GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 699, 15 September 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Per Press Agency.) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday September 13. The Council met at 7.30 p.m. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. Hon Dr Pollen made a statement similar to that by Major Atkinson in the other House. A message was read from the Governor notifying that Hon John Hall had resigned his seat in the Council. Some remarks were made by the Hon Mr Waterhouse with the view to elicit from the Government if they intended to nominate Mr Hall and Mr Ormond to the Executive at the end of this session. The bon gentle* man said it would introduce a bad principle if those gentlemen were to act as acolytes during the session and be admitted to full orders afterwards. Hon Dr Pollen said sufficient for the day was the evil thereof, and he hoped the Council would proceed to the real work of session. DISQUALIFICATION ACT. Hon Mr Waterhouse moved—" That the provisions of the Disqualification Act, 1874, as amended by the Civil List, 1863, Amendment Act, 1873, having been violated by Hon J. Hall, his seat as member of Council be declared vacant,” and said that after the message received from the Governor, it might appear that there was no cause for proceeding with his motion, but it was impossible for a man to resign a seat already vacant, and he thought the proper constitutional course to adopt was that which would be effected if the motion were carried. The Speaker then said that a question had suggested itself to him as to whether it would be competent for the Council to deal with the matter, the Governor having sent a message to the effect that the seat was vacant. Hon Mr Waterhouse than proceeded, and said that the Council was the guardian of its own privileges. Mr Hall’s presence in the Council, or his resignation, were not necessary, as the Disqualification Act was quite clear on the subject, and the seat was vacant by the operation of the law. The Speaker expressed an opinion as to the desirability of adjourning the debate.

Hon Mr Stokes then moved that the debate be adjourned. Hon Dr Menzies spoke against the adjournment, and said that it would be better to shelve the motion at once. If they proceeded they would, in the words of an old poet, thrice rout all the foes, and thrice slay all the slain. The Council could do nothing more than express an opinion, and could not act judicially in the matter at all. Hon Dr Pollen supported the adjournment, that members might take a little time to consider the course which it would be beat to adopt. The debate was adjourned. Thursday, September 14, CHRISTCHURCH DISTRICT DRAINAGE BILL. The Christchurch District Drainage Act Amendment Bill was read a second time, and in committee clause 3, imposing Is 3d rate, was struck out. Clause 13 was was struck out. LYTTELTON RESERVES. The Lyttelton Reserves Bill passed through committee, and was read a third time.' PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. The Public Health Bill passed the third reading. RATING BILL. The remaining clauses of the Rating Bill passed through committee. PUBLIC WORKS BILL. The Public Works Bill was considered in committee, but little progress was made, when the hour for adjournment stopped further proceedings. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. ■Wednesday, September 13, ADJOURNED DEBATE ON LAW PRACTITIONERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. Hon F. Whitaker opposed the Bill on the ground that the receipt in full from Mr Smythies covered everything, and made him of the opinion that he had no claim whatever. Tl»e case need not be reopened. It was an unpleasant one, and the less said about it the better. He would therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr Swanson thought Mr S my ought to be allowed to earn bii bread in his p?c«

fession. All he wanted was to be allowed to go before the judge to decide as to whether he should not be so allowed. Mr Macandrew held that the Act sought to be amended was a disgrace to the statute book of New Zealand, and was due entirely to personal spleen. He regretted that the Government should take the view they had done, as the case was one of v ry hard lines indeed to Mr Smythies, to punish whom and no one else a retrospective Act was passed. He thought Mr Smythies deserved great credit for the pertinacity with which he struggled for his rights. He entirely disagreed with the view that the receipt for £IOOO was a receipt in full for all claims, Mr T. Kelly supported the Bill. Sir B. Douglas thought that if a lawyer was once condemned for wrong doing, and removed from his profession, he should not be allowed to practise again. The profession was an honorable one, and people were disposed to place every confidence in their lawyer, and it ought to be necessary to uphold the purity of the profession. Mr De LATOUR pointed out that all that was required to be done was to enable Mr Smythies to adduce the proof ho obtained at home to establish his innocence. The obtaining of this information was the very first thing he devoted the £IOOO obtained from the House to. The hon gentleman then quoted as the opinion from Sir Julius Yogel that he did not think the receipt for £IOOO was a receipt in full for all claims. It was a bar to his recovering any monetary indemnity, but not to being reinstated in his profession ;

