PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4834, 19 September 1876, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, September 18. The House resumed at 10 o’clock. The Acting-Speaker took the chair. Mr. DE LAUTOUR, in continuing his address, made reference to the Public Works Statement. The Hon. E. RICHARDSON objected to the Public Works policy being discussed on the motion before the House. Mr. O’RORKE, who was in the chair, ruled that the hon. member was out of order. Air. DE LAUTOUR then proceeded, and said he would deal with the matter on a broader basis by discussing the paternal character of the Government legislation on this subject. About midday Air. De Lautour, evidently acting on instructions, brought hia remarks to an abrupt close, and there was an immediate rush of Opposition members into the House, their intention apparently being to snatch a division.

Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS then rose and spoke for a few minutes until the Government reinforcements arrived.

Mr. HISLOP followed, and said that he had been unable to catch the remarks of the hon. member for Marsden, but complained of his action in preventing the great question before the House from being decided by a division. All through Mr. Hislop’s remarks there was considerable activity displayed by Opposition members ; and some arrangement evidently having been come to, he concluded at 12.30.

The motion for adjournment was then put to a division with the following result ; Noes, 34 ; Ayes, 23 ; majority for the Government, 11. The following are the names of the members who voted on the occasion;— Noes : Messrs. Atkinson, Ballance, Bowen. Brown J. E., Bryce, Bunny, Carrington, Curtis, Douglas, Gibbs, Harper, Henry, Kelly, Kennedy, Kenny, Maofarlane, Manders. McLean Sir D., McLean G., Morris (teller) Fyke, Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond (teller), Rolleston, Rowe, Sharp, Stevens, Taiaroa, Wakefield, Wason. Whitaker, Williams, and Woolcock. Ayes : Messrs. Brown J, C., Burns, De Lautour. Dignan, Grey, Hislop, Joyce, Lnmsden, Macandrew. Murray, Nahe, Rees (teller), Seaton. Sheehan, Shrimski, Stout (teller), Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, Tonks, Wood R. G., and Wood W.

: Mr. STOUT then rose as to a point of privilege, and said that the question of adjournment having been disposed of, he would like to know whether or not the debates were to be reported in future? Air. O’RORKE said that they were virtually proceeding with the same debate, and ho understood that it was impossible for it to be reported. The Hon. Air. REYNOLDS said that they could not expect the staff to be able to report, considering the continued late sittings. Mr. STOUT said that when the Estimates came before the House he intended to object to any vote for the Hansard staff. Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS said that he understood the Speaker to have said that it was physically impossible to report the debate. Air. SHEEHAN said that provision ought to be made. Mr. REES asked if Air. Ballance’s amendment was in order? It really was not, in his opinion, an amendment bn the motion of the Hon Ala jor Atkinson. Air. O’RORKE ruled that the amendment was in order.

Mr. MAC ANDREW said that as the debate was not to be reported, the sooner they went to a division on the main question the better.

Mr. W. WOOD thought that the minority might feel proud of their present position. (Derisive applause.) Mr. BURNS said that at an early hour on Friday he had moved that strangers be ordered to withdraw. He did this from a wish to relieve the reporters, and he would like to know who it was had instructed these men not to report. The Speaker and the Chairman of the Reporting Debates Committee had both said that they had given no instructions on the matter at all, and as there had been a division on the subject, which waa carried by a large majority, he would like to know who had taken upon himself the responsibility of giving any orders to the reporters. Mr. O’RORKE said that he had just seen the Speaker, who said that he was a consenting party to the non-reporting of the debate. Mr. Ballance’s amendment, that the following words be added to the original motion ferred to the Disqualification Committee, No. 2, to consider whether any of the provisions of the Disqualification Act of 1870 have been infringed by the then existing Government, and the committee having reported that the provisions of the Act of 1870 have been infringed, this House resolves, under the special circumstances, the seats of the hon. members should not be vacated, and are not vacated,” —was then put, and the bell rung for a division.

On the doors being looked. Sir George Ghet referred to an alteration having been made in the amendment by the insertion of the word “ the.” He objected to the alteration, and requested that the amendment should be put in its original form. Sir EGBERT DOUGLAS said that the Speaker had given orders that the word “ the” should be inserted in the report on last sitting day. Mr. O’RORKB said the amended report was being printed. The Hon. Major ATKINSON intimated that the Government had no objection to the alteration.

