PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 4161, 28 June 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

[By Telegraph.]

Wellington, June 28. In the House of Representatives yesterday at 2.30 p.m., " Mr Rees gave notice to move—" That, inasmuch as Mr Whitakhr, member for Waikato, is interested in k contract with the Government, it is advisable that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case to ascertain whether the bon. member is entitled to hold his seat in the House.”

. SirG Grey asked leave td lay upon the table certain telegrams relating to the Fiako Swamp sale, which had been mentioned by him during the debate. Sir J. Vogel pointed oat to the House the inadvisability ofcumbering the Records of the House with all sorts of documents, which, by provoking discussion, greatly retarded the transaction of public business. If information was wanted it would be given, or, if any question was raised, let it be discussed by aa means, but let it be in a regular way. There was a great deal of important business to be done, and he hoped that the House would assist the Government to expedite business as much as possible. Some discussion ensued upon the Order of the Day for the appointment of a committee to try the allegations contained in the petition of James Mackay against the return of Sir G. Grey for the Tnames. Mr Macandrew said it . would save a great deal of time if Sir George were now allowed to make his choice of which seat he' should sit for.

Mr Stout did not think that, according to parliamentary law, Sir George was at liberty to do so.

As there was another similar committee asked for to try the allegations contained in the i etition of George Bentham Morris against the return of George Edward Bead for the hast Coast district, it was moved and agreed to that Mr O’Eorke and the members of the Ministry be exempted from sitting upon these committees. On the motion for a committee to try the allegations contained in the petition "of Heuare Potae, complaining of an informal election for the Eastern Maori electoral district, Sir Donald M'Lean moved that the petition be dismissed, with the object .of getting a new writ issued. A good deal of discussion ensued as to whether that would be the proper course to pursue under the circumstances, and Mr Bees suggested that the member having the greater number of votes should be allowed to sit until it was discovered who had the best right to sit, otherwise the district would be disfranchised.

Mr Stout considered the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into all the circumstances would be the best plan. Mr Taiaroa took a similar new. Messrs Swanson and Sharp thought it very , improper that returning officers should have it m their power to vitiate an election either $ through personal animosity, carelessness, or otherwise.

Mr Reader Wood, who took a similar view, 1 moved an amendment—“ That a committee be appointed to consider the petition.” A telegram was read from Karaitiana, stating ho was too unwell to attend the House. Taking that fact into consideration, Mr Macandrew moved that the debate be adjourned till Friday. SirO. Vogel said that the Government Would not object, and the debate Was adjourned accordingly. On the adjourned debate re the Piako Swamp, Mr Stout made a short personal explanation ; after which Mr Macandrew rose, and said the sooner a conclusion was come to the better. He had seldom listened to a debate into which there had been imparted so much extraneous matter. The instead of Confining themselves to the Piako Swamp, had veiled .over the wide range of creation. It wrs deeply to be regretted that the Government had insisted upon making this a jparfy questiou-(Opposition chcersj-thcreby debarring many members from dealing with the question on its merits. Fop his part he absolutely declined to treat it as a party question. The question was not one of big

or little men —friend or foe of the Govern* ment—but whether it was wise, prudent, expedient, and in the interests of the public to dispose of 87,000 acres of land to one individual without competition, and at 2s 6d per acre. That was the staked issue to which the House should confine itself without reference to collateral considerations of any kind. As a member of the Committee of Inquiry last session a strong impression (which remained) was left on his mind by the evidence that this Swamp was just as good land as was the Taieri plain twenty-five years ago. It was because he was convinced this Swamp could be made what the Taieri now is —with its 400 freeholders, its churches, schools, comfortable homesteads, and thriving population, which could be counte I by thousands that he was avers#-* to this proposed sale. He was not one of those who charged the Government with corruption, because he was perfectly certain that not one of them made a single farthing privately out of the transaction. He maintained that the Government had made a mistake and he now desired that the Government would rectify that mistake. The amendment he would propose would indicate how that might be done, and if the Government adopted it they would stand higher with their supporters and higher with the country—if they acquired the land and put it up to auction, to be dealt with according to the land regulations of Auckland, instead of sacrificing this enormous territory upon the altar of party. Whether adopted or not this amendment expressed his opinions : “ Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is expedient, in the public interest, that the Swamp should be surveyed into suitable allotments, and disposed of either specially or by public auction, in terms of the Jjand Regulations of Auckland; that the Government be recommended to refund to the purchaser the sum. paid by him by way of purchase money, and also the amount actually expended upon improvements, with interest thereon from the date of the respective payments.” One word in conclusion. The people in the South would better comprehend the merits of the case when he said if this transaction was carried out it was precisely similar to selling the Taieri Plain for L 6,000.