Hon G. M'Lean protested against the way the claim had been put before the House by the members for Dunedin and Mount Ida, and said that it was very well understood at the time that the £IOOO was a receipt in full for all claims for indemnity for injury sustained by the Law Practitioners’ Act. As regards Sir J. Vogel’s opinion, it was well known that he took an extreme view of this particular case, as did several other hon members. Mr J. E. Brown said that his recollection of the case differed altogether from that of the last member who spoke. He was very much struck at the time with the biassed views taken of the case by several hon members of the House. Mr Rees supported the Bill, and said the credit of the House demanded that this Act should be passed. It was perfectly monstrous that such a weapon of enormous power should be held over the head of any man. The hon member then detailed the leading facts of Smythies’ case, to show that this turpitude was of such a venial nature, that, although he had been convicted by a jury at home of having been guilty of a crime, the judge did not think it necessary to sentence him and did not do so, and allowed him to go out to the colony. He maintained from the very termsjof the receipt, that the indemnification was for the injury he sustained by being debarred from his profession not for the loss of his profession. Altogether he regretted that Ministry should deny the right of any man to have his case tried. That was beginning their career with a blunder. The House admitted already that they had passed an unjust measure, and all Mr Smythies asked was to remove this barrier, which prevented him fighting out his case fairly and fully against his enemies (and they were powerful ones) in the Supreme Court. Mr Murray and Mr Tole supported the Bill. Sir G. Grey said they had learned something new that night. They had seen Ministers when they broke the law come to their masters for condonation. When they got it they then went and took their servants by the throat. They at least ought to be the last to set such a bad example as to refuse to allow an accused person to establish his innocence, Mr Rolleston said that at the time the thousand pounds were awarded he held the opinion that to award a thousand pounds to a man for the loss of his character was unworthy of the House, and he then said that claims for further money compensation would yet come up before the House, There was no analogy between the case of Mr Smythies and that of the Government, as was sought to be made out by Sir George Grey. He would be the very last man to shut out the means of obtaining justice to any man, but members of that House had a duty to perform, andj he need not fortify himself with any stronger than the words of the Supreme Court Judge, when, after enquiring into the case of Mr Smythies, then said, “ There were certain circumstances connected with the case which were fatal to all hopes of Mr Smythies in the direction he wished.” He was glad Government had taken this stand in the matter.

Mr BURNS fully concurred with the remarks of the last speaker. Hon W. H. Reynolds pointed out in reply to Mr Rees, that Mr Smythies had to undergo twelve months’ imprisonment in Newgate. He believed he was fully justified in saying Mr Smythies had been guilty of malpractice in Dunedin, and that if he had not done so he would not be placed in the position he was now. He believed there was not an honest man in Dunedin who would be in favor of the Bill. He thought the public should be protected ; lawyers could protect themselves. Mr Heslop defended the measure, and pointed out that the resolution passed by the House of Representatives in relation to this matter when awarding the thousand pounds, did not contain a single word debarring Mr Smythies from coming to the House again. As to the desirability of preserving the purity of the profession, the hon member reminded the House that the petition presented to the House by Mr Smythies was signed by several other members of the legal profession. A division was then taken, with the following result: — Ayes ... 30 Noes 28 The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to morrow. MAORI REPRESENTATION ACT. The second reading of the Maori Representation Act Amendment Bill was moved by Mr TAIAROA; The Bill provides for giving five Maori representatives for the North Island, and two for the South, I he hon member argued at some length that justice to the natives demanded that the Bill should be passed. Mr Whitaker would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he did not think it desirable that the Bill should become law this session. What he would suggest would be that when the Bill was read a second time that it should be withdrawn, on the understanding that Government would next session bring down a Bill dealing with the question of native representation in a

