PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4831, 15 September 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, September 14. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. This Bill was read a third time, and ordered to be sent to the other Chamber. SECOND READINGS. The second reading of the Waiuku Crown Grants Bill was moved by the Hon. I)r. Pollen. After explaining the Bill, he stated that the consent of the natives interested had been obtained to the individualisation of titles proposed bytheßi l !.-—The Hon. Mr. Waterhouse having criticised the measure shortly ; in reply to some remarks as to printing the Bill in the Maori tongue, the Hon. Dr. Pollen stated that the measure was not one of general interest. He had before him the consent of the natives interested to the steps proposed. If it were insisted on that the Bill should be printed in the Maori tongue, and circulated amongst the natives, that would mean delay for another year.—The Hon. Mr. Robinson moved the adjournment of thedebate. After remarks from the Hons. Captain Fraser and Mr. G. R. Johnson, the Hon. Wr Tako thought it as well that the Bill should not be hurried through. The question of confiscation hung over Maori lands in various parts of New Zealand. There should not be one law for Waiuku and another for other parts of New Zealand. Let the Bill be translated into Maori.—The Hon. the Speaker had suggested that if a short adjournment were moved, he would undertake that the measure should be quickly translated and circulated among the Maori members of the Assembly.—This course was adopted, and the debate on the second reading was adjourned till Tuesday next. The second reading of the Christchurch District Drainage Act Amendment Bill was moved by the Hon. Dr, Pollen. —The Hon. Colonel Brett said he had been requested by residents of Christchurch to oppose the third and last clauses. He proceeded to give the reasons for opposition.—The Hon. Mr. Robinson thought it undesirable that the Bill should be opposed. He had been recently in Christchurch and had heard no objections to the measure.—The Hou. Mr. Peacock had heard objections. He criticised portions of the Bill shortly.—The Hon. Dr. Pollen replied and said that the objections taken would come more fitly in committee.—The motion was agreed to. The Hon. the SPEAKER suggested to hon. members, that where there was no objection to the principle of measures, minor points should be left to be dealt with in committee. The Dunedin Reserves Exchanges Bill was read a second time, and a debate on the Dunedin Waterworks Bill was adjourned so that the measure should be referred to the Private Bills Committee. The Napier Borough Endowments Bill was read a second time. THE HON. MB. HALL. The motion of the Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE referring to Mr. Hall was by leave withdrawn. new bills. Several Bills were received from the Lower Chamber, read a first time, and the second readings variously fixed. IN COMMITTEE. On the Christchurch Drainage Bill, the Hon. Mr. Peacock opposed a 15d. rate. Clause 3 imposing such rate was struck out, as was clause 13. The Bill was reported, and the third reading made an order for next day. TheLytteltonßeservesßilland theLawrenoe Athenaeum Bill went through committee, were read a first time, and passed. The Eating Bill was then further considered. The remaining clauses were passed. On the schedules progress was reported. The Public Works Bill was further considered in committee. Clause 54 was postponed after some discussion ; clause 56 was also postponed. Progress was then reported. MONDAY SITTINGS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said that next day he should move that the Council at its rising should adjourn till Monday. The Council then (5.15 p.m.) adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, September 14. The Speaker having taken the chair at the usual hour, several petitions were presented. THE SITUATION. Mr. WASON then rose, and said that before the business on the Order Paper was proceeded with, he wished to ask the permission of the Honse to propose a motion without notice. It seemed to him that at the present time things had got into an inextricable state of confusion. The motion he had to propose was that fresh writs should be issued for the seats represented by Ministers. He did not bring forward such a motion in a party spirit, but as no other hon. gentleman had taken I action in the matter, he had considered it his duty to do so.

The SPEAKER ruled against Mr. Wason. The motion could not be brought forward without notice, inasmuch as the Disqualification Committee had brought up a report on the subject which the motion affected. It was quite competent for the House to deal with that report ■in the usual manner, and he did not think the action of the committee could be intercepted by any motion of privilege.

Sir GEORGE GREY then rose to a question of privilege. He believed there were in that House strangers, not only .occupying seats as members o£ the House, but acting as advisers to his Excellency the Governor. Under these circumstances he would, with permission, move that the House do not proceed with any further business until the report brought up by the Disqualification Committee had been considered.

The SPEAKER ruled that the proposal of the hon. gentleman was different to that of Mr. Wason, and he should be justified in accepting the motion without notice on a question of privilege. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said he did not propose to enter on the question now before the House, but would move as an amendment to the motion of the member for the Thames, —That the report of the Disqualification Committee be at once taken into consideration by this House. He was quite certain the majority of the House desired to carry on the business of the country with expedition, and he was quite certain that the majority of the House would support the Government in doing it, though he could not speak with any degree of confidence regarding the gentleman opposite (meaning Sir George Grey) and certain of his supporters. The hon. gentleman assumed that they (the Ministry) were strangers in the House, but he must know that the assertion was groundless in law, and that svhat he had stated could not be a fact until the seats of those members had been declared vacant. He then moved the amendment.

