GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 992, 30 August 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph.]

[PER PRESS AGENCY.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, August 29. On the motion of Mr Nurse, it was ordered that there be made a return of moneys received for sporting licenses by the several Acclimatisation Societies ; also, on the motion of Mr Hart, that a summarised statement bo laid on the table of revenue and expenditure of each of the late provinces from the beginning to the date of abolition.

HOUSE OF REBRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, August 29. The House met at 2.30 p.m. QUESTIONS. In reply to Mr Stevens, Major Atkinson said £500,000 of debentures had been given to the Bank of New South Wales for the term which the Bank deemed most marketable. Replying to Mr Gisborne, Mr McLean said instructions had been given to make search for the supposed missing sailing vessel Hincmoa. In reply to Mr Swanson, Mr Bowen said Mr Fulton, of West Taieri, performed the duties of Resident Magistrate, coroner, returning officer, and registrar, at a merely nominal salary. The Government knew he was chairman of the County Council, but did not consider his being so improper under the circumstances. He would not perform duties on the terms he did if forbidden to act as an ordinary settler in his district. Replying to Mr Swanson, Major Atkinson said the Government would see if any means were possible to avoid the trouble and expense of setting out the Governor’s full titles in all official notices. BILLS. The following new bill was introduced — Harbours and Navigation Bill (McLean). The Speaker -noted that Thomson’s bill to appropriate 25 per cent, of the land revenue to Counties could not be introduced without the recommendation of the Crown. barton’s petition. Mr Sheehan moved that the House go into committee to consider the petition of George Eliott Barton, to examine the truth of its statements, and to decide on the same. In doing so he read a letter from the petitioner urging this course as the fairest mode of investigation. He thought the petitioner should be heard at the bar of the House, to determine whether there really w r as ground for further inquiry. He presented the petition as a matter of duty, believing it to be the duty of any member to present a petition from any one having a substantial grievance. Bersonally he knew nothing of the merits of the case, but coming from a gentleman in Mr Barton’s position the demand for inquiry deserved attention. Mr Whitaker said Mr Sheehan acted quite rightly in presenting the petition. The matter was a very important one. The petition w r as presented under the Supreme Court Act, 1862, which required the petitioner to set out fully in writing all the details of his complaint. On looking into the case he found it clearly laid down what duty of the Government was under the circumstances. He quoted authorities, showing that the duty of Ministers was first to inquire into the facts, and to advise Parliament whether it was necessary or desirable to make any public or further inquiry. The Government had done this. The petition afforded full information regarding the grounds on which the complaint was based. Assuming all that was stated to be true, the complaint was simply one of mere disagreement and disclosed nothing to justify the removal of the Judges. The charges were of a general character and not specific, as precedent show r ed was required in all such cases. There was only one case on record of a Judge being removed by Barliament. Baragraph 13 of the petition contained the only specific charge, and it was not a very serious one. The Government could not agree to the motion, as even assuming the truth of the whole facts alleged, there were not sufficient grounds to justify the House in removing the Judges. Neither would it be advisable to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He proposed that the order for the reception of the petition be read and discharged. This was analogous to the precedent of the Imperial Barliament. He read a letter from the Chief Justice containing his remarks on the petition and an explanation of its statements. He thought Mr Barton fully justified in bringing his alleged grievance before the House and before public opinion, but nothing had been shown to render further inquiry or action necessary or desirable. Mr Gisborne objected to the House refusing to receive any petition which was respectfully worded. Such a course was incon■sistent with constitutional practices and precedent. The House should receive it, even if no action were taken on it. Mr Macandrew agreed with Mr Gisborne. Every subject had a right to petition the House for redress of grievances, and should have his complaint inquired into. Mr Whitaker quoted English precedents. Mr Thomson supported the appointment of a Select Committee to take the evidence of petitioner and the Judges, to report whether there was any prim a fade case for further action.

Mr TItAVJiES thought the allegations of the petition so vague as to afford the Judges nothing to meet, and the specific charges were of such a character as not to justify any action by the House. At. the same time there was nothing in the petition to justify the House in refusing to receive it. Hotter pass a resolution that no grounds were disclosed for taking any action. Mr Mubkav objected to stifling inquiry into a properly worded petition. Mr Huntkk thought there was nothing before the House to justify calling on the Judges to defend themselves. Mr She khan thought the charges in the petition sutliciently grave and specific to demand investigation. Mr Button thought that if everything alleged by the pet ition was proved, there was nothing for the Judges to answer. Mr Reks t hought the petition should not be summarily dismissed. Mr BAJiIT said, Jig the petitioner I mil no other remedy, ins complaint should be inquired into.

