill but chaos, and thought its introduction inopportune. First, we were never greater slaves to the Native difficulty than now; and then the House and the Ministry were never in a more disorganised state than now. In the Ministry there was no guiding mind; the member forTimaru pulled the strings. The administration of government in many things was unsatisfactory, but eminently so in the _ matter of confiscated lands. If this Bill passed, the land fund would become common property. He was strongly opposed to the clause of the Bill which provided for the requirements of such Provinces as had no land fund by Treasury Bills,Jand if this Bill were passed immediately a cry for separation would be raised. Mr Bowen denied that the state of the finances had caused the Bill; if there had been financial difficulties, the Provinces created them. There never had been a Colonial Treasurer who did not from time to time protest against against the raids made for money by the Provinces. Two years ago the member for the Hutt charged L 125.000 to loan account, having had to provide that sum for the requirements of the Provinces. The Hon. John Hall had said it was utterly impossible to guard the Colonial chest from such organised banditti, who year after year demanded “your money or your life.” No wonder, therefore, that the late Treasurer determined to sweep them away altogether. If they were not, the country would be landed in a financial disaster. The hon. gentleman quoted from a lecture! Mr by Godley, given twenty years ago, which was prophetic of the position the Provinces had arrogated. The circumstances which required Provincialism then no longer existed, and its continuance was detrimental to the unity of the Colony. Referring to the cry raised about the liberties of the people, he compared Superintendents to Caesars, who ignored the people’s representatives and appealed direct to the people by a plebiscite. They had an instance of this personal government when a Council one day passed a resolution favoring abolition and the next day rescinded it, because it was displeasing to the Superintendent. It was easier to govern New Zealand from one centre than to govern England in the time of their grandfathers. How could people maintain the existence of Provincialism was necessary when it existed in no other country ? If that were fair reasoning then the Heptarchy under which some of the noblest qualities of the British race were brought out should have been continued to this day. A change was necessary, everyone admitted it—Superintendents also; for when the cry came from North and South for abolition the Superintendents said “all or none.” The hon. gentleman explained that by retaining the Provincial districts they did so because there was a mass of legislation in each Province that extended no further than its boundaries, and to prevent confusion they had determined to leave these laws valid for the present. They wished to avail themselves of the services of Superintendents during th# transition, in the same way as a person taking over a new business would retain his old assistants. They had been charged with reducing the capitation allowance, but that was balanced by several Provincial charges taken over by the General Government, Only two courses were left open to the Government : either to carry out abolition and earn the gratitude of the country, or to return to obscurity with the ignoming that accompanies cowardice.

Mr Murray opposed the Bill, and cast a great many imputations upon the GoverAnent and its administration.

Mr Ballance made his maiden speech in defence of the Bill. The speech was exceedingly good in matter and in the manner in which it combatted in detail the chief arguments charged against the Bill by different speakers It was enthusiastically cheered on its conclusion.

Mr Reid moved the adjournment, which led to considerable discussion. The Government steadily opposed it, and a division was taken—-thirty-five voting for resuming the debate, twenty-one against. It was now midnight, and after more discussion upon adjournment, ultimately Sir Donald M/Lean moved that the debate be resumed at 2.30 next day. Another long discussion was followed by another division—ayes twelve, noes thirty-four. Mr Thompson moved an amendment to resume the debate at 7.30 on Thursday evening. This was about 3 a,m.

Sir George Grey and Messrs Reid, Reeves, Murray, and Fitzherbert followed, appealing to the Government not to hold to their inten tion.

At about ten minutes to four Mr Sheehan announced that the Opposition were satisfied at having made their protest, and the House adjourned.