THE PENSION BILL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2547, 7 June 1882, Page 4

THE PENSION BILL.

WELLINGTON, June 6.

The following correspondence was read in the House to-day by the Speaker re the Now Zealand Pensions Bill—Sir Franoi* Dillon Bed to Sir Erskino May : “LiiiJon, 14 l -h March, 1882.

“ Daar Sir Beskins May,— “ In pursuauca of your kind permission I beg to bring under yonr notice a difference which lately arose between the two Houses in Hew Zsahnd about the right of amending Sills. The difference was cognate to the one about the Council amendment in the Railways Bill, which you let me bring before you some time ago. The present dispute is whether a Bill on the subject of pensions, which had been passed by the House of Representatives, was one which the L?gislalativo Council could amend by omitting a certain clause. The Speaker of the House (Sir Maurice O’Rorke) held that the Council could not strike out the clause. The Clerk of Parliament (Major Campbell) thought they might. I was therefore asked to solicit your opinion. I enclose a copy of the Bill. It waa bronght in by a private member, its object being to regulate the granting of pensions t: civil servants. The dispute wen about a clause which was alleged to affect injuriously the right of a civil _ servant under the existing law. The clause is shown by being enclosed within lines on the copy of the Bill. I alio send you an extract from “Hansard,” giving an account of what passed in both House*. The difference seems to have practically turned on the point whether the clause the Council struck out was one coming within the principles defined by yourself in the case of clauses omitted by the Lords as being “upon a subject separable from the general subject of the Bill,” but it was contended that the Bill was a "money Bill,” and as such incapable of being amended at all. The points on which Sir Maurice O’Rorko would liko yonr opinion are these —(1) Was the Bill a money Bill? (2) Could the Council omit this pr.rticular clause P (3) If not a money Bill, was it one of such a character that it vras capable of being amended generally in any way ; for instance, could clause 6 have been amended by altering its rstrceppctiva effect instead of being simply omitted ? To which I *hould like to add (4) must a “Mon-y Bill” be brought in by a Minister signifying the consent thereto of the Crown or may a private member bring it in without such consent being signified ? You will see in the debates the formal reasons that were exchanged between the Houses when the representatives disagreed to the Council amendment. There was a further interchange of reasons afterwards, but they were only repetitions at beet. There was a free conference, bat the Houses were unable to agree. The Bill was therefore lost, and the same battle will probably bo fought over again next session. An exproision of your opinion, if you could spare a littls of the time, every moment of which is now so precious, would no doubt be accepted ut oaco by both sides. “I remain, &0., “ F. Dimon Bbu, ” “ Heme of Common*, 23rd March, 1882. “ Dear Sir Francis Bell, — “ I hare rend with great attention and interest all the papers you have sent me regarding the New Zealand Pensions Bill. This is exceedingly well argued on both sides, and I will very briefly state my own opinion upon the point in dispute. (I) Ao the Bill related to the granting of pensions poyable out of the public revenues and to such pensions exclusively, I consider it to have been a money Bill; (2) such being the character of the Bill I am of opinion that the Commons would not have accepted from the Lords any such amendment as that made by the Council, but would have disagreed to it, on the ground of privilege, or would have laid the Bill aside. (3) Ido not think clause 6 was separable from the other clauses of tho Bill, or'hat the precedents cited of the omission of clauses by the Lords wero applicable to this case. (4) For all purposes of privilege as bf tween the two Houses, a Bill relating solely to charges upon the public revenue is a ‘money Bill,’ whether introduced by a Minister of tho Crown, or by a private member. I need scarcely add that in answering yonr questions I have confined myself to tho practice of the Imperial Parliament, and offer no opinion upon questions specially concerning tho Colonial constitution or tho action of its authorities.

“ I am, &0., “Ebbkine May.”