Mr. WOOD said the amendment would no doubt be accepted generally by the House. It certainly had the advantage of advancing the matter one stage further than the motion of the hon. member for the Thames;, but had that resolution not been carried another would have been put immediately to the same effect as that of the hon. gentleman at the head of the Government, namely that the House should immediately proceed to the consideration of the report of the Disqualification Committee. The desire of gentlemen on; that side of the House was that this knotty question should be in some way untied as soon as possible, so as to enable the House to proceed with the business of the country. Mr. DE LATJTOUK asked for the ruling of the Speaker as to whether in a case in which members of the House were unseated such members could remain in the House. _ He referred' to “ May’s Parliamentary Practice,” seventh edition.

The- SPEAKER said he could not find'- the particular page referred to, but the vote of any member could not be disallowed on a> question of public policy. Sir GEORGE GREY said the Hon. the Premier in moving his amendment had made remarks which he was not justified in making. His remarks regarding himself (the speaker) l and those who sat hear him, for instance, were entirely undeserved. Last night he (Sir George Grey) - had endeavored to bring forward this question in some form, but had not succeeded - , and he maintained that the Government were alone responsible for any delay in bringing on the business of the country. The SPEAKER said the hon, gentleman was quite right in asserting that he had endeavored to bring forward the matter previously.. . ■ ! The amendment was- then put and carried.

On the motion of Sir George Grey the report of the Disqualification Committee was read.

SirGEORGE GREYthenmoved,—ThatthisHouse concurs in- the report, brought :up by the Disqualification Committee on the 12th inst. .

The Hon, GEORGE McLEAN said’ the motion was one which should receive grave consideration before being agreed to. The Government had been led into their present difficulty not through any wilful carelessness,, and he believed it was yet a question whether the constitution of the Ministry was illegal, as many gentlemen of the legal profession were, still of opinion that there had been no infringement of the Disqualification Act, and therefore it was for the House to deal with the matter in a judicial spirit. Hon. members must be aware tbat so far as the Government were concerned not one of them would willingly violate the spirit; of that Act. (Hear hear.)' He then went on to refer to the manner in which the matter had been brought before the House, and described it as simply one of the Opposition’s attacks. He much regretted that the business of the country should be delayed and difficulties thrown in the way of the Government by paltry quibbles, and he much regretted the action taken by Sir George Grey, the great Proconsul, who by coming into that House and acting as he did had last his position and reputation. Why, what did he tell them the other night about sacrificing his money Mr. STOUT rose to a point of order, the hon. gentleman was not confining himself, to the subject under discussion.

The SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. gentleman is confining himself to the question before the House!

Mr. PYKE would like to know exactly what was the question, thinking it a pity that the Government should not be allowed to defend themselves against repeated attacks made upon them. The question was then stated definitely. The Hou. G. McLEAN said he was ready to submit to the ruling, but thought some indulgence should be allowed to members of the Government when they were subjected to repeated attacks. For himself he spoke with great feeling in the matter. The SPEAKER desired to point oat on this occasion that if one hon. member were to take advantage of such indulgence granted by the House others would take up the same position, and it would therefore be impossible for the Speaker to preserve order.

Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg tbat every possible indulgence shall be given on a debate of this kind, when I think rules of order should not be strictly enforced.

The Hon. G. McLEAN then said he would proceed, the hon. gentleman having given him permission (laughter). He told us the other night, amongst other things, that ho did not even draw his pension. Whatever else the speaker may have said was lost amongst cries of order, murmurs of dissent, and general disorder). Mr. STOUT rose again to a point of order, and requested that the subject before the House should be strictly adhered to. The SPEAKER said that he certainly understood it to be the opinion of the House, that indulgence should be allowed to the hon. member.

Mr. STOUT said that every member would claim the same latitude, and the debate might be contiuuad for three or four weeks. The SPEAKER 'acknowledg'd the difficulty, aud said he thought that he had explained very clearly to the House that such complications would arise in cases of this kind; but the House seemed to grant the indulgence, and therefore he had not arrested the gentleman in his speech.

