GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 700, 16 September 1876, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

{Per Press Agency.') LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, September 15. drainage bill. The Christchurch Drain*;;'.: Bill waa read a third time. Other questions, but of no general interest, were considered during the sitting. NEW MEMBER. The Hon Mr Hall resumed his seat, having been re-appointed. HOUSE OP BEPBESENTATIVES. FRiDAy, September 15. PRIVILEGE. Mr Stout continued the debate on Mr Pyke's expressions. He deprecated the action of the Ministry in this matter, and said if they were going to impart hot party feelings into this question at such a crisis of affairs the business of the country would come to a very peculiar end. He then moved an amendment to the original motion—" That Mr Pyke'a explanation was satisfactory " ; that words be added to the effect that the House expressed its regret that the hon member should have used such intemperate and disorderly language, The Premier pointed out that he recommended the hon member to withdraw the language used as forcibly as he could, and he objected to singling out this instance, when on many occasions much more intemperate and disorderly language had been used. He thought they had discussed the matter sufficiently, and ought to accept the apology tendered. Mr Swanson said the hon gentleman had distinctly refused to obey the orders of the Speaker, and he ought to be made to apologise to the Speaker. He wanted the precedent established that the member for Dunstan, and every other gentleman who transgressed in a similar manner, should be compelled to obey the Speaker's instructions. Sir B. Douglas denied he acted from party motives in the matter. He believed the hon member for Dunstan would prefer that the amendment of the member of Dunedin should be carried, rather than the credit of the House should suffer. Mr Bees said that after the House rose the member for Dunstan was going about the lobbies making light of the whole matter. There was no doubt the whole House regretted the use of the words, and it ought to be put upon record. The amendment was put, the result being that Mr Stout's amendment was carried. The Sergeant-of-Arms introduced Mr Pyke, who after the resolution was read to him. thanked the House, and hoped this would be the means of inducing softer speech than it had been acquainted with that session. indemnity. Hon C. 0. Bowen then resumed his remarks upon the original question, namely, the Premier's amendment that an indemnity should be passed. He pointed out that it was impossible for any one in the House to say how the members of the Executive had disqualified themselves, and it was a rule of law to interpret an Act in favor of the accused when there was a doubt raised. He hoped the House would follow the example of the English Parliament, rather than the idea of members who wished to disqualify all members of the Ministry, though no more than two could be disqualified. Mr Bees said the present case was altogether different from the case of the Marquis •of Hartiogton. It was the opinion of all itbe leading men that when it was impossible to single out those who became disqualified, all were disqualified. It must be so, because if the proper persons could not be singled out, and the offence could not be brought home, then all would escape. The hon member went on to say the Government were iplacing themselves in a false position by the •course they adopted in opposing the resolution, which was passed with but one dissentient voice. The hon gentleman controverted the statement of the member for Timaru that the report was wrong, and quoted from the Acts in support of .his view. He denied the view of the member for Avon, that it was the duty of the House to declare whether the Ministerial seats had been vacated. That was for the law to declare, and the House was not above the law, which was clear and absolute on the point. Supposing Ministers vacated their seats, and the House said they did not, would it protect them from the operation of the law. He further held that if the Bill of indemnity were passed, it would only protect them from the consequence, but would not secure them their ■ seats. That would require a retrospective . Act, which would have to pass the Dpper i.House, and obtain the sanction of the Governor. This was no technicality, but a broad question. If the Houße could •elect seven representatives for different districts, they could elect seventy members for the next ten years. When members of that House disqualified themselves, her Majesty the Queen could net reinstate them. Nothing .could do so but thnr constituents. They •might be indemnified, but no act of the House could put them back upon their seats, if it was necessary to pass a Bill to give them their seats, the Ministry should not sit in the House until the Bill was pas Bed. It would be far better for the Ministry to face the difficulty at once, instead of going from bad to worse, which must land them in inextricable confusion, and surround them with difficulties that they did not now forifcie. Let them prorogue the House, and go before their constituents at once,

Mr Johnston said if the members of the •disqualification committee expected them to •concur in their report, and say that Ministers we disqualified, they must give them more reasons than they did.

