GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1034, 18 October 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph.] [per press agency.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, October 17, The House met at 2.30 p.m. NEW BILLS. The following new Bills were introduced—Mining Companies Act Amendment Bill (Button), Kakanui Harbour Board Endowment Bill (Shrimski), South Dunedin Reserves Bill (Seaton), Ponsonby Highway District Bill (Sheehan), Taranaki Roads and Bridges Ordinance Amendment Bill (Kelly). BRANCH RAILWAYS. Mr W. Wood moved “ That the House will to-morrow resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider an address to the Governor praying that waste lands of the Crown, of present value of £60,000, bo separated into suitable blocks for the construction of a branch railway from Edendaie to Fortrose, on the eastern bank of Mataura, such lands to be those likely to be most enhanced in value by the construction of such railway, and that he will cause a survey to be made and plans and specifications to be prepared during the recess. Mr Sheehan said several such motions ■were on the paper. The Government could not assent to them. To do so would be to encourage another scramble for railways, which would be destructive of all hopes of retrenchment. The Government would carefully consider the whole question of branch railways during the recess, and would simply look on these resolutions as recommendations of particular lines if ary general system was decided, not as pledging the Government to any immediate action. Mr Macandrew added that the Government would reserve the necessary land along the line indicated, which he knew well and believed to be a necessary one. Mr Reid did not see how settlement was to proceed in Otago if such large reservations were to be made. Ho did not see how the land revenue could be appropriated for railways. i The motion was agreed to after a brief discussion.

MR LUSK. Mr Fox, as chairman of the privilege committee, then moved—“ That the conduct of Mr Lusk, a member of this House, on receiving fees for drafting a Bill and promoting business in Parliament, is contrary to Parliamentary usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House, and that Mr Lusk be required to pay the sum of £SO so received by him to Mr Speaker, in order that it may be refunded by him to the City Council of Auckland.” He commented at some length on the evidence taken by the committee. He also quoted a number of precedent s. Mr Eolleston thought those who gave a j bribe equally culpable as he who took it. Ho therefore thought it most improper to return the money to the Auckland Corporation, even though its officers had only been guilty of inadvertence. He though Mr Lusk should be fined. jTe proposed to alter the latter part of the motion fit) as to indict a fine of £SO on Mr Lusk. , - , , -j Mr O’EobkU did not think the evidence showed any culpability on the part of the City Council of Auckland. He therefore objected to the amendment. Mr Lusk was a very young member of the House and of the profession, and the House should not deal too severely with him. The Speaker said he did not think the Standing Order in any way forbade a member drafting a Bill, although it did forbid any r .member promoting a Bill for reward. - Mr Swanson thought very few lawyers raven knew anything about the Standing ‘Orders. If the money had been wrongly ■paid, it should be returned to those it belonged to, the City of Auckland. Mr Montgomery thought they should ■consider whether an offence had been committed intentionally. The money seemed to ’have been paid to Mr Lusk entirely for drafting a Bill, not promoting it. He read a tele.■■rum from Mr Lusk giving the contents of a fetter from Mr Tonks, late Mayor of Auckland, confirming these statements. He did mot think anything wrong had been done by Mr Lusk except taking the money after be should have known better. Mr Macfaslane complained of the scurrilous and insulting language used by Mr Lusk to him when he first brought the matter before the House. The more the case was examined the worse it was. He read an extract from a letter from Mr Eobert Gfrahan relating a conversation with Mr Tonks, n which the latter said he had diawn Mr Lusk’s attention to the question of privilege when juaklng the baygam with hua, aud that Mr

Lusk replied that it was all right, as a lawyer could charge for anything. Mr Macfarlane concluded by moving an amendment by way of addition—“ That Mr Lusk’s seat be declared vacant.” Mr Gisborne thought it clear that Mr Lusk had evaded the spirit of the Standing Orders. Mr Lusk’s explanations and defence had made the matter worse. He supported the motion with Mr Eolhston’s amendment. He could not support declaring Mr Lusk’s seat vacant. Mr Macandrew did not see why Mr Lusk should be specially singled out. A worse case, that of Mr Kennedy’s, had been passed over. Mr Thompson thought the evidence failed to bear out the charges made. The House should, in considering the matter, remember the notorious ill-feeling existing between Mr Macfarlane and Mr Lusk. Mr Reynolds supported the motion, and at some length reviewed the evidence. The debate was interrupted, and will be resumed at 7.110.