Mr. STOUT said that the onus rested with the House. The Speaker had only ordered an alteration in the report, and not in the amendment, and he submitted that the word “ the ” must be omitted.

Mr. BALLANCE explained that at the time he introduced his amendment he was not aware that there was any error in the printed copy of the report, and that he would like the word to be inserted. Mr. O’RORKE ruled that the word “ the ’ must be omitted.

The House then divided on tho amendment with tho following result: —Ayes, 38; noea, 24. Majority for tho Government, 14. The following are tho names of those who voted :

Ayes: Messrs. Atkinson, Ballance (teller), Barff, Bowen, Brown J. K., Bryce, Bunny, Carrington, Curtis, Douglas, Gibbs, Harper, Homy, Johnston, Kelly, Kennedy, Kenny, Maefarlane, Menders,

McLean Sir D., McLean G., Montgomery, Moorhouse, Morris, Fyke, Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, Rolleston, Rowe, Sharp (teller), Stevens, Taiaroa, Tribe, Wason, Whitaker, Williams, and Woolcock. Noes; Messrs. Brown J. C., Burns, De Lautour (teller), Dignan, Fisher, Grey, Hislop (teller), Joyce, Lurasden, Macandrew, Murray, Nahe, Bees, Seaton, Sheehan, Shrimski, Stent, Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, Tonks, Wood B. G., and Wood W. Mr. MURRAY then rose and said he wished to avoid even the appearance of factious opposition. Sir GEORGE GREY then requested that the debate should be reported, and Mr. O’Robke said he would not interfere.—After Mr. Stodi had repeated the remark he had previously made on the subject, Mr. Murray proceeded, and said that he for one would be no party to wasting the time of the House. On a previous occasion he had voted in favor of the reporters leaving the gallery, for there was no real advantage to be gained in having debates of such a character as the present reported. The Ministers jointly and severally had in his opinion broken the law, and were in a most difficult position. It would be a most dangerous precedent if the House were to condone their offence. It had been urged upon many members that they should vote for the Premier’s motion, because if they did not, the Ministry might have to face their constituencies, and if they were not returned, might be succeeded by a Provincialist Ministry. He hoped the House would not sanction or agree to any breach of the law. In every other community under the British Crown the Ministry or advisers of the Governor were, on being appointed, compelled to face their constituents. He would move as an amendment that the following be added;— “ Although it may tend to create a dangerous and objectionable precedent to sanction any evasion of laws by persons high in authority, whose example should be that of obedience to the laws which they themselves have made.” The Hon, MAJOR ATKINSON said that the Government of course could not agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Bruce, because it virtually meant that they had broken the law, which they were not prepared to admit. As to the statement by Mr, Murray that in any other community under English rule they would have to face their constituents under circumstances similar to the present, he must say that in England itself when there was a mere change of offices like the present Ministers were not compelled to offer themselves for re-election.

Sir GEORGE GREY requested an adjourn, ment until 2.30.

Air. O’RORKE said that personally he would like to leave the chair.

The Hon. Alajor ATKINSON said that the Government would not object on the present occasion, but were going to ask the Speaker to occupy the chair continuously. (Loud applause.) Air, O’RORKE left the chair at 1 p.m., intimating that the House would resume at 2 o’clock.

The Speaker resumed the chair a little after two, and Sir GEORGE GREY immediately rose to a point of order, on which he requested the Speaker’s ruling. He (Sir G. Grey) had brought down a motion which had been traversed by an amendment of the Premier. This amendment had been itself amended by the addition of the words proposed by the hon. member for Rangitikei. The hon. member for Bruce now proposed an additional amendment. He would like to know whether, if he spoke on Air. Alurray’s amendment, he could afterwards speak on the main question. The SPEAKER said that he did not think the hon. member if he spoke to the amendment could afterwards speak on the main question. Sir GEORGE GREY then proceeded, and said he presumed that in speaking to the question then before the House he could refer to all the circumstances which had arisen during the previous debate. He hardly knew what position her Majesty’s Government occupied in the House. He had understood the Premier to have stated on two separate occasions that the Ministry had resigned and been reappointed, and that they were so far a new Ministry as not to he bound by the acts of their predecessors. Just before the adjournment the Premier had stated, in reply to the hon. member for Bruce, that there had been merely a change of offices in the Ministry. This last statement was utterly irreconcileable with his previous utterances, and he (Sir G. Grey) could not understaud.it.