mere comprehensive and satisfactory manner than would be effected by that Bill. He admitted that the question of Maori representation was not on a satisfactory basis. Mr Russell opposed the Bill. He objected to the special representation altogether. It was not fair to the European residents of the North Island to place the Maoris in the country districts of the North Island in the position of controlling the majority of the electors, besides returning their own representatives. He hoped that it would be put out of the power of any Ministry to appoint two native members of the Ministry, The sooner the natives were placed in the same position as the Europeans, the better it would be for the country. Mr Andrew moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr Hamlin supported the • Bill, and wondered why the introducer did not ask for eight representatives instead of seven. He thought, on the basis of population, he could have well asked for fourteen. He maintained that a great deal of good had been derived from Maori representation to the extent to which it had been tried, and he apprehended that still greater good would be derived if that representation were extended and the result of it would be, he believed, to bring their King as a member to that House, and that he felt would enable them to carry out their system of public works in the North Island.

Mr Eolleston opposed the Bill in the interests of the Maoris themselves. The Bill was a sham. He admitted that so far the experiment of Maori representation had been fairly successful, but he disappoved of the principle, though he had no objection to the experiment being continued six years longer. It was nonsense to suppose the two races could ever become one. It was not desirable they should. Capt Morris supported the second reading, because that would affirm the principle. He was glad to learn Government would consider the matter during the recess. If it was admitted that the experiment of Maori representation had resulted well, surely that was an argument in favor of increasing the present representation. He had a perfect knowledge of the feeling of the Maories in his district, and he knew that they were altogether dissatisfied with the inadequacy of their representation. Mr Nahe supported the Bill, though he thought it advisable that the qualification of Maoris to vote jfor Europeans should be done away with. Mr Stout supported the Bill. He did so for one reason, that they should not be placed in a different position to the European members. At the end of next year the present Maori members would, according to law, be no longer members of the House, and would be entirely at the mercy of the Government, who might or might not bring down a Bill amending the Maori Representation Act. One of the best reasons why they should read the Bill, was because the Maoris asked for it. As to the question of taxation, it being said that Maoris paid no direct taxation, he ventured to say that the Maoris contributed infinitely more towards the welfare of the colony than Europeans had. Where would the colony be {without the land fund, and if they valued all the lands of it, of which the Maoris had been wheedled by unscrupulous land agents in too many cases, they would then form some idea of the amount the colony had obtained from the Maoris. According to the Constitution Act representation should be based on population ; but this was not done for the Maoris. They ought to do all they could to preserve the race, by teaching them to look t o Parliament to redress their grievances, and induce a cordial feeling between the two races, It should not be said of them that, after they took the lands of the natives, they then looked upon them as cumberers of the ground. Mr Wakefield held that the Maori Representation Act was a mistake in the first instance, and this Bill would only magnify and perpetuate the mistake. The only thing for them to do now was to leave matters as they were. The better plan would be to educate the Maoris up to registering themselves upon the electoral roll, so as to give their votes in an intelligent manner. They knew well enough who were the best men, and would be nearly always certain to vote for them. It was a fact too that to a very large extent Maoris availed themselves of the electoral machinery in an intelligent* manner, as was seen in the East Coast election. If this special representation were done away with, and the natives allowed to judge for themselves, without the intervention of Maori doctors, the result would be better for them selves and the country alike. He believed there were members in the House who would support the second reading of the Bill, though secretly wishing it would not pass. He thought there was only one clause of the Act that ought to be passed, and that was the one making the operation of the Maori Representation Act continuous, though he would prefer to see that repealed. Mr Rowe supported the second reading of the Bill in the hope that it would be carried through committee, otherwise an injustice would be done the native race. He believed Maori representation had already a beneficial effect, and such as it was, even much prized by the natives. He trusted the day was not far distant when the Maoris would have equal representation with the Europeans, and would address the House in the English language. He believed that were it not for the special representation the native race would not be able to return a single member of their own race. Mr Reid thought the presence of the native members in the House had been beneficial, more so indeed than could be properly estimated, but still he was not prepared to say that Maori representation should be increased, because, since the Maori Representation Act (a great experiment at the time) was passed, they bad the opportunity of exercising the franchise in the same manner as the Europeans. The true object should be to induce Maoris to qualify themselves in the same manner as Europeans. Sir R. Douglas would welcome every Maori in his district upon the electoral roll. They had lived for thirty or forty years in his district along with Europeans, and had conducted themselves equally well with Europeans. He thought, if Government wished to do justice to the natives, they should give them Crown grants to their lands free. If they took into considerat ion the number of Maori population in the North Island, and added that to the European population, it would be seen that the Nin th Island was not fairly represented compared with the South. Mr W. Wood supported the Bill. The Native Minister said the result of the Maori representation had been very sue-

