GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 727, 18 October 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Per Press Agency., LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, October 17. PUBLIC WORKS BILE. The Public Works Bill was read a third time and passed. DEBTORS' AND CREDITORS’ BILL. In committee on the Debtors’ and Creditor’s Bill, Hon Mr Hart moved several amendments, substituting "official trustee ” for " registrar.” This was opposed by the Government, but carried by 12 to 10. COUNTIES BILL. The Counties Bill then occupied the Council till the hour for adjournment. LITTLE RIVER. Hon Dr Pollen introduced a Bill having reference to certain lands for Natives in the Little River district, province of Canterbury. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, October 17. The House met at 2.30. leave of absence. Mr Tonks was granted leave of absence for the remainder of the session, NEW GOLD FIELD. In reply to Mr Sheehan, the PREMIER said the Government were doing all they could to get the Kaimai near Tauranga opened for gold mining, but experienced great difficulties, in consequence of the eagerness of the Europeans to obtain possession of the district. OPINION RE ABOLITION. On the motion for going into committee of supply, Sir G. Grey moved—“ That the House resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider of an address to the Governor that he be requested to place upon the supplementary estimates £SOOO 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 vires.” He postponed the last clause, providing for charging the amount against Auckland and Otago. He moved the motion with a very few remarks. The Premier said he thought as a matter of course that the House would reject such a m dion. It seemed to him unreasonable that after the House took a certain course, that it was satisfied was quite legal, it should so far stultify itself as to vote money to test the validity of its own action. Mr Hodgkinson strongly supported the motion, asserting that the colony would never be thoroughly satisfied upon this point until an authoritative legal opinion set all doubts at rest. He thought the Government must have feared to obtain such an opinion, or they would not have allowed two years to elapse without obtaining such an opinion. The hon gentleman went on to argue at some length, touching the Abolition Bill, saying that it was not worth the paper it was printed upon, quoting largely from despatches, Acts, correspondence, and the Imperial Hansard, Mr Reid said the subject was of so great gravity that there was serious thoughts in certain parts of the colony of taking every means of resisting the action of the Colonial Government to enforce abolition, and although he did not agree with all that fell from the last speaker, he thought five thousand, ten, or even fifty would be well spent in obtaining the decision of the courts of law on the question, He had no doubt that whatever that was the people throughout the colony would abide by it. He considered this an exceptional case, and he would therefore vote for it. Government should accede to the vote gracefully, and not hang back. He thought it would strengthen their prestige more. Mr Rees argued at considerable length in the same direction, and dwelt upon the wisdom of settling the disputed point without the application of force of any kind, and travelled over a wide range of history for instances in support of his view. Hon F. Whitaker said this question had been before discussed without any new light being thrown upon the question whatever, and he did not think it right to waste the time of the House by going into a long legal argument. He would point out to the House an inconsistency in the arguments 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, when they must admit, if that were the case, that Superintendents had all the powers and privileges they ever enjoyed, and were free to proceed in this question with whatever means were at their disposal. He asked 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 Government taking the step they were asked to do. Mr Sheehan said the whole question turned upon the interpretation of the words “ any ” in the Imperial Act relating to the power to abolish “ any ” of the provinces. He held that the word “ any” did not mean “ all,” and cited a case with regard to closing public houses, which was exhaustively discussed before the House of Lords, and where it was finally decided that “ any ” did not mean *• all.” He asked why Ministers had 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. How often was it found in law that the side which was most positive was proved to be in the wrong. What position would they be in in that case ? What position would the country be in? He accused the Government of trusting to abolition for the last few years. They kept that as a buffer between them and public inquiry into their maladministration of finance and other misdeeds. They ought not be afraid to go to their own Supreme Courts to settle the doubt existing upon the question. If still dissatisfied, let them go to the Court of Appeal, or the high Courts of home. He contended that the people were not bound to obey this law, and if the Government compelled 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, he believed their heads would inadequately meet the punishment required. The Speaker left the chair at 5.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30. On debate on Sir G. Grey’s resolutions as to testing the validity of the Abolition Act, Mr Sheehan resumed by arguing that the Government might with propriety make a concession in this case, and allow the question to be raised in the courts of law. Hon C. O. Bowen pointed out the uselessness of answering the hon gentleman, whose speech was merely a rechauffe of the speeches of the last two sessions. The real point at issue was this, to ask the ratepayers to test a question as to which they were advised there was no doubt upon. Mr Delatoue rose to contradict a statement which appeared in the Government organs to the effect that Mr Macandrew had been corresponding with the members of that House with a view to rebellion. In justice to so eminent a member of the House, of 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. The motion for going into supply was then put and carried by 32 against 20. LAST NIGHT’S SITTING. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. The House went into committee of supply after rejecting Sir G. Grey’s motion. Mr Sheehan moved that the vote for the Native department be reduced by £SOOO instead of £IO,OOO. The hon gentleman then 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, and was responsible for the Waitara war, and therefore indirectly for all the subsequent wars. That a large majority of the natives desired nothing better than to be rid of him and his officers. That no man trafficked more largely in native lands or made more money out of them than Sir D. McLean did. The hon gentleman gave a minute history of a number of native land transactions at Hawke’s Bay, to show that the Provincial and General Government officers, and even Sir D. McLean himself, were guilty of dabbling in native land speculations. He believed it would have been better to have had no Native Department at all. Hon C. C. Bowen defended Sir D. McLean, 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, who was the paid advocate of a section of natives at Hawke’s Bay, and came and gave the House an ex parte statement, putting his own case in the best possible light. He also said ninetenths of Sir D. McLean’s land was bought either direct from the Government, or at fair and open competition at public auction. Mr Hunter explained how impossible it was for Sir D. McLean to have anything to do with the Waitara war, he being dangerously ill at Wellington. After a long discussion Mr Sheehan’s amendment was lost by 38 against IS. An item of £4OO, intended to cover the cost of the Waha Maori , was struck off by 29 against 21. The deforce estimates led to a long andcomplicated discussion, all sorts of amendments being proposed and suggested. Some advocated the abolition of the militia and volunteers in the Middle Island and Wellington, retaining them in the other provinces. A discontinuance of the prizes was also recommended, and the conversion of the present militia and volunteers into artillery companies. The majority of opinion, however, considered that the prize firing was the very life and soul of volunteering in keeping them together. Ultimately, on the suggestion of the Premier, the prize firing was retained, and the whole vote reduced by £IOOO. The vote, Government domains, £1,241, was passed, and the House adjourned at 3.85 a.m.