PROVINCIAL COUNCIL MONDAY, JANUARY 16. CONTRACTORS' BILL.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 884, 21 January 1854, Page 3

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL MONDAY , JANUARY 16. CONTRACTORS ' BILL.

Mr. Brandon in moving the -second readingof a bill for excluding contractors from sitting. in the Council,, explained the nature ohits provisions, y which ,he thought : were in accoidance with the usages of the Old Country. , 'It had been asserted that this bill trenched on the Constitution Act, but he did not think that Act was intended to' restrict, them. . He did not think, if there-was a slightpopstuurional illegality in the, measure, lliey should look so very narrowly to the letter of the, Act if the spirit was with them, ,and he^conceived, t therefore, an making, these ( special restrictions^ where they deemed them to , be .expedient! they' were not usurping powers which they did njotpossess. Whether the bill should be reserved, or assented to by the Superintendent wwars r another question. Mr. Moore should- not object, if he. thought this was a fitti.igtime to introduce such a bill, because he agreed with its abstract principle, . he had^moie difficulty also in raising-aoy objection, on account of his own position as affected.by, the Bill; he hoped, however, the. Council would be-. Heve his assurance that be was, not in the 'slightest' degree, actuated by -any personal considerations^ but simply by a regard for the public service, in the few remarks he should make, upon Jt. The question of the legality of the bill must be left to mc-re legal minds than his, he -felt incompetent to argue that point, although he had a very strong opinion that it would involve an interference wilh the Constitution Act, because it denied or took away political rights given ,by that Act, He thought the , introduction of such a bill under the present circumstances of the colony, highly inexpedient,, and , that, it would be found detrimental instead of benefipialto the public ser* vice. ' He saw that ,it professed to secure the independence pi members of- Council ; he was of opinion that no., man would consider, his independence in-the slightest degree sacrificed by accepting a contract, where the terms are strictly prescribed; it was quite a different thiug'to accepting anoffice. under Government. la all the debates upon every question that had come before them, whenever the question of restriction of political privileges had bee,n discnssed, every aTgumerit had been used to shew the necessity of keeping the door as widely < open as possible.. Nlow Ke thought this Bill' would shut out a Jarge.amount of electors from their rights under the Constitution. It was true .that at present there' r were not very, many contractors,; he heljeveJ 'he was'.&e only member of Council, who stood in that ppsi- t tion. He thought the effect of ,the IHH wo.uld.'bejiq diminish the number both of pontractors.and elec-' tors desirous of obtaining ,seats in tfiat Cpim'cH. From the remarks madeby tbe.hon. thePr6v v So^icitor there appeared to be an admission that' it would interfere with the exercise of. |hV franchise ; but he seemed to justify Jt because it did npVgo very far. Now in the first place ho,w ~couTd'h"e tell bow far it, would go ?, hoy? co.uld he sVy^how s many raig.ht be deterred by the bill? jfml itftbe second place, if he cqu,d_ in a snmll, way.deaj wj^th'the franchise, why not toany^extei f ¥ ?''Aga:n it jhad; been s,aid on, a. former discussion by tbe Provincial -Secretary, that, the of the r government would-be .especially to eri-« courage the system of- small contracts, and in fact tqgiye every encouragement, and inducement to .contractors, , and ,no f doubt under the large road expenditure abpat,to,be;raa4e ( in the v prp'vihc^ a, large number ci", persons would dg&Ke ,io" be>