cessful, because one of their chief reasons for not obeying the laws made by that House and giving them representation had to a great extent removed their excuses for not obeying the law of theland. He believed with the member for Avon that probably a native council would have had a still more beneficial effect. It appeared to him that the great object of the House should be to do all they could to encourage the study of the English language amongst the Maoris. The Government had always recognised this, and he felt bound to admit that the House had never been back ward in responding to calls in this direction. There were now from fifteen hundred to eighteen hundred native youths rapidly acquiring the English language, and as rapidly conforming themselves to European civilisation. He hoped however the hon member would be satisfied with the second reading, and allow the Government to deal with the question during the recess. Sir G. Grey supported the Bill. Clearly the Maoris of North Island had not justice done them in representation. The conduct of the native representatives in the House compared very well with that of Europeans, and was a strong argument why increased representation should be given them. Mr TAIAROA intended to press his Bill, and hoped if the Bill was not passed in its entirety, at least that portion of it making the present Maori representation continuous, would be passed. The Bill was read a second time on the voices.

DISQUALIFICATION act. Mr Montgomery moved the second reading of the Disqualification of Election Act. The object of the Bill was to preserve the purity of Parliament, and prevent members giving support to the Government in the hope of obtaining billets. The Bill ought also be acceptable to Ministers, inasmuch as it would protect them from the importunity to which they were too often subjected by office seekers. Mr Whitaker said Government would offer no objection to the second reading, if the Bill would be referred to the disqualification committee to be considered in connection with other matters of a similar nature. Mr Woolcock looked upon the Bill as a slur upon the character of the people through their representatives. Evidently the hon member thought that members of the House were prepared to sell their support for any paltry billet that might be offered them. He would resent any such insult. Mr Reid would not oppose the Bill, but he thought it was likely to lead to as many evils as it was intended to remedy. When the Bill went into committee he would move the insertion of a clause, providing that every member of the House, before entering it, should dispose of all his shares in joint stock companies, steamboats, &c, for fear their position in the House nlight influence legislation favorably to his interests. Sir G. Grey said it was a mistake to suppose the Bill was in any way intended to insult Parliament, and it ought to be discussed upon its merits, without being referred to the disqualification committee. There was no question as to disqualification concerned in it.

