GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1459, 19 October 1878, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[by special wire, from press agency.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,

Friday, October 18,

In the Council to-day, after some formal business, there was a warm debate on the motion to read the Parnell Reserve Bill a third time. The motion was agreed to by 21 to 11, and the Bill passed. The Council then went into committee on the Fencing Bill, which was finally got through, reported, read a third time, and passed. The Disqualification Bill was then proceeded with, and was under discussion at the adjournment hour. At the evening sitting, the discussion in Committee on the Disqualification Bill was resumed.

In clause 5, the words “ Waste Lands Board, Harbour Board, Education Board, River Board,” were struck out. This has tho effect of preventing the election of members of such Boards to Parliament.

Clauses 6 and 7 were passed as printed, and there was a long discussion on clause 8, which was amended.

Some minor amendments were made and the Bill was reported.

The eleven clauses took some four hours to get through Committee, The Public Reserves Sale Bill was committed, amended, and reported. The Committee then took up the Electoral Bill.

Clauses 116 to 141 passed without material amendment, and the next clause was made plainer. Progress was then reported, and the Council adjourned at 12.30 a.m. till Monday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Friday, October 18 notices of motion.

In the House to-day, Mr Mandbbs gave notice of motion for Monday that those members who desired to visit the North Island should be afforded facilities for that purpose after the session, in accordance with a promise made on the occasion of opening the Southern trunk line. Mr Barton gave notice to ask the Government on Monday when the lands surveyed at the Waimate Plains will bo sold, and whether the sale will take place in New Plymouth or Wellington; also, whether any land will be sold on deferred payment system, and whether, if the land is put up to auction, the whole of the purchase money will have to bo paid at once. HOSPITALS. Mr Puke asked the Government whether they will promise to bring down a Bill next session to make provision for placing all the hospitals in New Zealand on an equal footing. The Pbemiee replied that t lie Government would endeavor in any measure that might be brought down, to do Justice to all hospitals in the country. IMPORTED SLEEPERS. Mr Swanson asked tho Minister for Public Works whether or not the it is a fact that the Government are importing railway sleepers from Tasmania, and whether or not they are aware (hat sleepers of equal if not superior, durability can be procured in tho Provincial district of Auckland. Mr Macandbew replied that requisitions were being made by tho Government for certain purposes, but onflnding the superiority of puriri, Government refrained from importing sleepers from abroad, and called for tenders in the colony. Ho hoped the attention called to the matter would induce people to tender, Tho Government would give puriri preference. COMMISSIONER OF ANNUITIES ACCOUNTS. Mr Johnston asked the Government when the accounts of the Commissioner of Annuities for tho last financial year, which are required by the 41st clause of the Government Insurance and Annuities Act, 1874, to be laid before both Houses of the General Assembly on or before Ist August, will be laid on the table of this House. The Government replied that enquiries would be made, and, if possible, the papers would be laid on the table next sitting day. NATIVE DISTURBANCE. The Native Minister stated he was in receipt of a telegram from Tito Kowaru in reference to the disturbances at Kanaka. Tito stated that tho disturbance arose from an attempt to capture Hiroki, the murderer. To Wheti was holding one of his quarterly meetings. Tho Natives unwisely dismounted from their horses and searched the houses instead of waiting. Tito said that if the Natives had waited until they had food, and then gone to the runanga house and asked a plain question, there would have been no trouble. first readings. The following Bills were introduced in Committee and read a first time: —Bill to amend' Financial Arrangements Act, 1876 (Mr Ballance); Bill to amend the Public Debts Sinking Fund Act, 1868 (Mr Ballance), council’s amendments. The amendments of Legislative Council in the Timaru High School Bill wore agreed to. sheep bill. The House went into Committee on the Sheep Bill. On tho motion of Mr Seymour, a new clause was inserted, enabling sheep, when properly dressed to the satisfaction of tho inspector, to be driven through runs owned by persona holding clean certificates, with the personal permission of the owners. harbor bill. The House went into Committee on the Harbor Bill. Discussion look place on clause 51, providing that no member of tho Board shall hold any paid office of tho Board. The Attorney-General advocated tho payment of the chairman. Mr Muhbay-Aynsley said payment of the Chairman would destroy public spirit, and prevent gentlemen accepting responsible positions for the honor attaching thereto. Mr Sheehan thought when only officials of the Board w«.-« (-id, tho' wllofo power would be placed in their hands. ' Major Atainson thought t he matter might bo safely r entrusted' to the Board, in order that it might have an opportunity of selecting the most competent men. A division took place on the question or inserting an amendment limiting the payment of salary beyond tJfftvelling allowaiucoa tp the