. Mr Tole said he was acquainted with the circumstances—there were few in Auckland who were not—and after having perused the report of the committee of inquiry last year, he felt inclined to designate the sale by a leas complimentary term than “ transaction. ” It was a very queer transaction. Indeed, he very much doubted whether, if he or anybody else applied for this land, he would have got it, and he considered the issuing of the proclamation regarding the sale in a recent ‘ Gazette ’ was merely a sham. The hou. gentleman expressed his belief that the whole thing was illegal, that the Governor had exceeded his powers, that the price obtained for the land was moat inadequate, and that the sale was altogether inexpedient. No violation of the law could possibly be a public benefit. He hoped the amendment of Mr Macandrew would be carried, and the difference in price handed over to the Province of Auckland. When he was returned it was un-.er the pledge that he would oppose any land monopoly whatever. He would vote against the original motion. Mr Pearce said that the House must recognise the fact that there were occasions upon which the chief business of thft' country had to be put on one side for other matters, such as the present question. As a supporter of the Ministry, he held them, individually and collectively, to be incapable of committing what had been so freely attributed to them. He ridiculed the charge regarding a private sale, and instanced such negotiations as the sale of the Fielding block and others. It appeared to him to be quite inconsistent to sneer at capitalists in the way that had been done. It would be a bad day for New Zealand when she ceased to be a fair field for the employment of capital. His opinion of the matter was that the Government , deserved credit for what they did. After-the full’ inquiry of the Committee last year, and the explanation Siven from the Government benches, wh jn e heard bon. members ei’press themselves as the member for Avon did, he felt bound to call them irreconcileables.

Mr Woolcock had taken pains to make himself acquainted with the whole matter, and failed to discover anything which merited the terms corruption or illegal. He believed, however, there was some slight irregularity, That, no doubt, was very undesirable in administering-the affairs of the country; but all the other charges fell to the ground. Basing his opinion upon the evidence of the member for Bruce, he thought the price paid was the full value at the time, and even now he doubted whether there were any ten men in the House who would be prepared to take over the land with all *its liabilities. While deprecating the sale of large blocks of land to capitalists, he thought that Mr Bussell might have employed his capital to more advantage in numerous other ways. Supposing the land to be all bought up by small holders, and they co-operated t<? drain it, they would have to wait years before they would be able to settle upon it; but wherejwas the difference? The present proprietors intended to cut the reclaimed land into small holdings, and sell it on deferred payments. He would support the motion and uphold the honor of their Administration.

Mr Lacnach said it was generally admitted that a fair sale had been made, and he did not see how the House., could fairly or conscientiously interfere' with this sale. He for one would say, let the Crown grant issue. Any more Swamp questions they had to discuss he hoped they would send before a Select Committee.

Mr Fisher deprecated the course the debate had taken, the greater portion being either personal or irrelevant. The charges and insinuations thrown out were quite uncalled for. He was strongly opposed to the sale of large blocks of land, and would therefore vote against the Government on this occasion.

Mr Fitzroy said he opposed the motion of the member for Auckland West, because he thought it to be a most irregular coarse. On the second division he felt he could not vote for the Government. lie did not like to vote for them in the then phase of the question but being desirous of giving the Government an opportunity to defend themselves, he walked out of the House. Referring to what had been evoked by the debate, he felt bound to say that all the charges and insinuations thrown out had not been sustained—they had vanished into thin air. It appeared to him that the only object Sir George Grey and his colleagues had in view was toreinove the present occupants of the Ministerial Benches. Every one of them studiously ignored the fact that there had been no more land added to the Swamp, and that over two thousand acres of land bad been taken away. The sale was fair and open, and ought to bo earned out. He believed if Sir G. Grey came into office to-morrow, he would have to carry out the sale. Mr Pyke thought, from all he had yet heard, that the Piako Swamp was a place specially designed (subject, of course, to the ‘" lr ■, !p eor S e j for amphibious settlers, who would as soon have their farms under tvater as above it. His own opinion was that , the conservation of the Piako Swamp was not necessary to the welfare of New Zealand fS He considered the whole affair a trumpery one. It was stinking in th# nostrils of tbo people of the country,

though the member for Auckland West thought it was the only important question they assembled there to consider. After quoting the evidence of the member for Bruce to show that the Government were paid a fair price for the land, the hon. member was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

Mr Pyke continued the debate at 7.30 last evening, asserting that the charges of corruption were emanations from diseased minds.