Hon Mr Reynolds supported the second reading, as such a Bill would be a great boon to Ministers. There was scarcely any Ministry that were not subjected to pressure by members to give them appointments. Mr Ptke would not say the Bill was an insult to the House; but he would say that the passing of such a Bill would be a tacit admission of the internal corruption of Parliament, and so far as he knew of the history of Parliament for the last ten years there was nothing to justify such a Bill, It appeared to him that it was not the supporters of the Government who received favors, but on the contrary, those who opposed them most bitterly. If he wanted anything from the Government he would make himself so obnoxious to them, that they would be glad to get him out of the way. He deprecated this constantly hedging themselves round with barriers to preserve their purity. Why legislate for a thing that did not exist. Mr Stout pointed out that there must be disqualification to preserve the purity of Parliament, as in the case of contractors. It was well known that last session certain members of the House applied to Government for offices. They were told that to pass the Bill would admit corruption. He would not say what it was, but they were trying to legislate for a fact, and instead of lowering Parliament, such a Bill would be raising the status of the House and Ministry. He thought the last speaker had made the gravest possible charge against the Ministry that could be possibly made. If that were the case, it was one of the strongest possible arguments to be adduced In favor of the Bill. Mr Lumsden held that the interests of the public would be rather served than impaired by the appointment of a capable man to a public office, even if he should happen to be a member of Parliament. Mr Mookhouse opposed the Bill. Mr Swanson spoke strongly of the fact that many members came to that House with the object of making it the means of lifting them into some snug office, and many of them had been successful in carrying out their intention. Even he had been asked by an hon member to use what influen 'e_he possessed to enable him to get a situation which he desired to obtain. Mr Montgomery having replied briefly, a division was called for, and the Bill ordered to be read a second time, there being 37 for, and 15 against. It was ordered then to be referred to the disqualification committee. Thursday, September U. The House mjet at 2.30. disqualification. Mr Wason risked to move without notice, and he did so without consultation, that the Speaker issub writs for the election of members ftyr Egmont, Kaiapoi, Napier, Clive, Christchurch, and Waikato. Things appeared to him to be in greater and more inextricable confusion than ever, and as no one moved in »the matter, he felt bound to do so. This 'was a serious question of priuilege. The SPEAKEIp ruled that hon gentleman was out of order. The question had been under the consideration of the committee, and he did not think any motion of that sort should be allowed to intercept the work of that committee. Sir G. Grey also rose to a question of privilege, and moved that the House proceed with no further business until the report of the disqualification committee brought up on the 12th was taken into consideration.

The Premier proposed as an amendment that the report of the committee be considered at once. He was confident that the majority of the House were for getting on with the business with as little delay as possible, Mr R. "WOOD had no doubt the amendment would be received favorably by the House. As there was no desire on his side of the House to delay business, it was the intention to have moved a similar amendment to that proposed by the Premier. Mr DeLatour asked whether members interested in a case before the House could remain in the Chamber. He referred Mr Speaker to May, 641 and 348 of 7th edition.

Hon Mr Reynolds pointed out if such an objection were allowed it would be possible for some member to make a fallacious motion which would concern one-half the members of House, and then the other half could do as they liked. The Speaker ruled against Mr DeLatour. The report was then ordered to be considered.