Mr Haepeu said the petition showed no ground for the interference of the House. Mr Stout objected to Mr Whitaker’s motion. For the credit of the Bench, looking at the position of the petitioner, the House should, by a Select Committee, inquire by what evidence the grave charges made were sustained, and report the result to the House. Mr Bolleston thought there was no case for further inquiry made out.

Mr Sheehan’s original motion was negatived on the voices. Mr Whitaker’s having become a substantive motion, Mr Thomson moved an amendment that a Select Committee be appointed to take evidence on the question, and report whether they consider the evidence was likely to justify the House in removing the Judges. The House divided, when Mr Thomson’s amendment was negatived by 37 to 29. The House adjourned for dinner.

THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. , The Postmaster-General’s report shows a revenue for last year of £86,547, against £80,656 for the previous year, and an expenditure of £140,226, or £4710 less than was voted. The saving was effected under the item “Conveyance by sea,” 1,342,886 more letters, and 1,151,471 more newspapers passed through the various New Zealand post-offices in 1876-7 than in 1875-6. Letters increased 12 per cent., and newspapers 16 per cent. Negotiations for effecting a modification in the San Francisco mail service only await the assent of the Sydney Parliament. Meantime the contractors have been permitted to perform a modified service, under which New Zealand’s contribution is £32,500, and £SOOO for coastal service, making the total for New Zealand £37,500, against £44,075 under the original contract. The modification consists in abandoning the calling at Kandavu and the performance of the coastal service by the contractors. Payments during the past year for this service amounted to £49,129 ; receipts, £25,387, leaving a nett cost to colony of £23,741. For mails by way of Galle, the payments were £14,225 ; receipts, £8129 ; nett cost, £6,096; and the money orders issued during the year were 80,255, for £310,268, being an increase over the previous year of 7228 orders, for £16,886 gross. The revenue from money orders was £5261; nett, £3,957. PARLIAMENTARY INCIDENTS. [from the correspondents of the press.] Wellington, August 29, 8 p.m. Mr Barton’s petition, by the action of the House this afternoon, is virtually shelved. The House has just gone into Committee on the Local Option Bill, but, previous to the Speaker leaving the chair, Mr Fox is taking the opportunity of making a [speech in reply, which will last most of the evening. A TRICK AT THE WHEEL. The correspondent of the “Auckland Herald,” who went to Wellington at the commencement of the session by the steamer Hawea, gave an amusing sketch of the incidents of the passage. The following among the number is of some interest, locally and otherwise : Captain Wheeler told the queerest of his many stories, some of which ought to be saved from oblivion. That about the man at the wheel is admirable. One day the Hawea was steaming out of Akaroa, the entrance to which is narrow in parts, and the captain wag with some of the passengers in the smoking room. Suddenly at the door appeared a passenger, who is, or was, a respectable lawyer in Akaroa, and in an excited voice asked for some one to come to the wheel, and immediately ran off again. This he repeated about a dozen times, tapping at a window and giving an inarticulate expression of fear, accompanied by an objurgation that the ship would be on the rocks as no one was at the wheel, and it was most disgraceful. Off he would dart again, and whirl the wheel half round to starboard or port “and steady” again, working the ship out of the port and out of danger both, as he believed. At last, enters to the captain Baddy Bontield, then third mate, and not quite unknown in Auckland. “If you please, sir,” said Baddy, “here’s a fool of a passenger will keep meddling with the wheel, and,” he added, with a twinkle in his eye, “ interfering with the navigation of the ship.” “ Oh, it’s all right,” said the master, “if it pleases him it don’t hurt the ship.” Then a brief colloquy was heard outside. Baddy : “ What the are you doing, meddling with the wheel?” Volunteer Steersman : “ Meddling ? Why, this is the most disgracefully managed ship I ever saw ; not a soul at the wheel, and ” (here ho gave another rapid turn to port) “the ship and passengers in danger of running on the rocks every moment! Steady!” Baddy: “Why you infernal fool, that wheel don’t work ; the rudder is worked from the bridge ; that one only goes round and round, and does not move the rudder when the other is at work. Clear out!” And it was so; for three quarters of an hour this generous volunteer had been spinning round the stern wheel with no more effect than if he had been spinning a teetotum. Here upon the lawyer turned seaman made his appearance at the door, hat in hand, and the perspiration steaming from his face, the result of his own shamefacedness. Since then he never hears the w r ord “port” or “ starboard ” without vcmembrance of his own astonishing trick at the wheel.