, Mr. MACANDREW again raised the question of the debate not being reported. Previous to the adjournment a statement had been made that it was on the authority of Mr. Speaker that the Hansard staff had not reported the debate. They were not now speaking against time, but on the question. The SPEAKER said that the Hansard staff had acted without his sanction. He had given instructions on the matter, and had received a letter from Mr. Barron, which he had read to the House. He was not aware what had been done since, but it was the duty of the reporters to go on so long as their powers could last. Air. AIACANDREW said that he was anxious to know what course was to be adopted in future ?

The SPEAKER said he had just received a letter, and the debate was now being reported.

After some remarks from the Hon. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Burns, who expressed an opinion that there was some undercurrent at work, Sir George Gbet proceeded, and said he was very grateful for the statement the Speaker had last made, because he was more than ordinarily anxious that the debate should be reported, as the Government had, by means he could not approve of, acquired a control over the Press, which had been exercised for the purpose of preventing himself and the hon. gentlemen who supported him from being reported. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the last statement of the hon. member for the Thames was absolutely against fact, and without foundation ; and it was only because the House was accustomed to such statements from the hon. member that he did not ask that the words be taken down.

Sir GEORGE GREY ; I ask that my words be taken down.

The SPEAKER ; Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to repeat the words, in order that they may be taken down. (Cries of “No” from the Opposition.)

Mr. MURRAY remarked that the words had been taken down in Hansard already, and expressed sorrow that so much acrimony had been displayed during the progress of the debate. Mr. WILLIAMS said the House should insist that the words be taken down.

Sir GEORGE GREY requested that the chief reporter of Hansard be asked to furnish the House with the words, and then they could be taken down. Mr. STOUT said such a course was without precedent, and was contrary to the custom of the English House of Commons. The SPEAKER ruled against Mr. Stout, saying that the hon. member for the Thames was entirely in order. Mr. HUNTER thought it really desirable that the words should be taken down. They had no foundation in fact, and it would he unfair to permit charges to pass unchallenged against persons who really did not deserve the censure cast upon them. He believed that every effort bad been made by the Press to give impartial reports of the proceedings in Parliament. (Cries of “Oh!”) Some hon. members might think differently, hut it was his privilege to assert what he thought, and it was his opinion that every effort had been made by the Press representing both parties to give, so far as means and facilities offered, fair and impartial reports. He for one should be very glad to see the words taken down, because he had on more than one occasion noticed that speeches made in tho House were very much altered when they appeared in J/ansard y and matters of a very important character had been thus treated. A Voice : Name an instance.

Mr. HUNTER said he was not required to give the name. No member had any right to demand that of him. He could if necessary bring forward proof that what he had said was perfectly correct. Mr. ROLBESTON said they had nothing whatever to do with tho Press. If the pro-

ceediuga were hot truthfully and fairly reported there was, he supposed, a remedy. But he thought the Press was quite capable of taking care of itself, and he hoped the House would discuss all questions before the House on their merits, and apart from the Press altogether. Air. STOUT said the local Press were extremely unfair. The New Zealand Times, for instance, had deliberately misrepresented the Opposition, and had neglected to report their speeches. He took up the Turns of that day and found he was reported to remark on some words of the member for Alount Ida, while as a matter of fact he wes not in the House at the time, and had never said a word about it. The Times never lost an opportunity of making misrepresentations. He then referred to some telegrams sent by the special correspondent of the Otago Daily Times with respect to the Opposition, and, inferred that the telegrams were sent in the interests of the Alinistry. He admitted that the evening papers had not rendered themselves so objectionable, but the morning paper had deliberately misrepresented the Opposition members from the beginning of the session. He could quite understand that the member for the Thames should say the public Press of the colony was under the control of the Government, and it looked very much like it when the editors of papers were received in the private rooms of Ministers, the result of such interviews generally being that they saw in the leading columns subsequently that Alinisters say so-and-so. After a pause Mr. Stout asked why the debate was being reported now since it was not reported on Friday? The SPEAKER stated that he had given instructions that the debate should be reported, in accordance with the wishes of members, and he had just received a letter from the chief reporter in reply. It was to the effect that the debate was now being reported, and would be so long as the reporters on the staff had the strength to perform the work. At present there were only seven members on the staff, and as there was an important debate coming on in the Legislative Council that evening, three reporters would be required there, and he should therefore be left with four reporters for the House of Representatives. It would take more than double the staff to report the present debate, and that number he could not obtain.