Mr Whitakbr said that he had already given his opinions upon this matter at considerable length, but with some diffidence in consequence of the legal opinion given in a contrary direction. He since looked into the matter further, and he was more than ever of opinion there had been no breach of the Act. He had also consulted another legal gentleman in Wellington, whose name wopld command respect, and he took a different) opinion to any of them, and his was that ODly one member of the Executive was disqualified. There were two aspects to the case—one was a question for the Courts of law, and the other for the House. It was the duty and privilege of the House, as it was of the House of Commons, to consider „and determine whether the seat 3 of any of ts members were vacated. The question of

penalties, on the other hand, was one to be decided in the Court. The hon member then quoted the cr.ses of Sadler to show that he was right, and he desired nothing better than to argue the matter out fully. The case of John Mitchell was another instance of the House deciding as to whether a seat was vacated. If there was one constitutional point more than another that he was impressed with it was that the House was the sole judge of its own privileges. Mr DeLatour regretted the member for Waikato had not the courage of his convictions, and stuck to the Ministerial seat, instead of resigning all their seats. If the report of the disqualification committee was discussed fairly on its merits it would have been carried. It was an undoubted privilege of the House to declare when a seat was vacated.

Mr Sharp said the one fallacy that was i underlying all the arguments used on one side of the question was the assumption the seats had been vacated. The question to be Bolved was one of abstract law and could not be solved by the committee, who only said they were of opinion there had been an infraction of the law. They could not say positively it had been infringed. What ought to be done should be to take the highest legal opinion on the point. In the meantime, the House ought to pass an Act of Indemnity, and prevent the business of the country being thrown into cenfusion. He believed himself the Act had been infringed, but only technically, and the House ought to put the matter straight. Mr Hodgiinson opposed the amendment. Mr Lumsden thought advantage should not be taken of the Government because they had inadvertently stumbled. They should be allowed to get on their political legs, and allow them to get on with the business of the country. He would like to see the report amended, so as to contain a recommendation that an Indemnity Bill should be passed. Mr B. WOOD objected to the Premier's amendment. They ought to agree with the report or not, and then bring in the amendment as a substantive motion. There were no doubts that the Disqualifiation Act had been infringed. The different changes of front of the Ministry proved that some one or more of them infringed the Act, but as to who had done so he could form no idea, and the only course open to them in this case was to issue new writs. He entirely disagreed with all the arguments U9ed by the member for the Waikato, who did not attempt to reply to the arguments of the member for Auckland East. If the Supreme Court enforced penalties, there could be no doubt then as to the infringement, and that ought to be the way to settle the question. Mr Harper said that the strong point the Ministry had was that the report was very vague, as was the law itself; and that, under the circumstances, they were justified in asking the House to support an Indemnity Act. He was inclined to favor the proposition of the member for Avon, but he could realise the disinclination of the Government to accept it. He thought the Ministry had good cause to come to the House for indemnity, and would support the amendment. Mr Ballance would distinctly inform the House that the members of the Disqualification Committee came to a consideration of their subject with their party bias. The hon gentleman went on to explain that the views of a large number of the committee had been that there had been no substantial infringement of the Act, though they agreed that theoretically there had been an infringement. His opinion was that where party feeling prevailed too strongly too much importance ought not to be attached to the report of a committee, but they ought rather to take the matter in their own consideration. The only logical course was that there were technical doubts, probably grave doubts, and that it was the duty of the House to set these doubts at rest. There were the gravest doubts that Ministers were substantially disqualified at all. No hon member on any side of the House had attempted to show that the Government had been guilty of any corrupt act. On the contrary, the whole tenor of the debate went to show that only a technical error had been committed. In England, where they had an army of officials to keep Government right upon constitutional points, they had overlooked an Act altogether. Here Government had ignored what was merely a purely contingent point, and yet they were visited with the heavy punishment of being sent back to their constituents, a punishment far too heavy for the offence. He did not think the amendment proposed by the Premier fully met the case, and if that was carried he would move an addition that would settle the point, " that Ministers had not vacated their seats, and that the seats were not vacant." He held that the action of Sir G. Grey was premature, and he and Mr Bees ought to have appealed to the decision of the House first before appealing to a Court of Law. With regard to the report of the committee, he maintained that the decision of that committee was come to solely upon the literal interpretation of the Act. Mr Wakefield said there was a strange divergency of opinion between the Ministers on the matter, One day the AttorneyGeneral told the House, he examined the Disqualification Act, and the Civil Service Amending Act, and the next they heard one after another of the members of the Ministry say it was inadvertent. He hoped the law would be abided by, and the amendment not passed. It appeared,to him there was no technicality, but that the real cause of the difficulty was that there had been a desire to get more Ministers than was allowed so as to get as strong a Ministry as possible. Instead of going before their constituents as they should have done on their first breach they committed blunder after blunder, and were now finally traversing a simple and unanswerable report. Had they done as they ought, they would be now, or in a few days at the most, back in their seats, all doubts having been removed. Mr Hunter pointed out that all through the debate the assumption was taken that the report of the committee was right, whereas the proper way to look at the question was that the report waß brought up for the consideration of the House. The House wai the maker of the laws, and was the sole arbiter of its own rights and privileges, and he hoped it would never part with those rights in favour of any court or tribunal. He acquitted the Government of all intent in the matter. They had no occasion to resort to any devious expedients to gain power, as all through the session they found themselves strong enough. Mr SwANSON waß in favour of question being taken to the Supreme Court, where i(; would be decided much more impartially than by the House, and the sooner the Housu