The Hon. G. McLBAN continued his speech, not making any reference to the hon. member for the Thames, and concluded by calling upon those gentlemen who had a sense of honor and justice to back up the Government in the position they had assumed, so as to settle the question and proceed with the business of the country. Mr. DONALD REID said that the report as brought up by the committee was very meagre. It simply affirmed a fact, without giving any reasons to show that it was correct. He had not heard anything adduced as to the grounds of the decision, and he did not know to what extent the committee were of opinion that the Act had been infringed. He wished to know in what position he would be in giving his vote on this important question. He would like to know, in fact, to what extent the Government had infringed the Act. As far as he could understand the position was this : . The Government was reconstituted, coming down with nine members, presumably having overlooked the provisions of the Act that two of those members should be either native or half-castes. Then they justified themselves by telling the House -that two of the Executive did not receive salary. On inquiry it was found that because certain travelling allowances were attached to the offices of these two members they came within the provisions of the Disqualification Act. Then a doubt arose in favor of these members, inasmuch as while the House was sitting they did not receive travelling allowances, and. were consequently for the time being not disqualified. In order to remove the doubt resting on the whole question the Government resigned, and were reconstructed, with the proper number of Ministers. The report of, the committee was simply that the members of the Government had infringed the Act, but in his opinion something more should have been said by way of explanation, the Committee being composed of those best informed on the subject. He wisheditdistinctly to be understood that he did not think it wrong tor the Opposition to take advantage of auy laches by the Government to eject them from office, if by so doing they could give effeot to their own views ; but he did not wish to take advantage of neglect on the part of the Government, in order to create greater confusion. Until they had a party with common views, and likely to work together, it was useless to take action with a view to the overthrow of the Government, and such ' a .course was highly impolitic when they considered the meagre evidence before them on the subject. He felt that they were making too much of this question ; for if they laid down a rule that because a mistake like this occurred, they were justified in stopping the business of the country, then they would be making a precedent which would recoil on themselves, and generally have a prejudicial effect. As to the right of members of the Ministry to vote on this matter, they might as well say that every question arising in the House affected the Government. Mr. SEYMOUR said that as a member of the committee he should like to say a few words on the subject. He thought this case did not present any considerable difficulty. The committee had the benefit of an enormous amount of legal talent, for there were some six or seven of the most eminent lawyers in the colony amongst its members. He spoke for himself aud for other laymen on the committee when he said that the amount of legal opinions they received in discussing the question was positively overwhelming. It was not at all to be supposed that amongst so many legal gentlemen differences of opinion should not take place. Those gentlemen could not unanimously upon the question, but he felt bound to say that the majority of them did consider that the Act had been to a certain extent infringed. It appeared to him that this infringement was simply technical, and

the breach was certainly hot of the spirit of the Act. The Act provided that seven Ministers should receive salaries, and that occupants of the Ministerial bench were entitled to receive travelling allowances when the was not in session, but it was not shown for one instant that any more than seven members were in receipt of salaries, or were intended to receive galaxies. It was contended that they were intended to receive travelling expenses, and that thereby the Act had been infringed. So far only had the infringement gone. He had moved on the first, that the word “technical" should be introduced to show that the spirit *of the Act had not been contravened, and secondly, that the disqualification was on account of these travelling allowances, but he was unable to carry either of the motions. After referring to the proposed Indemnity Bill of the Government, he concluded by Saying that he did not see how the question could interfere with the seats of the gentlemen who had been anew sworn in as members of the Ministry, . , The Hon. Major ATKINSON said that the speeches of the last two hon. members seemed to put the case clearly before the House, and expressed regret that the matter should have been for one moment treated os a party question. He was really disappointed at the action taken by the Opposition, because he had announced yesterday or on the previous day that he should ask on the day following for leave to introduce a Bill which would remove all doubts as to the position of the Ministry collectively and individually, and then the discussion would have come on in the ordinary course. The Disqualification Act was passed to protect the purity of the House, and not to entrap hon. members on technicalities. He would ask the House if it really thought there had been any corrupt motive in appointing nine members of tbe Ministry. If anybody thought so, they should make their belief known, and then the matter could be fairly discussed. If they intended to displace the Ministry with a view to carry out another policy, he should not blame them ; but what they wanted to know was, if it was a mere technicality. If the latter, he would call upon the Opposition to assist the Government in remedying it. With the view of' meeting what he believed to be the desire of the House and the country, he would move tbe following amendment:—-That this House is of opinion it is expedient that a Bill should be forthwith introduced and dealt with as a matter of urgency, to indemnify members of the Executive Council from the disqualifications and penalties imposed by tbe Disqualification: Act, 1870, and the Civil List Act Amendment Act, 1873, in respect of their appointments. This would bring thematter to a direct issue.

Mr. STOUT said this amendment would shelve the report of the committee, and was inconsistent with the former ruling of the Speaker. The SPEAKEB pointed out that the acceptance of the amendment would not be inconsistent with the ruling he had given pre-

viously. Mr. MOOBHOUSE, as one of the members of the committee, said that he had dissented from the report as brought down to the House, because he had anticipated the difficulty pointed out by the hon, member for the Taieri. In order to avoid that difficulty, a suggestion, overruled by the majority, was made, to the effect that the committee should embody in their, report an instruction to the House as to whether the infringement of the law was corrupt' or otherwise. If such an expression of opinion had been embodied in the report, it would have been very much respected, considering the constitution of the committee, and it would have saved the House a great deal of trouble. He asked the hon. member for the Thames if he believed that the Government were not actuated by. corrupt motives why he did not assist them to proceed with the business of the country ? Let him pursue his own private enterprises (referring to the issue of writs) as far as he would, but the House had a right to ask him to refrain from delaying the business of the country.

