QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 223, 4 September 1875, Page 4

QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

(iv*. Z. Times, September I.) Mr O'Conor, pursuant to notioe, drew the attention of tho House of the alleged breach of privilege on Friday evening. He related the circumstances of tbe case at some length, and eaid he considered ali members of the House were upon tbe same footing, and distinctions should not be made by tbe Speaker. If his premises were wrong, then he should like to see the Hpuse classify the members, so that in future each member would know exactly what was his position. He then complained ol the manner in which the Speaker had qualified the conduct of himself (Mr O'Conor) and the boo. member for Bruce (Mr Murray). The Speaker , had told them they should not address him in such a manner again, and bad made other remarks of a nature calculated to reflect very seriously npon the honor of members of that House. For himself, he would say he had acted under the conviction that be wai doing what was right'; bat if had acted wrongly he was very sorry for it. He did not propose to take any farther steps, leaving the matter in the hands of the House. : The Hon, Mr Richardson Baid' he had reason to believe that the hon, the Speaker bad not heard the request, for an adjournment, which it afterwards turned out had been made by the hon. member for Tuapeka. He (Mr Richardson) was in conversation with the Speaker, and when tbe hon. member stopped, the Speaker had asked him (Mr Richardson) the canse of the stoppage, to which he had replied, " I think he has lost his notes." He was quite satisfied that tbe Speaker bad not heard the request for an adjournment. The Speaker said be was placed in a very undesirable position. The fact was, he had not beard tbo request for an adjournment come from the hon. member, but, hearing a cry in the in the House for adjournment, had in accordance with usual practice declined to accede to it, saying the bon. member must finish bis speech first. He had been accused of favoritism because' he bad raised the question of distinction. Before going any further, be would say that, although in an assembly like that members stood ih au equal position, it must be conceded that> prominent members such as Ministers or leading members of her Majesty's Opposition, suoh as theJion. member for the Hutt undoubtedly was, were always allowed considerable latitude and indulgence; bnt putting tbis aside, and passing on to the merits of tbe cases, it would be remembered that the hon. member for the. Hutt bad commenced to speak at 730 aod had continued till after ten, when he sent the bon. member for Wairarapa to request an adjournment- — a request tbat was at once acceded to. In the other case the hon. member had commenced to speak at twenty-five minutes past nine, and —— continued till half-past ten — (oh, oh)— although some hon. members had made it after eleven — and no request for an adjournment had been sent. Therefore, the cases were widely different. The Speaker then referred to the desirable* ness of members being careful how tbey imputed partiality to a Speaker. No doubt every member had a right to questien or challenge a ruling, but it was tbeir duty at all times te construe the conduct of the Speaker as favorably as possible, instead of upon the slightest pretence imputing partiality, because such a charge, if true, at once showed bin. to be unfitted for the position. Sir Donald M'Lean defended the Speaker. The bon. member for Tuapeka (Mr Brown) asserted it was after 11 when he asked for an adjournment. Mr Murray supported Mr O'Conor and Mr Brown, after which the matter dropped. Mr Ormond said he had since Friday obtained proof-slips of bis speech, as reported by Hansard staff, and found tbat he had not applied tbe word "rotten" to the people of Auckland, but merely to the system by which they were governed. As the hon. member for Auckland City West, who was not present during the delivery of the speech, had made an incorrect charge against him, and was responsible ior the injury done him by the publication of a charge of having used words which bad never fallen from him, it rested with the hon. member for Auckland City West to make reparation by expressing regret for haying been guilty of misrepresentation. There being no movement on the part of Sir George Grey, Mr Rollestpn then raised another question of privilege as to whether the Government should not place upon the table of the House tha opinion given by the Solicitor-General as to the liability of the hon. member for Franklin to forfeit his seat uuder the provisions of the Disqualification Act, because of bis connection with ihe land transactions in Auckland. He said he did not raise tbe question bo much because of tbis individual case, but because there were several members of both branches of tbe Legislature who were similarly mixed up in these transactions. The House was then addressed by Sir Donald M'Lean (who said tbat the Solicitor-General bad not yet given his opinion decidedly, because be had not had the whole of the facta before him, in consequence ofthe non-arrival trom Auckland ot the papers, und that even supposing they had the Government had not thought it desirable to place the opinion on the table); Mr Sheehan

(who thought the House had a right to demand the opinion).; the Hon. Mr Bowen (who said English precedent justified the • Government in merely giving the substance of the opinion and refusing to plaoe the opinion itself on the table, because of the inconvenience, and because the law of officers reported not for the House but for the advioe of the Government, which advice the Government acted upon, and for which action they were responsible to the House) ; Sir George Grey (who supported the proposition) ; The Hon. Major Atkinson (who considered tbe Government really had nothing to do with the matter, because it was not their affair to see what member should sit or who should not sit), a contention with the Speaker agreed with ; Mr Stout (who pointed out that if the House had to deal with the matter it should have the opinion before it), aud the matter then dropped.