divested itself of its power in this direction the better for the House aud the country. Mr HISLOP argued against the amendment on the ground that before the Government decided to increase the number of Ministers, They should have obtained the sanction of the House, because the Act was passed specially to limit the number of Ministers, not to limit the amount of salaries. If the report was not considered to have finally settled the question, let it be referred back to the committee. He would rather see the law abiding capacity of the House considered than its law making capacity. Sir G. Grey asked for an adjournment in order that he might be enabled to collect his thoughts to reply to certain attacks made upon him. The Premier opposed the adjournment. After considerable discussion the resolution was put and lost by 36 against 24. Upon the Premier's amendment being put, Mr Sheehan moved an addition of words to the Premier's amendment to the effect that the Indemnity Act should not exempt them from money penalties, and that the committee should be instructed to reconsider the report. He believed it was admitted that there was at least one black sheep in the Ministry, and he ought to be singled out. The Government declined to accept the amendment.

Sir G. Grey seconded it, and spoke at length, justifying his action against Ministers in the Supreme Court as that of their best friend, in barring other people from proceeding against them. The chief portion of this discussion (a long one) turned entirely upon the proceedings of the Disqualification Committee, come members saying there was party bias displayed, and others, that there was an absence of bias, unless on the part of the Government supporters. The amendment was lost on the voices.

Mr Ballance then moved his amendment.

Mr Stout wished to move a further amendment, that the words relating to the vacating of seats be left out, but the Speaker ruled that an amendment could not be intercepted in that way. After a good deal of discussion the adjournment of the House was moved at three o'clock, and the Speaker left the chair for half an hour.