Mr. ROLLESTON said that this should not be made a party question. It appeared to him that there was no doubt in the minds of the committee that the Act had been infringed; but it rested with the House to say whether the seats of the Ministry were affected or not. It seemed to him that the amendment of the Hon. the Premier should scarcely come as an amendment, but might be put as a substantive motion when the other had been disposed of. The course they should pursue was this : They should say they agreed with the opinion expressed by the committee, but that after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, they did not think that the seats of the hon. gentlemen were affected. He then expressed his intention of supporting the Indemnity Bill, and hoped the Government would see their way to withdraw the amendment. Mr. STOUT said the two hon. gentlemen who had complained of the report not being specific enough were themselves to blame in consequence of the action they had taken. It had been said that the report should have contained an opinion that there was no corrupt intention, and consequently that the Ministry were not seriously to blame; but they seemed altogether to forget that men could only be judged by their acta; thus, if one man were to kill another he could not be saved from hanging by saying that he had no bad intention. As to what had been said regarding the delay of the business of the country, he contended that there was no more important question than this, which affected the purity of the House and privilege of members. He hoped the House would let the report be tested. The Government endeavored to frustrate this, and to bring in an Indemnity Bill by a sidewind. . The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD, after referring to the speech of the hon. member for Dunedin, said that the report of the committee was altogether incorrect as a matter of fact, because the Disqualification Act, to which it alone referred, had not been infringed, although the Civil List Act of 1873, to which no reference was made, might have been. There was actually no provision in the Disqualification Act to prevent there being' any number of Ministers. The committee ought not to have omitted all mention of the Civil List Act, 1873, by which the Disqualification Act was further amended and defined. Ho might, state that the Civil List Act was passed principally at his own instance. There were gentlemen present in the House who would remember that he had at that time urged some limitation of the number of the Ministry, and he did so because the Ministry of which Mr. Waterhouse was Premier was the largest the country had ever had, and he foresaw that if an alteration in the number was made whenever a new Ministry was formed, a dangerous practice would grow up. No doubt if the two Acts had been read together there was an infringment of the law. It was a matter for regret that no mention was made of the two Acta in the Journals of the House. There was one statement advanced by the hon. member for Avon, to which he thought it necessary to allude, viz.; that the House was bound to concur with the report of the committee. That was an erroneous impression, for no greater mistake could be made than to relegate to any committee the power to state what course the House should adopt. The duty of a select committee was mainly to record facts, and possibly, but not directly, to express an opinion as to whether action should or should not be taken in any particular direction. He thought that the course suggested by the hon. member for Avon was one which the Government might see their way to adopt. Mr. MONTGOMERY was of opinion that the two additional members had clearly brought themselves within the provisions of the Disqualification Act. He pointed out further that there was no difficulty in deciding who the members were that had rendered themselves liable ; each member had, he presumed, been sworn in individually, and clearly the two last Ministers that accepted office had infringed the Act, and were liable to tho.penalty mentioned in that Act.

Hr. MURRAY next spoke. Ho regretted that personality should have been introduced into the debate, and that so much delay had been occasioned, and expressed the opinion

that those best acquainted with the subject should have given the House more complete informationjin orderto avoid suchdelay. Further, he stated that the Government having evidently infringed the law, should go to their constituents again ; othefwise they would be simply, the nominees of that House. ,

Mr.’THOMSON thought the hon. member; for Waikato was alone to blame, as he possessed the reputation of being a very able lawyer, and should have guarded the Ministry against any action which would place them iu a position so uncertain.and untenable. He thought the Government deserved-very little consideration in this matter. Those gentlemen could not* again ; be placed in the'position .of representatives of the different constituencies; who elected them ;" they . would simply be nominees of the House. The Hon. Mr, BOWEN replied to the lasi; speaker; pointing out that although that gentleman had expressed the desire , that; the matter should be treated judicially, yet he himself exhibited a large amount of prejudice in speaking to the question, 'He proceeded to point out that the. case of: the Marquis of Hartington was a very much stronger case than the one now being discussed, inasmuch as the appointment of a fifth Under-Secretary was done in the teeth of an-express Act'of Parliament, arid after that the Under-Secret tary sat and voted for a year before being dist covered, and then all sides of the House'joined in making the matter l right; and if that had not been done, public opinion was strong enough to compel them to do so.' That was one reason why the House of Commons of England never got itself into such a state of confusion as was the case here. He then proceeded to allude to the action taken by the Opposition, making special reference to Sir George Grey, and expressed disapprobation of the course which that gentleman had taken in issuing civil processes outside the House. -' Sir GEOBGE GREY rose; to a point of order, stating that a' gentleman behind him (alluding to Mr. Pykej had made use of an extremely personal and distasteful remark, having reference to himself. Mr. PYKE said that he had used the word discreditable.