Upon being read, Sir G. Grey moved “ That the House concur in the said report.” Hon G. McLean said a report of that kind deserved careful consideration before being agreed to. He should remind them that although there were legal opinions that the Government broke the Disqualification Act, there were other legal opinions that they had not broken the Act. If Government had brought themselves under it they had done so inadvertently, and without any intention of doing so. If they had violated the letter they had not violated the spirit. He did not believe there was a single member on the Government benches who would have done so. He was surprised at the great proconsul taking advantage of such a paltry quibble. He did not value a seat on those benches at all, and when he accepted a seat upon them he did so without pay or emolument ; but it was idle to deny that the motion was one purely emanating from party spirit. The hon member proceeded to refer to the claims to patriotism made by thei member for Thames. Mr Stout rose to a point of order. T ze hon member was travelling beyond '* e limits of the subject. After some slight confusion, the P n M‘LEAN went on to say that such ta* ics as those resorted to, of trying to unp- at a vernmentupon a paltry quibble war dn J 70rtli y of an Opposition. At any rp e he was certain Government had righ u P on . .. ir side, and he hoped the House would signify their opinion of the mat* 31 " By giving a majority for Government. Mr Reid pointed out > was ver y difficult to give a vote upon a r <P ort ®° mea g re ; gave no particulars apt° what extent the Act had been viola tfd. At any rate it appeared that there been an unnecessary amount of hair split**? m this matter The gentleman, after the circumstances leading up to the present difficulty, said he thought the diffiHlty had been overcome by the last reconpruction. He would act m this matter in an independent manner, but while he wold not be too scrupulous in taking advantage of any laches ot a Ministry to remove tlem from office, he would not be one to do tlis if it would throw the affairs of the countr into confusion. He hoped before this went to a division a little more light would b* thrown on the question. Mr Ssymour, as a member of disqualification (ommittee, said the amount of legal opinions-he and the other lay members of the jommittee received was perfectly overwhelming ; but he gathered from them that the infringement of the Act was merely technical and not infringed in spirit. In committee he moved the insertion of the word “ technically,” but that was not considered necessary. Then he moved that the report be so amended as to make it clear that the infringement related to travelling allowance, but this was lost by a narrow majority. The hon member then pointed out that the present Ministry was not the one that had infringed the Act, The Premier thought the two last speakers put the case fairly before the House. The question lay in a nutshell. If the Act had beeu violated the question was, was it to be remedied. The Act was passed to preserve the purity of Parliament, not to entrap members by a technicality. He put it to the House, did they, or any one of them, say that the Act was violated from corrupt motives? He did not believe a single member would say so. If it could be said there had been a corrupt breach, then a great constitutional question had arisen, and they ought to fight it out. In order to settle this question at once, he would move an amendment —•* That it was expedient a Bill of Indemnity should be introduced forthwith, to indemnify the members of Executive Council from any consequence arising from the Disqualification Act, &c. Mr BRANDON denied that the Acts had been violated merely technically. They were violated in spirit also. Mr Moorhouse said he pointed out in committee that if they inserted in the report some words to say whether the Government acted corruptly or not, it would be accepted as an instruction to the House, and would save time and enable them to get on with Mr Rolleston agreed with the member for Taierl in some respects, but also thought the House should not set aside the report of the committee. It seemed to him it was now for the House to say whether the members of the Ministry had vacated their seats. If the Premier would accept it, he was prepared to move, as an addition to the original motion, that the House concurred in the report; but that, under the circumstances, did not justify Ministers vacating their seats. Mr Stout gave his version of what took place in committee, and said if the report of the committee was not specific the fault lay with the members for Wairau and Christchurch City. He wanted a specific report, setting out in what way Ministers violated the law, but he was overruled. He held that the spirit and letter of the law had been violated, and maintained that the House should not be asked to stand between Ministers and the electors. They were told that they ought to be allowed to get on with the business, but the purity of Parliament was of greater importance than any law or laws they might pass. If Ministers thought the report was wrong, they ought to come down with an amendment that the House does not concur in the report, and not attempt to bring in an Indemnity Bill by a side wind. Mr Stafford pointed out that all the amendments on the face of them showed (here had been an infringement. Touching the report, he made bold to say that it was not only bald, but absolutely incorrect as a matter of fact, and if it was to be intelligi* (