On resuming Mr Rees took up the debate, apparently talking against time, the House being thin, and half of the members lying down on the seats. Mr Rees began to laugh in the course of his remarks, and the Premier appealed to him as a representative of New Zealand, as to what he meant by talking as he was. Mr Rees then announced that his intention was to speak in favor of the adjournment of the House, and to talk for thirty hours if necessary. The hon geottleuian then went on with his arguments. Upon an interruption by Mr Rollesiontoknow what was being discussed, Mr Rees replied he was talking to the adjounimentof the House, and would continue to speak to that as long as the hands of the clock continued to go round. The Premier said with such a declaration as that it was useless for Government to come to any arrangement. Mr Rees resumed, and at 4.20 Mr JOYCE asked that strangers in body of House aud galleries be ordered to withdraw. A division was taken and the motion negatived on the voices Mr Joyce called attention to the state of the House; but on counting it was found there were twenty-four present, mainly of the Government party. The hon gentleman was called to order several times on account of the way he was treating the subject; but the Speaker said that was entirely a matter of taste. It was moved that strangers be ordered to withdraw, it being then nearly five o'clock. A division was taken, and the motion negatived by 33 against 4. At halfpast five Mr Joyce called attention to the unmelodious snores of hon members, which prevented him from hearing the hon member for Auckland East. During the course of the debate, between four and six, several suggestions were made to relieve the Speaker, but he declined. Ultimately, at 6.10 the Speaker said he would resume the chair at 10 a.m.

The House resumed at ten this morning, and Mr Rees continued speaking agaiDst time, just sufficient members being present to form a quorum. Mr Rees, by the the help of interruptions, points of order, and other delays, continued the debate till 2.80, when another day's sitting was formally opened by prayer. After the usual preliminary business the House was asked to dispose -of the disqualification question, when Mr Rees again continued, and kept on till 5.30, when the usual adjournment took place. Usually the number of the Opposition members present varies between two and six, and the Government supporters between eighteen and twenty'four. The majority of these recline on the seats reading or sleeping. Mr Rees' party managed to relieve him by raising points of order, trying for count outs, and various kinds of interruptions. It is understood that Mr Rees will speak till three to-morrow, when it is supposed Mr Macandrew is to continue for at least a day, when Sheehan follows for another day, the object being to protract the debate until the writs issued at the instance of Sir G, Grey are returnable. Government, it is understood, will allow the present debate t@ terminate before interfering. After this question is decided the Government may introduce a similar resolution to that known in the Victorian Parliament as the " iron hand" resolutions. POLITICAL NEWS. (From, a correspondent of the Press.) The struggle of parties has come to its expected climax. The history of last session is being repeated. The question has become not one of conviction or voting, but of physical endurance. The Opposition have commenced talking against time, and endeavoring to secure a count out of the House. Sir G- Grey's motion that the House concur in the report of the disqualification committee, who had reported there had been infringements of the law, was met by an amendment moved by Hon Major Atkinson, recommending the introduction of a Bill to indemnify Ministers fiom the disqualification penalties. The amendment was carried against a motion, and when made a substantive motion Mr Sheehan moved an addition which really rendered the motion nugatory. It was negatived, and Mr Ballance moved an addition to the effect that in consideration of the special circumstances, Ministers' seats in the House should not ba vacated. To prevent the whole amendment being carried, as it was certain to be if it went to division, Mr Rees commenced talking against time. He commenced before three o'clock, and continued during a sue i cuß&ion of scenaa till after six, when the

Speaker left the chair, promising to resume at ten. At that hour Mr O'Rorke took bit} place, and Mr Rees continued his talk. With the exception of one hour's interval, he has continued talking ever since, occasionally reading long extracts from May's practice, At frequent intervals, he or others call attention to the state of the House, but the Government supporters manage to maintain a quorum by having relays of members, who with cushions under head, and slippered feet, sleep on benches. Occasional relief ifi afforded by mock points of order being raised. Mr Rees proceeds unflaggingly. He is expected to continue till midnight. Any arrangement to end this proceeding seems unattainable. Sir G. Grey and his few supporters decline any compromise, and Government are equally firm against any offer to go on with the debate that is not made openly in the House. If any arrangement is effected it will be by the intervention of Mr Macandrew, but there is no prospect of arrangement at present.