come engaged in the contracts to lie made — but it wts.no encouragement to an .intending contractor to tell him that if bis Contract -were accepted' he would forfeit his political rights—it •seemed to him to strike at the root of the contract 'system ; and , .right as it might be in the •abstract,' be thought its present introduction inexpedient and uncalled "for, and . should therefore oppose! it in its present form, .although f° r *> 18 own ; part "he was bound tos'fate. that if. the Bill •should- pass it would relieve him of a large amount of responsibility. , , Mt, Bell, while. . be, approved of the T>rincipie, could not. divest himself of the feeling of. impropriety, of exceeding the liroiu placed by the Constitution Act, and the remarks^ of tne learned legal adviser tended not to remove but to establish and strengthen this impression, since be admitted if the bill were not againsttbe spirit it was against fhe'letter of the Act. Be thought they should look very carefully to 'their authority, and if there was any doubt, to be careful 'to keep within bounds. If contractors, _.-— \- *.~-~ — Y.,a.A might be, ihey might also exclude clergymen,- lawyers, and other persons. He would prefer adopting the principle hid down at at 'Canterbury, where the Provincial Government was prohibited from entering into contracts with any person who was a member of the Council. Wakbfield said that it was not till the the night before last, that he had discovered the provision in this bill which would deprive members of Council of their seats when they accepted office under "Government. Seeing the title " Contractors' Bill," and not having beard from the hon. and learned member who introduced it, 'a word about that important provision— Mr. Brandon said that the bill was not introduced by him. Mr. Waxbfjeld : By whom then ? Mr. Brandon : By the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Wakbeield said that his mistake showed how 'little impression had been made on him by the hon. Secretary's descripti' n of the bill on 'introducing it. If the hon. Secretary lad said a word ahout the clause whereby members of f Council v/ould forfeit their seats on accepting office, he (Mr.'W.) should not have forgotten the statement, because he -must have been forcibly struck by hearing that the Government had at last adopted' the principle of bis own suggestion at the beginning <sf the session, with regard to securing the independence of the Conncil by a law, rather than leaving it dependent upon a mere resolution of the House-; a suggestion to which the Government then strongly and successfully objected. Of ceurse he now agreed with the • Government. He did so with regard to the dis- - qualification of contractors as well as of members of the Council taking office-; for he was satisfied that in « small community like this, and a small legislative body like that Council, the Executive, having so much as about £65,000 to spend in one year, would be able to exert an undue influence in tbe legislature if they were not -restrained by such a measure as this. They would do so if they were able, however pure they might be. He felt that be himself should do so 'if he were tempted by the opportunity ; so tbe house would understand that he meant no reflection on tbe purity of tbe present ad--visersof his Honor. On the question of Constitutional legality, he had equally made -up his mind. The Constitution Act, he •was persuaded, did not warrant the Superintendent und Council in directly disqualifying any body who was qualified under tbe Act. His own suggestion at the beginning of the Session would have been constitutionally unwarrantable, if he had not avoided that difficulty by proposing to disqualify officers being membeis of the Council, not members of the Council being officers. But if an absolute necessity were shewn for passing this law, he would agree to it', on the principle had guided binrthroughont the Session, that the lawless -suspension of the Constitution by the -Governor justified them in doing any thing which was essential to the peace, order, and good government tff the Province, even though their measure should be constitutionally illegal. But if he knew that he joined in committing an Illegality, he would avow it i he would not pretend to believe in the legality of a course which lie knew to be illegal. Least of all would he pursue the middle course adopted by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brandon), who admitted that there was some constitutional illegality in tbe Bill, but justified it as being not an important, not a large illegality. That reminded him of tbe unfortunate girl who bad a child whkh she ought not to have bad, and excuted herself by saying that it was a very little one. (Laughter). It would, he thought, be more manly to acknowledge that the Constitution does not permit them to disqualify any one in the way proposed by the bill, and therefore that the measure would be a great breach of tbe Constitution. Who could doubt it ? If tbe bill passed, they should turn the hon. member for Wellington {Mr. Moore) out of that Council, notwithstanding his constitutional right to sit there If they could constitutionally turn out one member, so they might a dozen or more. So manifest was the illegality, so utterly repugnant was it to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, that they would do better not to proceed witb it except under the pressure of immediate and urgent necessity ; more especially if the object could b« attained in some other, and not illegal way. And, at all events, if the bill passed, he trusted that' they should receive a more distinct assurance than had yet been given to them, that His Honor would be advised to reserve the measure for the Governor's assent, and so avoid flying ostentatiously in the face of the law. 'Mr. Ludlam said, he bad stated on a former occasion that if the Council wished to do an illegal act he would not join in it, and he believed' that tbe Contractors Bill was totally •gainst the spirit and, law of tbe Constitutional act, therefore he should oppose it. It would, in fact, have the effect of putting a disqualification clause. If they bad power to do that, they had power to alter the franchise. On the discussion for giving tbe Superintendent power to dissolve the Council, he had stated that they had no power to do so, as it was in face of the act ; and 'if it was advisable they should ask the home Government to do it. He took the same view in this case; but althongh' the principle of this bili in keeping members independent was good, still he thought such legislation premature ; he hoped members of this House were too independent to be bought over with paltry Government contract?. It bad been argued in this

House in faror of raerabers being P^'J^^^H opposite course might preclude many small means from obtaining a seat in this H<VH how much stronger was the present argumTW against that class of men ; it was they who took tti« contracts. For his own part, if he was in sadi d position and took a contract under the Government, he should not consider he was bound to -sell them his opinion' and vote. He considered the bill was premature and uncalled for, WbfeA corruption existed! they might bring, in a lJw> to 'stop it. He looked upon the law as oppressive^ and believed it was" utterly illegal in tnis Council to pass it. The Prov. Secretary spoke in support of the measure, and concluded by agreeing' that the measure should be withdrawn for the present.

WANGANUI NAME BILL. The Council went into Committee on this Bill, the provisions of which were: agreed to and tbe report brought up and adopted. £ The Council were also in Committee on the Bill for regnlating Mixed Partnerships and the Market Bill, the sereral clauses of which were considered and the Chairman reportedjprogress. The House then adjourned, i