Mr Lusk endeavored to prove in an argumentative speech that the sale was vicious in the extreme, inexpedient, and injurious to the welfare of the district, that more land was given away than was originally bargained for, and that the land was worth L 20,000. Though he did not say the transaction affected the honor of Ministers, the sale could not have been carried out if the public of Auckland knew of it. The Governor had no right to give away principalities—no action of a Government could be more disastrous to the interests of the people of Auckland. The Waikato people, who defended the sale, were all directly interested or dependent on the Piako works. To pass a resolution was like whitewashing the Government.

Major Atkinson laid maps of the Swamp upon the table and defied anyone to disprove their correctness, or say more land was given away than was originally bargained for. As to the legality of the transaction, neither the late Attorney General nor the present Solicitor-General had expressed any doubts as to its legality, and the Government could not be far wrong in acting according to their interpretation of the law. Mr Joyce opposed the motion on various grounds. Mr M ‘Lean said he visited the Piako : 'wamp solely with the view of being better able to give an opinion upon the matter, and he was quite satisfied that neither 40J nor any number of small settlers could be placed on the land. It was only fit to be treated under a comprehensive system, and in parting with it as they did, the Go Vermont did wisely for the district. There was no analogy between the Piako Swamp and the Taieri Plain—it would be nearer the mark to say the Taeiri Lake—nor was there any comparison between it and the blocks of land disposed of to companies in Southland. He hoped the Government would come as clear out of everything as they must out of the Piako Swamp sale. He took all the responsibility of the transaction upon him self, denying that he and Mr Russell had anything in common, or that he favored bim in any way. He took every care to preserve the rights in connection with the land, and maintained that the sale was conducted fairly, openly, and honorably. Mr Button maintained that the sale was quite legal, and now that be had all the circumstances satisfactorily explained to him he considered it a good sale under all the circumstances.

Mr Hodgkinson thought the transaction very “swampy,” and wondered how Mr Stafford supported it. Mr Andrew defended the action of the Ministry. Sir J. Vogel made a long speech, answering the principal arguments of the Opposition speakers and dealing with a great deal of matter dragged in, but not very pertinent to the debate—such as his telegraphic correspondence with Sir George Grey and the correspondence with the banks. He ridiculed the idea of Sir George Grey taking on behalf of the Queen under a writ of scire facias legal proceedings against Her Majesty’s responsible advisers. The hon. gentleman intimated in the course of his remarks that, after the impending Constitutional change, all Provincial property would'be vested in the Governor, and all Provincial officers would become General Government officers. He announced that the financial statement would be delivered on Tuesday next. A division was called for on Mr Stout’s amendment, which was lost by fifty-two against twenty. Another division took place upon the original motion which was carried by fiftyone against nineteen.

The following is the division list:—

Ayes: Andrew, Atkinson, Baieent, Ballance, Barit, Bastings, Bowen, J. E. Brown, Bryce, Bunny, Button, Carrington, Cox, Curtis, Dougins, Pitzroy, Gibis, Henry, Hunter, Johnston, Kelly. Kennedy, Larnach, M'Farlane, Mandera, Sir D. MTjean, G. M'Lenn, Montgomery, Moorhonse, Murray-Aynsley, Ormond, Pearce, Pyke, Bead, G. E. Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, Rowe, Russell, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Taiaroa, Tawiti, Teschmaker. Tribe, Vogel, Wakefield, Wason, Williams, Woolcock, and Hnrsthouse.

Noes: Messrs. Brandon, J. C. Brown, Burns, Do Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Hamlin, Hodgkinson, Joyce, Lusk, Murray, Nabe, Mees, Rolleston, Shmnski, Stout, Swanson, Tol«, Thomson. W.. and Wood.

The Government, in reply to Mr Manders, said they were not prepared this year to bring in a Bill giving to the District Courts Act extended jurisdiction, so as to include sentences inflicted for a period equal to ten years’ penal servitude for criminals, and power to try all cases civilly up to LSOO (such cases being those that Courts now deal with up to the extent of L 200), and adding thereto . causes for libel, slander, breach of promise of marriage, seduction, but net including cases of land titles, treason, &c., as set forth in the existing Act, but during the recess they Would consider whether such a step would be advisable. The House adjourned at 1.40.

