PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2307, 26 August 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP.

WELLINGTON, August 22. The debate on the Redistribution of Seats Bill was rather lively for the first three hours, but intensely dull during the remainder of the throe days that it lasted. The Premier introduced the Bill in a painstaking speech that showed how completely and thoroughly he had gone into the subject. Sir George could not oppose such a Bill after all he had said about its necessity, but professed to think it or anything else of little consequence so long as the Lords were allowed to review or revise all the actions of that House, and especially to throw out a Bill proposed by him to meet the conscientious convictions of members of Parliament. There could be no real liberty, and, therefore, no happiness and no prosperity, so long as such a blot was allowed to exist on the Constitution of New Zealand. This roused Sir William Pox, who called to the notice of the House the days when all New Zealand was praying Sir George Grey to allow them to enjoy the smallest particle of real self-government. Hh (Sir William Fox) did not look upon the power to put a piece of paner in the ballot box as the sovereign balm for all human suffering; but if Sir George really believed it to be so what a fearful amonnt of human suffering he must have caused in the early history of New Zealand, Mr Sheehan tried to be witty at Sir William’s expense, but was not very successful. He was, however, most successful in proving to what a wonderful pitch a lawyer’s audacity may go when he dared to talk about anyone olse’s inconsistency, and to compare his own political career with that of Sir William Fox. At this stage of the proceedings a large number of professing Liberals were under the impression that they could vote against the Bill, but when the Nelson members had all spoken, and had openly advocated nothing short of the old rotten borough system, they saw that it would not do to join in that pursuit, and that it was not worth while to commit so glaring an inconsistency for the sake of voting against a Bill that would be carried whether they voted for it or not. Some of the drollest things that happen in the House are only droll to those who know the character of the actors, and one of these occurred on Tuesday afternoon, when Mr Stevens brought up the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Pensions. Mr Kelly, the active, restless chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, who brings up reports by the hundred all exactly of the same stamp, and never noticed by any one, was just then smarting under the action of another chairman of committee, almost as active and a great deal more powerful than himself. After the Opposition had proposed a day for discussing that report, and the Government had promised to give the opportunity by introducing a Bill on the subject, Mr Kelly jumped up, and in his most querulous tone wanted to know why the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee did not make proposals of that sort himself, and follow up his report as Mr Wright had followed up his on the New Plymouth Harbor. To those who know the cool, sedate, cautious, judicial chairman of the public accounts committee, there was something intensely ridiculous in the idea of his taking either Mr Kelly for his adviser or Mr Wright for his example. Bising in his slowest and most dignified style, and waiting for silence, he said—“ When a member of this House proposes the appointment of a committee to inquire into any particular subject it is only reasonable to suppose that he feels some particular interest in that subject, and it is not unnatural that he should follow it up after that committee has reported. But, Sir, when this House in its wisdom refers a subject to an existing committee, such as the public accounts committee, and that committee Pas reported, I am certainly not supposed to have any interest in following the subject farther, and do not think I should be consulting the wishes of the House or of the committee if I did so.” The discussion of that report and the Bill founded on it is likely to be one of the most lively that is yet to come before the House. Mr Shrlmski’s Pension Bill ho* provided that the Speaker of the Legislative Council shall not receive his ;E6OO a-year there and his pension too, and that no Minister shall again draw his salary and a pension, as Mr Gisborne did, but there may bo some difficulty in getting that Bill through the Legislative Council. On Friday evening Mr Pyke managed to get up another scene in the House of a more deliberate kind than he has hitherto been connected with. He pays no steady attention to the work of the House, but cannot endure to be forgotten by the New Zealand public, and would much rather figure before them in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Axms than cut no figure at all. The versions that have been given to the public by the reporters of this affair have the appearance of being inspired, and certainly are very unfair to the Speaker and the Premier, The Speaker heard Mr Pyke’s first statement with the greatest patience and coolness, and it was only when Mr Pyke insisted upon interrupting him, while be was on bis legs, and rising repeatedly when told he could not speak again without giving notice, that the Speaker put on his war paint, and Mr Hall came to his assistance. Nor was it “ a few members on Mr Hall’s right" only who cried order. There was a general expression of desire to support the Speaker in the firm conduct which the audacious provocation more than justified. Last evening Mr Pyke withdrew the motion of which he had given notice, and evidently wished to drop the subject, as he had not a leg to stand upon in his complaint of the Speaker’s conduct. The Speaker took the opportunity to say that he should alter any member’s notice of motion with great reluctance, but that he must preserve the decorum and the decent gravity of the House. He also stated that he had privately urged Mr Pyke to alter the motion .himself, and ultimately altered it with hi* consent, as admitted by Mr Pyke. The late hours which were tried on Thursday night or Friday morning were not very profitably spent in sparring matches between the Government and the West Coast members, in which even Mr Weston indulged, and led to the House not sitting at all during the reasonable and natural hours of Friday afternoon. Friday evening was spent in a fairly lively debate between the Government and Taranaki on one side and the colony on the other. Mr Wright led off in a speech that showed a great deal of careful investigation of the merits of the case he had taken in hand, and such speeches, even when delivered with much hesitation and awkwardness, are always well received by the House. Mr Kelly made a very futile attempt to shako Mr Wright’s evidence, and only succeeded in convincing the House what a thoroughly bad case he had in hand. When he sat down, it was evident that there was nothing to be said in favor of the past or future expenditure on the Now Plymouth Harbor works. In the commencement of the evening the Bill for the Beading of the Bible in Schools came up by a message from the Legislative Council, and its first reading was negatived on the voices without discussion and without division. Some of its friends afterwards entered the House, and gave notice of reviving the question on a future day, but there is little chance of the Bill ever getting through a second reading. Last night tne Bailway* Construction and Land Bill gave rise to a wonderful variety of opinion on political economy, especially from Sir George Grey and Mr Macandrew. By far the best speech on the subject was made by Mr Levin, although very useful speeches were given by Mr Bichardson and Mr Oliver. Towards the close Messrs Seddon, Gibbs, Moss, Levestam, and Shephard talked to an almost empty House, and there was not a quorum present during the last two hours of the debate. The Bill will have to be much altered in committee, and much time would be saved by referring it to a Select Committee, The tug of war has yet to come on the Bepresentation Bill, and the minority are talking largely of their power to yet prevent its passing. It is a general opinion that the session will bo brought t« a close in about three weeks.