PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 4257, 18 October 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

[Bv Telegraph.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

October 17. • In Committee on the Debtors and Creditors Bill, “official assignee" was, on a division, by 12 to 10 substituted for “ registrar” in several clauses. The Public Works Bill was read a third time.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

In answer to Mr Burns, the Minister for Public Works promised to layonthe tabls a return showing the cost of the Clntha railway and of the bridge at Balolntha.

TESTING THE VALIDITY OF TBB ABOLITION ACT.

On the motion for going into Committee of mittee of the whole to consider an address to the Governor that he be requested tojplaeo upon the supplementary estimate* LB,OOO, for the purpose of defraying the cost of legal proceedings to be taken with the view of determining as to whether the Abolition Act of 1875 and its various provisions be ultra viret, He postponed the last clause providing for charging the amount against Auckland and Otago. He moved the motion with very few remarks. The PbbmieE thought, as a matter of course, the House would reject such a motion. It seemed to Jum unreasonable that after the House took a ov I *®* 11 course it was satisfied was quite legal it tify itself as to vote money to tSh?* “ ie of its own action. . Mr Peed said the subject was of so gravity that there were serious thoughts V 1 certain parts of the Colony of taking eraj means of resisting the action of the Colonial Government to force Abolition. He thought L 5,000, LIO,OOO, or even L 50,000, would be well spent in obtaining the decision of the Courts of Law on the question, and he had no doubt that whatever that was the people throughout the Colony would abide by it. This was an exceptional case, and he would therefore vote for it. The Government should accede to the vote gracefully, and not hang back. By acceding to it, they would strengthen their prestige. The Hon. Mr Whitaker pointed out to the House an inconsistency in the argument of those who held the Act to be ultra vires. They said that all power had been taken away from the superintendents, and yet while saying this they contended the Act was ultra vires. They mast admit, if that were the case, that the Superintendents? with all the powers and privileges they ever enjoyed, were free to proceed m this question with whatever means were at their disposal. If the question was to be tested in the Courts of Law, what was to be done in the meantime ? Was the Act to be brought into operation, or were the old Provincial Councils to be reinstated ? He could not admit the propriety of the Government taking the step they were asked by the motion to do.

Mr She mAK said the whole question turned upon the intepretation of the word “ any” in the Imperial Act relating to the power to abolish “any” of the Provinces. “Any” did not mean “all,”as had been decided in a case with regard to closing public-houses which was exhaustively discussed before the House of Lords. Why had Ministers not obtained the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, or why had not Sir J. Vogel done so when he was so long at Home ? He accused the Government of naving kept Abolition as a buffer between them and public inquiry into their maladministration of finance and other misdeeds. They ought not to be afraid to go to their own Supreme Courts to settle the doubts existing upon the question. If still dissatisfied, let them go to the Court of Appeal, or the high Courts at Home. The people were net bound to obey this law, ana if the Government compelled them to do so by force, then all the results that would flow, from such an act would rest upon the heads of the Government, and if blood were shed their heads would inadequately meet the punishment required. . The Government might, with propriety, make a concession in this case, and allow the question to be tested in the courts of law.

The Hon. Mr Bowen pointed out the uselessness of answering the hon. gentleman, whose speech was merely a rechauffe of the speeches cf the last two sessions. The real point at issue was this: to ask the taxpayers to test a question as to which they were advised there was no doubt upon. The motion was negatived on a division by 32 to 20.

A CONTRADICTION. Mr De Lautour rose to contradict a statement which appeared in the Government organs, to the effect that Mr Macaadrew had been corresponding with members of the House with a view to*rebellion. He made this explanation in justice to so eminent a member of the House—one who did so much, for the Colony, and was incapable of doing anything of the kind indicated. He hoped those organs would admit they were misinformed.

At the evening sitting, the House went into Committee of Supply after rejecting Sir George Grey’s motion. Mr Sheehan moved that the vote for the Native Department be reduced by L 5,000 instead of LIO,OOO. The hon. gentleman went on to make a fierce* attack upon the Native Minister and his department generally. He said the Native Minister demoralised the Natives with rum, was responsible for the Waitara war, and therefore indirectly for all the subsequent wars. The large majority of the Natives desired nothing better than to be rid of him and his officers. No man trafficked more largely in Native land or made more money out of them than Sir D. M‘Lean did. The hon. gentleman gave a minute history of a number of Native laud transactions at Hawke’s Bay to show that Provincial and General Government officers, and even Sir D. M‘Lean himiwlf, were guilty of dabbling in Native land speculations. He said be believed that it would have been better to have had no Native Department at all. The Hon. Mr Bowri* defended Sir D. MT/ean, deprecating such an attack upon the Native Minister while absent from the House through illness. He pointed out how careful the committee ought to be in accepting Mr Sheehan’s statements, he being the paid advocate of a section of Natives at Hawke’s Bay, and who came and gave the House an ex parte statement, setting his own case in the best possible light. He also said nine-tenths oi Sir D. M‘Lean’s land was bought either direct from the Go* vernment, or at fair and open competition at public auction. Mr Hunter explained how impossible it was for Sir D. M‘Lean to have anything to do with the Waitara war, hb being then dangerously ill at Wellington. After a long discussion, Mr Sheehan’s amendment was lost by 38 against 18. An item of L4OO, intended to cover the cost of the ‘Waka Maori* newspaper, was struck off .by 2d against 21. The Defence estimates led to a long and complicated discussion, all sorts of amendments being proposed and suggested. Some advocated the aboiition of themilitia and Volunteers in the Middle Island and Wellington, retaining theip. in the Pro*

ruioM. Th* discontinuance of giving priaea wu sLm rccommandad, and tk* convarsion of. the present militia and volunteers into artillery companies. 'J he majority, however, considered that prise-firing was the verylue and soul of volunteering in keeping them together. Ultimately, on the suggestion of the Premier, prise-firing was rete lned > and the whole vote reduced by LI,OOO. Government Domains, L 1 ,244, passed. The House adjourned at 3.36 S* m *