The SPEAKEB: The hon. gentleman is entirely out of order. Mr. PYKE: Surely I was not out of order in speaking to myself. I did not intend to be overheard.

The SPEAKEB; I think the remark exceedingly out of place, and that the hon, gentleman ought to apologise. Mr PYKE : I , apologise for being overheard, and will take an opportunity of saying publicly what I then said. I regret extremely that the hon. gentleman tried to overhear what I said. He appears to have very sharp powers of hearing. The SPEAKEB : X think the hon._ gentleman ought to withdraw the offensive expression. Mr. PYKE : I cannot withdraw it, because I entirely meant what X said ; but I will explain the whole matter if I am allowed time. The SPEAKEB : I am very sorry that the hon. member does not see the necessity of at once retracting ; there should not be any delay in a matter of the kind, Mr. PYKE ; My difficulty is this. f I do not wish to interfere with the rules of.the House, or to take up its time ; but if I am accused of making use of a particular expression,' which was caught by the . hon. member for the Thames, I must be permitted to make an explanation, I would ask for permission^to state that it was a phrase used without any intention of being overheard by any person whatever. I was making a sort of running commentary on what was taking place. The SPEAKEB : It is not for me to apologise for the hon. gentleman. I have stated my opinion on the subject. Mr. PYKE : Do I understand you, sir, that an apology to the- House is necessary for- an expression which was not intended to be overheard.

Mr. MONTGOMEBY; He repeated the offensive expression. , ‘ Mr. PYKE : In making use of the term discreditable I spoke to myself, and I regret that it should have reached the ears of the hon. gentleman for the Thames ; but I will now say publicly that it is discreditable that any hon. member should place himself in the position of a common informer, and that is what the member for the Thames has done.

Mr. WASON : I move that those words be taken down.

Mr. PYKE : I second it. The words having been taken down and read. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said he hoped the Honse would not proceed further with this matter. He trusted that the hon. member for the Thames would see that the expression complained of could have no intended application to himself ; while it must be acknowledged that if such freedom of speech were allowed it would lead to great confusion in the House. He hoped the hon. gentleman would see his way to meet the views of the House by expressing sorrow for the use of the expiession. '

Sir GEORGE GREY remarked that the words as taken down agreed with expressions having reference to himself which had been uttered by the Hon. G. McLean, and he thought it was justice to which he was entitled that the words should be taken down, because the position which he occupied in the matter would be made manifest in the eyes of the country. Personally, he entirely pardoned what Mr. Pyke had said. Mr. MURRAY said that the hon. member for the Dunstan and another gentleman sitting by him continually made remarkswhioh were very offensive to gentlemen sitting in Mr. Murray's direction, and it was impossible not to overhear them.

Mr. DE LAUTOUR moved that, Mr. Pyke be suspended from attending the House during the remainder of the session. Mr. MACFARLANE thought a good deal too much had been made of the matter. He could prove by Hansard that the same words and words more offensive had been made use of in the House over and over again.

The question that the words be taken down was then put and carried. ■ Mr. PYKE then said he extremely regretted that a habit of his (which had often before led hiw into similar difficulty) should have paused him to make use of an expression which was overheard by the hon. member for the Thames. And owing to his having been checked by that gentleman, he had made a further statement, in which he exceeded the limits allowed. He regretted that he had doue so, and would ask the permission of, the House to withdraw it.

Mr. PYKE then retired on the Speaker intimating that he should do so. Mr. CARRINGTON moved that Mr. Pyke's withdrawal be accepted by the House. Mr. WASON moved as an amendment that the hon. member receive the censure of the House for the very intemperate language he had made use of.

Captain RUSSELL said if the hon. gentleman were censured for the words he had made use of there would be an end to liberty of speech in debate. The word complained of had been used by the hon. member for the Thames in that House hundreds of times. Mr. WASON pointed out that the hon. member, if he had used such words at all, had used them in a Parliamentary sense. (Laughter). The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said although the language used by the hon. member for the Dunstan was not Parliamentary, yet it was mild in comparison with language used by the hon. memhor for the Thames frequently when speaking of the Ministry. Mr. READER WOOD said, with reference to the action taken by Sir George Grey jin issuing writs, that he'was perfectly .justified, because under certain circumstances the course he had adopted was the only one open to expel members from the House, and he (Mr. Wood) thought that that gentleman had taken thejonly constitutional course open to him to determine whether or not a certain person was qualified to sit in that House.

Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS regretted that Mr. Wood should have deemed it necessary to defend a private action of Sir George Grey’A, and he thought the latter should accept Mr. Fyke’s expression of regret for having used the words complained of.