ble to future Parliaments, it would require to be more specific. The truth was that there, was not a breach of the Disqualification Act at all, but there was if that lot was read along with the Civil Lists Act. He disagreed with the member for Avon that it was the duty of the House to concur with the committee’s report, because that would tic up the hands of the House in a way they would not stand. He thought the Premier would act well, however, if he would accept the proposal of the member for Avon. Mr Montgomery was of opinion that tie true solution of the difficulty was th ; s : That as there were only seven members qualified according to the Act, the * wo last sworn in were the only ones disquflified. They must have beeu sworn individually, and there could be no difficulty in determining who were the two last, and it was with these the House had to deal. Fe opposed treating the matter from a party view. He hoped the Government would wthdraw their amendment. Mr Murray thought Ministers should go before their constituents, otherwise they would be neither more nor Ids than nominees of the House. Mr Thomson took He same view, and attached great blame to the member for Waikato for allowim the House and the business of the county to be placed in such a predicament. T was n °t creditable to one who had the rotation of being a profound lawyer. He thought Government ought to take tfe consequences of their indiscretion. If they had ceased to be representatives, it *as impossible for the House to reinstate the ll • Hon G. *• Bowen, in referring to the question, jointed out that the case of the Marquis’ f Hartington was a very much stronger jase than the one now being discussed, nasmuch as the appointment of a fifth Ujder-Secretary was done in the teeth of an express Act of Parliament, and after that He Under-Secretary sat and voted for a Tear oefore being discovered, What did the House do but this : All sides at once joined in making the matter right, and if that were not done, public opinion was strong enough to compel them to do so. That was one reason why the English House of Commons never got itself into such a state of confusion as was the case here. The hon member then went on to refer to the action of the member for the Thames in taking proceedings in the Supreme Court as not beeoming in a leader of an Opposition. Sir G. Grey here rose to a point of order, having heard an offensive expression from a member (Mr Pyke) behind him. He said the word used was " disreputable,” and was applied to himself. The Speaker remonstrated with Mr Pyke, who explained that the word was not intended to reach the ears of the member for the Thames. It was uttered sotto voce to himself, and not intended to be heard. He did not see that he was called upon to apologise in such a case. After some further remarks, Mr Pyke not having withdrawn the offensive expression, Mr Pyke then stated that if the hon member would have his opinion, he would say that it was discreditable for any hon member of the House to place himself in the position of a common informer. These words were taken down.

The Premier hoped the hon member would express his regret for his hasty expressions, Mr Pyke having been called on for an explanation, did express his regret for having been led into such an intemperate expression in consequence of having been overheard in the first instance. Mr Pyke then retired, and a good deal of discussion followed, Mr Wason proposing an amendment on the motion that Mr Pyke’s explanation be satisfactory, “ that the House censure the hon member.” Mr Montgomery wanted him to apologise to Sir G. Grey personally. Mr Russell pointed out that this would be stifling free debate. Why had they not interfered when Sir G. Grey hundreds of times that session used the words discreditable and shameful. Mr Wason said Sir G. Grey only used these expressions in a parliamentary sense. Hon C. G. Bowen pointed out what an amount of harsh language members of Government had to put up with, and hoped the House would not begin now to make nice distinctions. Sir G. Grey made a personal explanation. The course he took had been done purely from a sense of public duty. He pitied any one who thought he expected to take a penny. Some one ought to dare to take this step, and he dared it, risking the very_ considerable exnense he must necessarily incur, He knew when he took the step he did that he must be prepared to put up with terras of opprobrium. After some further discussion a division was taken and the amendment to Mr Pvke's expression of regret was rejected by 33 against 32. ' Tne discussion was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

DISQUALIFICATION DEBATE. HOUSE SAT ALL NIGHT. On the House resuming at 7.30, Mr Stout continued the debate on Mr Fyke’s expressions, which he deprecated. _ The Premier objected to singling out this instance. At the same time he asked the hon member to withdraw his expressions. Mr Swanson insisted upon every one who transgressed the rules of the House, obeying the Speaker’s orders, and Mr Fyke refused to do that. After some further remarks, the motion censuring Mr Fyke was passed, and he leentered the chamber, and when apologising, said he hoped his martyrdom would be the means of inducing softer language in debate than had prevailed hitherto. Mr Bowen resumed his remarks in detence of the position of the Ministry. Mr Keks, who followed, took tho opposite view, and argued that the Ministiy had lost their seats, and must go again before their constituents, and unless they did that they would go from bad to worse, and entangle themselves in inextricable difficulties, and this should have been done at once. „ . , Mr Whitaker went at some length into the argument, the gist of which was that when he had given his opinion on the matter at issue he was positive he was right, and the more he examined the question the more he was convinced that he had taken the correct view, and he would like nothing better than to fight the matter out, despite the opinions given to the contrary. He quoted several precedents from the House of Commons to show that that House, and the New Zealand House also, were the sole

