THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1782, 6 November 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1879.

The House of Representatives is in process of being electrified by Sir George Grey. The late Premier has introduced one of the most tremendous measures which has ever startled a steady-going body of respectable men. The author of tho measure evidently intends it to act as a sort of manifesto, and it is to bo trusted that the Government party will bo duly impressed. Tho name of tho Act is “ The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1879,” and it has five clauses. The second clause provides that “ every person who gives, or oilers to give, a bribe to any member of the New Zealand Assembly, or to another person for him, or attempts by menace, deceit, suppression of truth, offer or promise of any office, or offer or promise of expenditure of public money, or erection of public work, or any particular advantage in or to any locality, or by any other corrupt means to influence a member in giving or withholding bis vote, or in not attending the House or any committee of which bo is a member, or giving assistance or support to any particular measure, or to any particular side of any question upon which he shall be required to act in his official capacity, shall bo punishable by imprisonment for not loss than one or more than years.” The third clause

enacts that “ every member of the General Assembly of New Zealand who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, or becomes a party to receiving any bribe, or the gift of any office, or who becomes a party to any of the offences or corrupt practices set forth in the preceding section, upon any understanding that his official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall bo given in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he may bo required to act in his official capacity, or gives, or offers, or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another member of the Assembly shall give any such vote, either upon the same or another question, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one or more than years.” By the fourth clause, “ every person who, being summoned to attend as a witness before either House of the Legislature or any committee thereof, refuses or neglects, without lawful excuse, to attend pursuant to such summous, and every person who, being present before either House of the Legislature, or any committee thereof, wilfully refuses to be sworn or to answer any material and proper question, or to produce upon reasonable notice any material and proper books, papers, or documents in bis possession or under his control, is guilty of a misdemeanour.” The final clause provides that “ every member of the General Assembly of New Zealand convicted of any offence defined, set out, or contained in this Act shall, in addition to the punishment herein prescribed, forfeit his seat and office, and be for ever disqualified from becoming again a member of the said General Assembly, or of holding any office under the Government of the colony.” Such is Sir George Grey’s patent, though childish, method of purifying the House of Representatives. It is possible that we may shortly bo in possession of graphic details from the “ Own correspondent ”of the “ Lyttelton Times,” as to the effect that the reading of the measure produced on the House. It may probably run in somewhat the following strain : —“ The effect of the first reading of this Bill on the Government ranks was painful in the extreme. The more prominent members cowered in their seats; they convulsively grasped the nearest object of weight, as if they were about to be torn from their benches by the officers of justice. Every man appeared to suspect his neighbour of being a detective in plain clothes. Some were seen furtively to leave the House, as if for the purpose of purchasing false whiskers and other disguises, with a view of eluding pursuit. The Auckland four, in particular, were struck with the most abject terror. They recognised at once the fact that it was at them that the bolt was mainly hurled. Mr. Swanson was discovered striking a match, in order to burn the private memorandum which ho had refused to disgorge, and was only prevented from carrying out his intention by the jeers of the Opposition. But how different was the scene on the Opposition benches. The members there, conscious of rectitude, were calm and unmoved. The incorruptibility of Mr Pyke, the truthfulness of Sir George Grey, and the spotless integrity of Mr Macandrew, imparted to their every gesture an indosribable dignity. Never was the effect of weight of character in the House more plainly visible.” We may shortly expect some such report in the columns of our Gloucester street contemporary. And, really, something will be required to cover with a convenient cloud the absurdity of the action taken by the late Premier. Both the motives that have urged the introduction of the Bill, and the measure itself, are ridiculous. Sir George Grey has persisted in believing that the Auckland four acted as they did from dishonest motives. Simply because they ran counter to his interests he has professed himself unable to believe that any but corrupt reasons led them to pursue the course they did. And this wild and ridiculous Bill is put forward as a species of protest. It is shot as a sort of Parthian arrow against the gentlemen who have ousted his party. As to the Bill itself, if it did happen to pass, ever being of the sligl test use—on this qnes* tion there cannot be two opinions. If Parliament is to be kept pure it will not be by enactments such as the one in question. It is utterly unworkable. It is a mere childish display of spite on the part of Sir George Grey against the Auckland members who have so grievously offended him. Introduced by the most spotless patriot, the Bill, though it would of course turn out a fiasco, might at least be looked upon with respect as the hobby of a dreamy enthusiast. But, introduced by Sir George Grey, whose Parliamentary career during the last few years can hardly be claimed to have illustrated the more lofty heights to which it is possible for a politician to attain, the Bill is a mere indication of petty spite. Corruption must be kept out of the House by the election of gentlemen of known probity of character. Sir George Grey must be well aware that his Bill is a farce, and that coaches and four by the dozen could bo driven through it by a child. However, he is none the less likely to endeavour to place it on the Statue Book. At the worst it will bo a good cry for the next electioneering tour. And such contingencies must always be provided for.