Sir GEOBGE OBEY, desired:before the question was put to say a few ; words, in explanation of his own position, . Ihe terna common informer ’* him sheen* applied to him within the wallsof that House,and itwasanqces-, sary consequence that the termwould.be heardj not only throughout this couritry,but elsewhere. ■ He was perfectly aware that 'in: this case so, violent was party feeling! that a person daring to take the' steps which he had considered it his duty to take would be subjected, to such harsh language. .He thought, however,-that it was a case in which some man should ([ step for-, ward who dared to do this in advance of wha-t he; considered his duty. He dared:.to do so. But he was not altogether: unsupported by ■authority in the'course he. had adopted, for it .would be . remembered that, the Hon. the Premier had stated that under certain circumstances it Was necessary ' that • some member should take that precise step outside the House. .He determined therefore to do it,, and to take the risk of expense - . He expected no emolument - believed he had the intention, .of-taking .one? penny from persons who might be found, guilty, then all he could say was that he . pitied them, j’He believed that civil servants in both .Houses were' * unlawfully, appointed,,; and lieved that Ministers had i-nQ, : j.right to their seats, and he- determined: their precise position according to law. .The principle at ’stake was, that if gentlemen who had forfeited their seats Could remain thf re at the pleasure of the Government or the House, then all true representation in : New Zealand was gone. It meant simply that this Chamber should'become a nominated Chamber, as was the case with the Legislative Council. He 'denied that this House had powerby any Act to take from the people their rights in this respect. He proceeded to say that until he issued those writs the Ministry took no action to set themselves right. - He had acted to the best of his judgment for the public good, and had had no private object in view whatever. He had sacrificed himself in'the interests of the public, and he was sure it would be a matter of regret to many that Ue should be compelled to sit in that House and 1 hear behind him,, made in an audible voice, expressions of a most insulting character.* •- ' • f r r ’ The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the hon. gentleman had misrepresented him in oho particular. What he did say with respect to civil actions was that inquiries into the 1 conduct of persons who had had transactions with the Government should be made in courts of law, not that such matters as -this should be taken there ; on the contrary, ho invited the member for the Thames to discuss the question of the position of the Ministry, and s he drew a great distinction between the two oases. On the subject of the issuing of writs he differed from the hon; gentleman, regarding it is a most undignified and unprecedented' thing for the leader of an Opposition to issue writs to recover penalties from the Government; and further, the hon. gentleman' did not issue the writs until some time after one. House had dealt with the matter, and the other Jiad it under consideration. ...

The amendment was then put, and a division taken, the result being that it wasjnegatived by 35 t 032; and the originalmotion, that the House accept Mr. Pyke’s withdrawal of the offensive expression, was carried. ' ' " ' . _ . J ,Mr. STOUT said on occasions like.these in England it had been the rule for, , both the Ministry and Opposition to unite in, condemning disorderly language, and he, iregretted to' see that the Government here had taken the position they had done. The House,was noyv entering upon a bitter party warfare, and,the Government would by treating/the leader of the Opposition as they were doing be acting injudiciously, ■ seeing that supply had not . been granted, and an Indemnification Act not. passed. Asleaders of the HousetheGovernment would be responsible if, in consequence of the bad feeling arising from the ill-advised action of the Government, the session terminated in a very peculiar manner. He moved addition of the following words to. the motion: — “ And regrets the : use of such intemperate and disorderly language.” V : - '■ ■ The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the attitude assumed by the hon. member for Dunedin was not justifiable, because the Government had at the outset expressed regret at the language. But the House knew very well that worse language had been used in the House at an earlier period of the' session,'and the Government objected-to one hon. member being singled out for censure because of party spirit. It would have been much better had the result of the division been accepted, and the matter allowed to drop, , Mr. SWANSON laid particular stress on the fact that the hon. member for the Dunstan 'had not respected the ruling of the Speaker, but by demurring to apologise. After some remarks from Sir Bobebt Douglas and Hr. Bees, a division was taken on the amendment.

The SPEAKER put the question, and declared the ayes to have it. 1 Mr. MOORHOUSE said there had been a mistake, as he had called for a division. The SPEAKER ruled that the matter had been disposed of. 1 Mr. PYKE having been conducted to the ■bar"of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, The SPEAKER read to him the resolution which had been come to by the House.