judges of their own questions of privilege, and that it rested with them, and not with any committee, to decide whether the seat of any member of the House had been vacated. Mr DeLatour strongly opposed this view. Mr Sharp said there was one fallacy un(ierlyiug all the arguments of one .side, namely, that it was assumed that all the I Minister al seats hail been vacated, while the committee only said they were of opinion seats had been vacated. He did not want the business of the country thrown into confusion, and wanted an Indemnity Bill passed. Several members having spoken pro and con, Mr Ballance referred to the sittings of the committee to show that a great divergency of opinion prevailed at that committee, but that the whole tenor of their debate went to show that merely a technical error had been committed, and that the punishment of sending the Ministers aeain before their constituents was too much for the offence. After a good deal of discussion on each side, Sir G. Grey asked for an adjournment, so that he might be enabled to make a suitable reply to certain attacks made upon him, and explaining that he was too weary then to do so. This was opposed by the Government, and the resolution put and lost by 36 against 24. The Premier’s amendment was then put, when Mr Sheehan moved, as an amendment—- “ That the Indemnity Act would not exempt them from money penalties, and that the committee should be instructed to reconsider the report.” The Government opposed this, and after considerable discussion, Mr Bax.lance moved his amendment, which was in substance that none of the Ministerial seats were vacant. Mr Stout tried to move an amendment intercepting this, but was ruled out of order, Mr Rees then took the floor of the House, at three o’clock, and kept up the debate till 6.10 a.m., when The Speaker said he would resume the chair at 10 a.m. During that time there were various interruptions, and several attempts to Jgeb strangers removed from the body of the House and. gallery, but unsuccessfully. {From our own correspondent.') Wellington, September 15. 1,40 p.m. The House did not rise till 6.10 a,m., and resumed at ten this morning, Mr Rees is talking against time, with the view of obstructing the motion by Mr Ballance, declaring Ministers seats not vacated. He threatens to talk for thirty hours. POLITICAL NEWS. {From a correspondent of the Press.) Wellington, September 14, There is no business, or hope of business, being done. The arguments of Sir Q. Grey and others now are that Ministers are not members, and that they must retire and seek re-election. This afternoon Mr Wason, with much assertion that the idea was entirely his own, proposed that fresh writs should be issued for the seats of each of the Ministers, but it was ruled that _he could not move in matter without notice. Sir George Grey repeated his now proverbial saying that strangers were sitting in the House and even acting as his Excellency's advisers, and moved that the House proceed with no other business till the disqualification question is settled. The Premier, as an amendment, proposed that the House at once proceed to the consideration of the report, and after numerous factious points of order this was agreed to. A very warm discussion ensued on Sir G. Grey’s motion concurring in the committee’s report, and on hon Major Atkinson’s amendment that the Indemnity Bill be introduced. The whole debate was stopped by Mr Vincent Pyke saying, as he supposed sotto voce, “ Discreditable.” The word was picked up as referring to Sir George Grey’s action in the matter of the writ. Mr Pyke did all he could to explain that it was simply an involuntary exclamation, but much was made of the expression by those who have, according to the phrase, been most “ foulmouthed,” and there was a very lively scene up till half-past five o’clock. Mr Pyke was initated into saying that it was discreditable that Sir George Grey should have placed himself in the position of a common informer. Mr Wason at once moved that the words be taken down, and Mr Pyke seconded it, but he afterwards expressed his regret and withdrew the expression altogether. Till nearly half-past five o’clock this magnificently insignificant question occupied the House in the absence of Mr Pyke, who was requested to withdraw, and it_ led to a close division. There was a motion that the House should accept the expression of regret by Mr Pyke, There was an amendment by Mr Wason that Mr Pyke should be censured for his intemperate language. On a division the motion was carried by 35 to 32. Mr Stout was ready with another amendment, but “ time ” was called at half-past live, and the discussion, political and personal, ended.