Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1901. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 31 October 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1901. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

“ The House of Careful Revision ” is a term that has been lovingly applied by Tory minds and lovers of Tory institutions, to the New Zealand Legislative Council. Many folks possessing knowledge of the Council in days gone by regarded the Chamber as “a fossil ” —exceeding interesting—after the manner of ancient ware —but utterly useless for present day requirements. Latterly the house has been looked on as a “ House of Reward ” for those who may have performed some particular public service. Be this as it may it cannot now be regarded as a “ Careful House of Revision,” if last nights proceedings are to be taken as any guage. The Press Association informs us that the Council met at half-past seven o’clock when nineteen local Bills were passed their final stages The Aid to Public Works and the Land for Sett’ement Bi 1 passed their final stages, and the Old Age Pension Bill passed through Committee. The Council adjourned at midnight. A half-hour has to be deducted off this time for refreshments, so that in the brief space of four hours the above-named bills were discussed, reviewed, approved of, and finally passed. Keen and intelligent men would require at least a couple of hours to consider each measure, and a couple of days to read and digest the more important measures, yet our House of Lords calmly, and as easily as swallowing an oyster, read, learn, digested, and approved of the whole in four hours. Little wonder i we so often hear judges, magistrates I and lawyers complain of hasty legislation, with all its inconsistencies, | double meanings, and corrections

Last night in the House of Representatives the absurd rules guiding proceedings again stood out in bold relief, causing no end of trouble, which apparently is not yet ended, the Premier having intimated his intention of challenging the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker. Mr. Seddon desired to lay on the table a document contradicting a statement made by a member of the House. In this statement the \7ords “ outrageous mis-

statement ” appeared, and this very moderate language was held to be sufficient to bar its appearance, because, forsooth, it was .applied to a member of the House. Had it been said of any one else there would not have the slightest objection to the words, but an outsider must not deny the statement of a member of the House of Representatives. We do not find fault with the ruling; it is probably quite in accordance with the extraordinary rules that are are termed “ Parliamentary Proceedure,” but common sense declares that the doctrine affirming that a member of the House of Representatives is immaculate is pure nonsense, and should be swept aside. The absurdity of maintaining that a correction made in every day life, or evidence given in our law courts, is not admissable to Parliament because the correction relates to a member of the House, we should think, is too apparent and childish to admit of being continued. Unfortunately in anything appertaining to the “ privileges ” of the House —we term it preposterous license—members are particularly jealous, and uphold ideas in connection therewith that under other conditions they would flout and ridicule.