Mr. PYKE thanked the House for the kindly manner in which it had been pleased to deal with his offence, and trusted that his punishment wouidlead toa better feeling being imported into the debates' of the Houee'than had been shown during the past time of the session. 7 ;

The Hon. Mr/ BOWEN resumed'Tub remarks on the original question,‘ahd pointed out that at most there J was 'biit a l 'technical matter at issue. • ' ; •" ,

Mr. REES went at length into' the legal aspect of the question, and said the only way. to'get out of the difficulty would be for. Ministers to go to their constituents. He spoke in no party spirit, and would .be quite willing to accept an adjournment of the House, for he recognised it would be improper to have the remnant of the Government party and the Opposition to. fight for office. .He, contended, strongly that they had forfeited their seats, and said it was his, firm and deliberate opinion that unless the Ministers went to the icountry they would incur liability: to the full penalty ■ for every day 'throughout the Parliament. It was said the Government had, no.intention of breaking the law. That might be the case, but that did not affect the question in the least; there could be no doubt but that the law had been broken. He inquired if. Ministers, would not obey the law how could private members-be expected to keep within the' fohr comers of the Disqualification : ; Act.? Years ago the lion, member for Akafoa (Mr. Montgomery) when holding a seat, in the. House accidently discovered that he was indirectly interested in contracts with the Government. He went to the Attorney-General and to the Speaker and found himself disqualified. There ’ was no Indemnification Bill then,. Why.should there be a difference in the law as administered to different persons? Still an Indemnity Act could not mend the matter in this instance. If the hon. gentlemen were to ho made members by a chance majority passing a Bill, the House might be filled without any elections at all. Again, supposing the Act could make them members, before that Bill was passed they were strangers, and had no. right whatever to take part in the proceedings in the meantime, and certainly had, no right to help to pass a Bill making, .themselves members. For their own sakes it would be .best for the hon. gentlemen to face the matter boldly and go to their constituents. ■ . ■. ,

,Mr. JOHNSTON, considered no sufficient reason had;been given to prove to his mind that there had been disqualification. : There seemed 'to be an assumption ;that travelling allowances were indispensable to the acceptance of office, but he denied the correctness o£ : the assumption; and more evidence must, be produced before he could recognise there had been disqualification at all. ; .

The Hon. Mr. WHITAKER, said’he denied there had been any disqualification, had denied it in the first instance, and further consideration had only strengthened his cohvictidn. ;: He had also been confirmed in his opinion by another legal gentleman in Wellington/ whose name if it were ' mentioned would command respect’’for r: 'his ' opinion, who read the

law. in a manner similar to that in which? ■.he; (Mr. ■ Whitaker) had read it, with this' ‘difference, - that he thought one . member had; been disqualified. As to Mr. Rees’ advice, Ministers were very much obliged to him for it, but.could not accept it, because they con-' • sidered his law bad law.. ■ The,.House, and not the Supreme Court, was the , proper tribunal to i consider whether seats ; had been .vacated. It was one of the. privileges of Parliament to determine questions affecting the seats of its mem- . hers., He,referred ,to the cases of Sadler and John, Mitchell, to show the course adopted by the,;House of , Commons,was not te.refer.jques-: tions affecting seats of members to the courts.' The question of penalties alone could be sub-, mitted to jthe court.: t The Government would take, the constitutional ■ course, and .must decline to go to their,constituents.,, , iT r I ,(• Mr. DE LAUTOUR spoke at considerable length, declaring that if the wrong done ;by the Ministry were condoned, by Act of Parliament, he as a member of the Otago, Provincial Council should feel at liberty to serve .his, province in preference to, the, colony, trusting to the future to provide indemnification. , ... , Mr. SHARP said aftey, all it,was a question of opinion as to whether the Ministry. had been disqualified, and the only way of settling , the doubt was to pass a declaratory Act upon the subject. There ought to be no,difficulty in passing the Act, seeing that the law had not been infringed wilfully and corruptly, that the Ministry had not drawn the allowances, and that they were at most technically guilty of a breach of,the Act., Por the sake of a technicality the business of the country should not be thrown into confusion. Dr. Hodgkinson ; and Mr. Lumsden having addressed the House, ~ . Mr. READER WOOD said he thought the House Was scarcely treating the Disqualification Committee- fairly. The House first approve the report, and then consider the amendment. The report of the committee, the resignation of the old Ministry, the appointment of the new, and the Indemnification, Act, all went .to show that the Disqualification Act had been infringed. That being so, the consequence was, according to the Act, that the seat of the person who had infringed it had become vacant., The only-course to be adopted to properly fill .those seats was to issue new writs, and not to call members to a seat by an Indemnity Act,’ ‘ 1 ’ 1 ■ ■' Mr. HARPER said the effect of the report was that the law was' vague,; and that the House must decide what was to'be done. Mr. BALLANCE spoke of party bias being visible in theideliberations of the committee,. and said there had been a strong opinion in the. committee that the House should be advised as to the best course to be followed. The view held by a large portion of the committee was that perhaps there had been no infringement, at any rate there had only been an infringe-, meat on the assumption that travelling allowance were allowable during the session, which assumption was scarcely warranted. ’ How-, ever, the committee had agreed that there was a technical infringement of the Act; But this was,to be said where a’committee had. been about equally divided by party feeling;: the report of that committee should not have too much weight attached; to it. ,He deprecated 'the' threats'; of, the ‘ hen. member; for Mount Ida, and 1 said the ,hon. member 5 had. better remember thac moral suasion was,much, the more effective in the end. ' Discussing the- ; question' further he submitted there were great • doubts as to whether ihe Act had been’invaded at all; certainly it had not been invaded substantially; and he asked who was to decide? Could the House, untrained and unskilled in law, definitely settle a difficult legal question ? Did it ■ not, after Ml resolve itself into, a question of propriety—the ‘ only purpose of the (Act was ; to, protect the purity, of the, House.Could anyone'say the purity of the House had’ been affected by the technical [.breach of Ihelaw? He thought not., He referred to the fact that in England, where there was a host of legal, officials-to .advise the Government in every act, these mistakes had occurred, andconsidered it was unjust .’to punish ■ Ministers as severely as had been proposed, for a technical' error which had not at all affected the observance of the main principles of the Act. He deprecated sending such a case to a court of law, because the House would deal with matters,on broad grounds of public policy and constitutional principle,, and not on mere technicalities. He hoped the House would deal with the matter in a fair manner, and not cast members in .heavy penalties because of an • inadvertence. If the amendment were carried he should move an addition to it as follows : And further, it having been referred to the , Disqualification Committee, No. 2, to consider whether any of the provisions of, the Die-' qualification Act of 1870 have been infringed by the then existing Government, and the committee having reported that tKe provisions of the Act of 1870 have been infringed, this House resolves,underthe special circumstances, the seats of the hon. [members should not; be vacated, and are not vacated.;/

