THE SCENE IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 663, 4 August 1876, Page 3

THE SCENE IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES ASSEMBLY.

(Sydney Morning Herald, July 15.) The debate on the want ot confidence motion brought forward by Mr Fitzpatrick, was brought to a close at 4 o’clock yesterday afternoon, by a scene unparalleled in the Parliamentary history of this if not of any other country. The proceedings of the House were not concluded when we went to press yesterday morning. ' Two or three attempts to adjourn the debate were successfully resisted by large majorities on each occasion, the last division on a, motion for adjournment being taken about b o clock, when 19 members voted for the motion and 29 against it. At daybreak the Chamber was the scene of haggard faces, unkempt heads, littered floor, and general disorder. The long sitting, from half-past 4 o’clock on the previous afternoon had demoralised the House, Members grew careless about the debate on the main question, and under motions for adjournment frittered the time away by frivolous discussions. Personal altercations were frequent, but occasionally hon members were treated to some fun. Every now and then a point of order was raised, which Mr Speaker had to decide, “ What is a larrikin ?” was the question that engaged the attention of hon members for some time. The term was applied to some of the supporters of the Government, and objection being taken to it, a point of order was raised. It was explained that the term larrikin originated in Melbourne, and meant “larking.” “Mr Fitzpatrick considered that the term meant mischievous, and illustrated his meaning by saying that somebody in the House did away with a pair of boots of his, and he was a larrikin —he was mischievous. Mr Speaker said that the term was contemptuous and insulting, and therefore unparliamentary.” The members of the Opposition expressed their determination to “ sit it out,” in order that they might have an opportunity of speaking at a time when their utterances were likely to be chronicled for the enlightenment of the country. The members on the Government side of the House stubbornly refused to listen to any appeal for adjournment. It was therefore impossible for any progress to be made with the debate. Nearly fifty members were either in the chamber or within its precincts during the whole night and day. It was admitted that the Government had a majority, and therefore the useless discussions were not carried on with any view of altering the result. An adjournment of half an hour between eight and nine o’clock, and again between one and two o’clock, was made for refreshment. The inane discussion was carried on by several hon members until about three o’clock in the afternoon, when Mr Lloyd essayed to speak on the main question. As, however, the motion immediately before the House was one for adjournment, and as he had already spoken upon that he was precluded from delivering his address. There was then every probability that the discussion would continue until four o’clock, at which hour it was known that Mr Speaker would have to adjourn the House, that it might assemble, according to the standing orders, for the conduct of Friday’s business, and that Mr Fitzpatrick’s motion viould consequently lapse. Members of the Opposition were charged from the Government benches with conniving to bring about such a result. Soon after three o’clock, however, Mr Fitzpatrick rose to make a speech which, although under a motion for adjournment, was practically a reply to the addresses that had been made in opposition to his motion. He was then proceeding with a criticism of the Colonial Secretary’s address when, the hour of 4 o’clock having been reached, Mr Speaker rose to declare the sitting at an end. Then followed a scene which baffles all attempt at description, and will serve to make this long and extraordinary session for ever memorable in our Parliamentary annals. Mr Speaker’s announcement was met with a few cheers from the Government side, which at once provoked counter cheers from the Opposition. Members, amidst the cheering, exchanged repartees. These grew into angry reproaches, inflaming the resentment of hon members on both sides ; and these again culminated in a fierce contention of tongues and a general uproar, such as might be expected from an election mob in front of some hustings. Their mutual aversion impelled them from their seats, and amidst the most violent excitement each side moved towards the other, but the tables intervening a collision was avoided. They gesticulated, shook their fists, and wagged their fingers at each other across the table, shouted out their vindictiveness, the corridors and lobbies resounding with acclamations and clapping of hands. Charges of the grossest description appeared to be levelled across the table from both sides, but amidst the noise and confusion it was utterly impossible for the reporters to catch a single sentence that was uttered. In vain did Mr Speaker endeavor to restore order. His voice was completely lost in the general hubbub, which lasted for some minutes. The galleries were crowded, the lobbies were thronged, but although there was great excitement everywhere, the disorder was entirely confined to the floor of the House. When the noise had partially subsided, Mr Speaker was heard to say that the time had arrived when, by a sessional order, the business of the sitting must be concluded. Mr Robertson shouted, “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.” Quiet was at last restored, and the business proper for the day was called on. The questions were postponed, as Ministers, having been at the House all day, had been unable to procure the necessary answers. The formal business was transacted, and then Mr Farnell gave notice of another motion of want of confidence, in precisely similar terras to that of Mr Fitzpatrick’s, which has lapsed, for Wednesday next. So there is a probability that next week wo shall have a repetition of the farce that has been enacted this week.