(From our Special Corresponded t.)

__ 3.45 p.m. The House met this afternoon at 2.30, and the Address-iu-Reply was agreed to •without a debate. ABOUT THE LOBBIES. (From our special Correspondent.) ]Mr Stout has introduced a new Licensing Bill, It does not attempt to remedy any of the defeats of the existing Acts, but is simply directed to one point, viz., securing to the ratepayers of any licensing district the rights of deciding by vote whether any licences whatever shall be granted in any particular district. The vote is proposed to be taken in M ay, 1877, and every third year thereafter. Clause 13 of the .Bill runs as follows :— ii Whenever by the returns of the said votesin any licensing district there shall be a majority who shall have voted against a license it shall not be lawful fur the Licensing Coert of the licensing district to grant any license or any renewal of any license for the sale of any spirituous or intoxicating liquors whatever.” The proposed ct is intended to be read with and form an addition to the existing Licensing Act. Katene, the Maori member of the Government last session, is to bo called to the Upper House. The ‘JN. 7j. Times 1 has the following synophis of the New Debtors Act:—“On the side of the debtor the Bill provides that he may tile in the Supreme or District Court for the district in which he resides a declaration of his inability to meet his engagements. The Act immediately vevts the whole property in the Registrar or Clerk of the Court, and within four days the debtor must file in Court a list of all his creditors and their addresses, showing the amounts due to each and the value of property w’iuch he has to meet their claims. The Registrar then calls a meeting of creditors, who aio to appoint some person to be trustee, who is armed with all the necessary power to enable him to realise all the assets -of the debtor (with some' small reservation' tor the immediate want* of debtor and

family) and to divide the proceeds rateably among the creditors.’ The trustee may, at the request of the debtor, convene a meeting of creditors, who shall decide either that the debtor shall be discharged forthwith, or that his discharge be suspended for any Seriod not exceeding three years. The ebtor then (after giving due notice) applies to the Court, which orders him to be discharged forthwith, or at some future date irrespective of the decision of the creditors. The Bill further provides, if the debtor shall not be able to obtain a certificate of discharge within one year from the date of his bankruptcy, he may apply to the Court for his discharge with such certificate, and that he shall be absolutely discharged at the end of three years whether an order has been obtained or not. For creditors the Bill provides that they may set the machinery of the Act in motion, provided that one or more of them to whom the debtor owes not less than LSO shall apply to the Court by petition, and shall prove, after due notice to the debtor, that he (the debtor) has committed an “ act of bankruptcy,” which the Bill defines. After this the process is substantially the same as when the debtor has made the application himself. To carry out the Act the Registrar is clothed with certain functions of the Judge during the vacation or in case of the illness or absence of the Judge. And it is further provided that if no one can be found willing to act as trustee the Registrar shall cause the property of the bankrupt to be converted into money, and shall pay the proceeds to the credit of the Colonial Treasurer, and the monies so paid in shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Court at the instance of a creditor or creditors of the bankrupt, be paid to the bankrupt at the expiration of twelve calendar months from the date of his bankruptcy. The principal differences between the Bill and the Act which it is intended to supersede are the new powers given to the Registrar to act for the Judge, the appointment of the Registrar as trustee where no one else can be found to act, the making the decision of the meeting of creditors to be by “a majority in number and value ” (instead of a majority in number and three-fourths in value), the getting rid of the “liquidation resolution ” introduced by the Act of 1875, and the mode of giving a debtor his discharge. The speeches throughout the debate up to the dinner adjournment were exceedingly weak, and ranged over a variety of subjects. Mr Macandrew was short but thorougly Otagan in feeling, Mr Larnach was even briefer ; while Mr Pyke’s mission seemed to be to poke fun at Mr Murray. He -was at great pains to explain that Sir George Grey in speaking on the main question did not refer to Sir Julius Vogel as “ that Jew,” as bad been asserted, but had in rather an undertone called him “that Jove,” whence the misconception arose. Papers in reference to the Native Minister’s visit to Waikato in the summer show there is no truth in the statement that he promised to returned the confiscated lands to the Maor es. He undertook that the Go vernment should merely recognise Tawhiao as the head of his tribe, and assist him in preserving peace and order in his district.