Mr. , WAKEFIELD at some length pointed out how he considered that the members of the Ministry) had exhibited a large divergence... of opinion, on. .this matter,-, and supported the report; bf , the Disqualification Committee. Mr. HUNTER, pointed out that Mr. Wakefield had gone altogether' 'on - the " assumption that the report of the committee disqualified the entire Ministry, was fight; and that the House must endorse it.' As a mattter of fact, the report was merely' brought up for consider ration by the House, ,ahd the Government by their action, invited,.fair discussion. If the House unhesitatingly supported the decision of the committee, they .would, abrogate their rights and privileges. as the supreme Legislature in New Zealand. The Parliament fairly the ;colony,and through them alone the .people cbuid'be governed. Therefore, if any mistake had been made, it was inadvertent; and the Government; having shown every desire . to; advance the business of ithe country,and having commanded amajorityin the House, should not, by the action of the .House, be committed to! such a construction as the adoption of the repOrt would indicate! . Mr. SWANSON thought that 'right was fight, whether a' majority ; orj. a minority uttered it. , The, Government had frequently challenged, the' .Opposition , to. teethe, presentquestion V.in the law courts of, the colony; (Expressions of dissent from the .Ministerial benches.) Mr,. Swanspu read passages from Hahsani in support of his assertions. Mr. HISLOP haying disclaimed party motives in the .conduct of the 'debate, Sif Geobob Obey moved the Adjournment of the debate, in order to reply , (after'a feur hours preparation). to attacks made ’ upon himself. ‘ —The' Hon., Major Atkinson opposed the 'adjournment.—A discussion having ensued, the motion for adjournment was lost’ on the ■ voices.-, .. The Government amendment to the original question was then put and ,declared carried on the voices. A division was called for and taken, with the .result, for the Government, 36; against,, 24. The following Is the division list;- ■ ■ .i ■ For Government: 3G— Messrs. Atkinson, BallancC, B.irfr, Bowen, Brown (J. E), Bryce, Carrington, Cox, Gibbs, Harper, Hunter, Hursthooso. Johnston (teller), Kelly (teller), Kennedy, Maofnrlano, McLean (Sir D.). McLean (G.), Moorhouso, Morris, Ormond, Pyko, Reid (D.), Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, Eowo, Russell, Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, ; Stevens, ! Tribe, Whitaker, Williams, and Woolcoofc. . Aijainsi Government'. 2/,—Messrs...Balgent,’ Brandon, Do Lautour (toller), Dignan, Fisher, Grey, Hlslop, Larnach, Lnmsdcn, Macnndrew, Montgomery, O’Eorke,' Eeos (toller), Eolleston, Seaton, Stout, Swanson, Thomson, Tole, Tonka, Wakelleld, Wason, Wood (R. GA and Wood (W.) , . .. Mr. SHEEHAN moved a further amendment, providing that the proposed Indemnity Bill , not, prevent ‘the money penalties sought for .now in the law courts being, recovered,'|'and also that the Disqualification Committee should be*instructed to reconsider, their report; and, name,the meniber or members of the Ministry’disqualified. The Goverumbut declined, to accept the amendment; 1 Along discussion ensued. I , After considerable 1 .discussion,. Mr. Sheehan’s amendment was negatived. , 1 .. ’ ,' Mr, BALLANCE then proposed an amendment, reading in substance that .oven adniit,ing the correctness of the report of the committee, still the House should declare that Ministers had not vacated their seats.—The Governiaedt intimated . their, willingness to accept this, amendment. ' [Left sitting.]