chairman. The result was—Ayes 25 ; noes, 22. The amendment was carried. A further amendment was inserted limiting travelling expenses to those incurred to and from meetings of the Board, Clause 52 was postponed [n clause 53 the word “ Biennial ” before “ Election of a Chairman ” was struck out. At clause 62 the Committee adjourned for the dinner hour. EVENING SITTING. HARBOR BILL. The House resumed at half-past seven in Committee on the Harbor Bill. In clause 60 an amendment was inserted, obviating the need of specification of works and materials in contracts in eases of emergency. In clause 51, “weighing materials” was altered to “weighing appliances.” At clause 135, progress was reported. BILLS ADVANCED. The Sheep Bill and Lyttelton Water Works Transfer Bills wore passed. The Malvern Water Race Transfer Bill was read a second time. MR BARTON’S STATEMENT.

On the motion to go into Committee of Supply,

Mr Barton asked leave to offer a few remarks. After the Judicature Bill was rejected, Judge Richmond had come forward 1 and made statements which would entitle him (Mr Barton) to speak in defence. Judge Richmond had said that his attention Had been called to a report in the “Jurist,” which appeared eight months ago, and which appeared as a special supplement in the “Post.” The “Jurist” also contained articles on the question of his imprisonment. It was strange that a matter which had received so much publicity should have escaped the attention of Judge Richmond. The speech of the member for Mount Ida appeared also to have escaped the attention of the judge for eighteen days, though he had taken early notice of other matters of less importance, including a report in the “Now Zealand Times,” when Judge Richmond sent for a reporter who had taken shorthand notes of the cases heard in Court when he (Mr Barton) was committed, and purchased a copy of the reporter’s notes. Judge Richmond had attributed the matter on wliich he (Mr Barton) was committed to prison to a demand for the reason of his judgment, whereas the whole of the Press reports showed it was upon a request for leave to appeal. The hon. gentleman then quoted from the “Times” report, which he said was admitted to bo correct by Judge Richmond. The hon. member also quoted from the “ Argus” report and a special report in the “ Otago Daily Times.” There was further conlirmation in a letter from Mr Bell, of April 9fch, enclosing notes of the altercation between Mr Barton and the judges. Mr Bell stated that the report in the “Jurist” waa correct, which stated that the judges had refused to answer the question as to jurisdiction. Thus (Mr Barton went on to say) all the reports wore entirely at variance with the statement of Judge Richmond. [Mr Barton here quoted from the shorthand reporter’s notes, which showed that he had twice asked leave to plead, when the Judge replied on each occasion that he might plead for what it was worth) Mr Barton said he protested against this vague reply, and asked the Court to reply specifically as to the matter of jurisdiction. Ho would now show that the refusal of the judges to answer the question whether they were deciding within their jurisdiction, had placed Messrs Sievwright and Stout in difficulties. [Quoted from telegrams between Barton and Bell and Sievwright and Stout.] The Court refused leave to appeal, and was silent as to leave to plead. He denied Judge Richmond’s assertion that leave was given to plead, and contended that a Court was bound to know its jurisdiction. Ho next dealt with Judge Richmond’s ruling as to Saunders being a partner with McDonald and Gillon. All the Press reports showed that tho Chief Justice refused to produce his notes, and they showed that his numerous interruptions were an attempt to induce the Court to take cognizance of tho fact that it was plain from tho judge’s notes of a former hearing that Mr Saunders was not a partner. Tho judge was shown by the concurrent testimony of the Press reports to refer to his notes. This quotation would show that tho “ Jurist ” report was correct. Tho j udges refused to send for a minute which would show that before tho action was instituted tho “ Argus ” Company had passed a resolution to buy out Saunders. The statement of Judge Richmond that lie had reason to believe that the “Jurist ” report was not furnished by cither of tho two barristers who were engaged for that duty in Wellington, was an insinuation that ho (Mr Barton) had furnished tho report, which was characteristic of Judge Richmond’s treatment of him. The speaker admitted that he had furnished some notes of the cases to Mr G. E. Barton, editor of the “Jurist.” Ho would mention one or two matters which showed that lie had grounds for complaining of the conduct of judges. Tho judges refused to grant an injunction which would have enabled Mr Gillon to protect his rights; but Gillon asserted his right to enter the premises, acting under the advice of his solicitors. This the judges used as a ground for refusing a second application for an adjournment, which was followed by the defendants making away with the property in litigation, and moved to make Gillon a bankrupt for £SO, tho costs of the application upon winch ho (Mr Barton) was committed to prison, though a jury had previously given a verdict that Gillon was entitled to three years’ salary at £3OO a year. Ho regretted that Mr Gillon had been so unfortunate as to entrust (the case to him. Ho had since been compelled to desist from practice in Wellington. When the judges had assailed him with unjust expressions he wondered why ho had retained his temper on another occasion, and went so far as to publicly ask an officer of the Court to endeavour to discover who wrote the letter. Judge Richmond had also publicly charged his firm with having endeavoured to entrap the officer of the Court, and on another occasion, when lie (Mr Barton) refused to abandon a client, J udge Richmond charged him publicly when he was only seven minutes late. The Judge had assailed him in insulting terms, and prevented his defending a client on a charge of murder. On another occasion, when ho wrote a letter to the Judge, signed legibly with His own name, the Judge endeavored to produce the impression in Court that the letter was sent anonymously, with a breach of common honesty. The comamn remarks of the Court against himself were, “ Your remarks are foolish,” “ You are too pertinacious, sir.” Tho judges had taken a witness under examination out of his bauds, and when he had argued, ho was told it was useless. He was told “ Sit down, qir, ” *« Hole* your tongue, sir, qr I will commit you.” “The Court was not talking to you, sir.” Ho charged the judges with having shown corrupt favoritism towards his opponents, and with iniustice, and ho charged the Chief Justice “with falsification in stating that ho (Mr Barton) consented to an order which lie Had never consented to. He charged him with violating the truth of the Bench to sustain an order which otherwise could not have been sustained. He accused the Chief Justicc of tying up a case until an opponent could take the benefit of the Statute of Limitations. He charged the Court with tying up the case of another client, who had recovered judgment against a defendant, until the latter bad taken steps to declare his (Mr Barton’s) client a bankrupt, and thereby escaped the effect of the judgment. Ho charged. Judge Richmond with so directing a jury aa to defeat a manifest right, and where a juryman sat to decide his own case Hie Court refused to set aside tho verdict, though it was based upon a quibble in a direction by that judge to the jury, and which direction was in opposition to the equity of tho case. Hie (Mr Barton) regretted that the House had refused pn opportunity for inquiry. He charged Judge Richmond with writing a letter contrary to truth from tho beginning to end. Such charges us he hud brought forward should not remain nnlnvgstigated. When he (Mr Bqrton) requested the Government to grant an inquiry, he was told he must await the return ot Minis)., rn who were absent, and when they were all in Welliuston ho was informed that he must apply direct to Parlla-

liament For an inquiry. [The hon. member quoted from the correspondence.] He could not understand how, when all the Ministers had thus acknowledged that inquiry was necessary, they should afterwards resist the attempt made to secure one from the House. He would not conclude with any motion, nor would he ask for redress, but would leave his own vindication to time, in full confidence that such vindication would be accorded. Mr Fox asked the Attorney-General what action the Government proposed to take with reference to these strong charges.

The Attorney-General said the Government could not he expected to reply to a mere speech on going into Committee of Supply. Mr Rolleston expressed astonishment that the Government had not taken some action, from a speech which contained some of the strongest charges ho had ever heard against the judicial bench. Mr Barton had affronted the House in not doing what common decency would have dictated —concluded with a motion—which would have enabled the House to express an opinion as to the charges. The member for Avon expressed reprobation of the conduct of Mr Barton, and charged him with deliberately insulting the House.

Mr Moss defended the action of Mr Barton as being strictly within that gentleman’s privilege as a member of Parliament, Mr Gisborne challenged the member for Wellington to move a resolution. Mr Mandebs denounced the charges against the judges. Dr Hodgkinson defended Mr Barton.

Mr Bowen strongly reprobated the conduct of Mr Barton as being a breach of the recognised English practice, that the conduct of a judge should not be arraigned unless there were primu facie evidence to justify his removal from the bench.

Mr Kelly combatted the argument that the the dignity of the office of the judges shielded them from inquiry, and argued that the seriousness of the charges rendered full investigation absolutely necessary in the public interest.

Mr Swanson said the whole people of Wellington had coincided in the view that Mr Barton had been unjustly imprisoned, and the present obstruction to an inquiry implied that the view held by the people of Wellington was well founded. It aroused similar suspicions in his own mind and he held that the demand for inquiry could not bo baulked, but would be reiterated until justice were done. If Mr Barton had expressed himself rather warmly ho was not to blame. Mr Wood supported the enquiry, with the liability to some punishment to the judges, if the charges were established, and some consequences, equal to expulsion from the House, against Mr Barton if they were disproved.

In committee on clause 137 of the Harbor Bill, considerable discussion took place on the question of the period of leases, which Boards should have power to grant. The Attorney-General proposed an amendment, which was agreed to, enabling the Boards to lease rural or pastoral land for any term not exceeding twenty-one years. The House divided on the further amendment by Mr Tolo to extend the lease of town land or laud used for building purposes to sixty-six instead of forty-two years. Ayes—--20. Noes —22. The amendment was therefore negatived. The Attorney-General proposed to insert “fifty years.” The House divided, and the Ayes were 22, Noes 20. The amendment was carried.

A proviso was added at the end of clause 137. The House divided on an amendment of Mr Reeves on clause 138, to preclude the sale of leases by public tender. Ayes—2s. Noes —14. The amendment was carried. The Native Minister continued the debate on Mr Barton’s motion. Ho said the aspect of the question had entirely altered since the Judicial Commissions Bill was under discussion. Now distinct charges were alleged, and the Government would, therefore, thoroughly consider the matter, and would endeavor to state on Monday the course they would adopt. The matter could not be allowed to rest where it was. In the meantime he hoped the House would not make the matter worse than it was, but leave the responsibility with the Government of deciding upon the action to taken on this question. He would be sorry to think any member of the House would bo capable of giving a party vote on the question, for such conduct would render anyone unfit to hold his seat.

Mr Fox said he quite concurred in this view of the matter, and had no wish to hurry the Government into a decision on the question. His only desire was to have some assurance from the Government that the matter would not be allowed to rest where it was.

Mr Sahndees said those who knew his history would understand that he was not a very particular friend of judges; but the matter under discussion was brought under the notice of the House in an improper manner, ho held the Government responsible for the facilities given, lb waa very undesirable that special arrangements should be made by Goverment to allow any member to adduce charges of this kind merely because be had given a servile vote in favor of the Government. Mr Barton had carefully selected a time when the galleries were crowded to bring forward these charges. The Peemieb called the Speaker’s attention to Mr Saunders’ language, The SpEAEEB rtffed that the hon. member for Cheviot was out of order in imputing motives to the Government. The Attoenev-Genkeal said the Government had promised an opportunity for this discussion and could not break its word. He denied that Mr Barton’s speech was made to the galleries, and said the charges now made affected the entire judicial administration of the colony. No commission should issue until specific charges were made. The debate was adjourned till Monday. SHEEP BILL. The House resumed at a.m., when the Sheep Bill waa reported, read a third lime, and passed. HAKBOE PULL. This Bill was recommitted and clause 31 amended by limiting the duration of office of non-elective members to two years instead of three. The Bill was read a third time and passed. BILLS PASSED. The Malvern Water Race Transfer Bill, Law Amendment Bill, and Gold Mining Districts Act, 1873, Amendment DUs were reat^ll third time and passed, VA*TVJB LANDS BILL. Mr Richabdson asked when the Native Land Bill would bo read a second time. The Native Ministee—On Monday. The House adjourned at 1.20 a.m. to, halfpast two on Monday.