Mr. STOUT said what seemed strange to him was that the reporters should he permitted to chose their own time to report. If Hansard was to be made a party organ, it was high time it was swept away ; and if such practices as he had referred to were allowed, he should certainly do his best to prevent a sum being placed on the Estimates for the maintenance of a reporting staff. Some discussion ensued, but not of an important or interesting character. Air. DE LAUTOUR said the report in that morning’s paper of the proceedings in the House the night before was absolutely false in its reference to himself.

Air. REYNOLDS thought they were wandering from the subject. The SPEAKER ruled that Air. De Lautour was in order.

Air. DE LAUTOUR proceeded to explain in what particular he had been misrepresented by the New Zealand Times. Before commencing his speech last night he was anxious to know whether the point of order he wished to raise could be maintained, namely, that the amendment was not in order. He had intended no disrespect to the Speaker, and knew that it was impossible for the latter to hear him ; but that he again sat down, as stated, was utterly false, and he felt bound to correct the misstatement in justice to himself. Air. AIACFARLANE was of opinion that there had been a good deal of unnecessary discussion ; he had seen the morning paper, and could see nothing to complain of in the report of the previous night’s proceedings in the House.

Air. READER WOOD said a remark had been made with respect to the Hansard staff which was scarcely fair, and should not pass without comment. The hon. member for Dunedin, Mr, Stout, had insinuated that Hansard was being made a party organ. He did not think any member could conscientiously give that as his opinion. He looked upon the letter of the chief reporter as an extremely sensible letter. Alembers should not expect to be reported under circumstances so entirely unusual.

After further discussion, the House decided that the words should not be taken down. Sir GEORGE GREY bowed to the decision of the House, but said he should have been prepared to justify all he had said. He proceeded then with his remarks from the point at which he had been interrupted. He had recognised that the abolition question was actually the abolition of freedom. It was with this idea that he had moved that the House should consider the report of the Disqualification Committee before the House proceeded with any other business. He was accused of endeavoring thereby to delay business, but he believed no unprejudiced mind would hold that he had been actuated by any such motive. Referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Rangitikei, he still contended that it should have been a motion of which notice ought to have been given, as a resolution of this kind must be considered as actual law. He also stated that the Government had made proposals to the Opposition which never ought to have been made, and reflected seriously on those who made them.

Mr. BARE'F : What proposals were they ? Sir GEORGE GREY would- be prepared to offer information on that point if called upon to do so by the House, and no doubt other gentlemen to follow him would go into the question fully. Mr. Murray’s amendment was then put, and on the Speaker declaring the noes to have it, a division was called for, the following being the result : Ayes, 24 : J. C. Brown (teller), Burns, De Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Grey, Hlslop, Joyce, Larnach, Lums(len. Macandiew, Murray, Nahe, O’Korko, Bees, Seaton, Sheehan (teller), Stout, Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, It. G. Wood, and W. Wood. Noes. 42 : Atkinson, Ballanco, Barff, Bowen, J. E. Brown, Bryce, Bunny, Carrington, Cox, Curtis, Douglas, Harper, Henry, Hunter, Hursthouse. Kelly (teller), Kennedy, Kenny, Macfarlane, Manders, Sir D. McLean, G. McLean, Montgomery, Morris, Murray-Aynsley, Ormond, Pyke (teller), Reynolds, Richardson. Richmond, Rolleston, Rowe, Russell, Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Tribe, Wason, Whitaker, Williams, and Woolcock. A division was then taken on the question as amended, the result being :

Ayes, I!: Atkinson, .Ballance, Barff, Bowen, J. KBrown, Bryce, Bunny, Carrington, Cox, Curtis. Douglas, Harper, Henry, Hunter, Hursthouso, Johnston, Kelly (teller), Kennedy. Kenny, Larnach, Macfarlane, Manders, Sir D. McLean, G. McLean, Montgomery, Morris, Murray-Aynsley, Ormond, Pyko (teller), Beynolds, Biciiardson, Kichraond, Bolleston, Eowo, Bussell Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Tribe, Wason, Whitaker, Williams, and Wooloock. Noes, 24: J. C. Brown (teller), Bums, Do Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Grey, Joyce, Lumsden, Macandrow, Murray, Nahe, O’Eorko, Bees, Seaton, Sheehan (teller), Shrimski, Stout, Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, Tonks, B. G. Wood, and W. Wood.

Mr. STOUT raised a question as to whether the Indemnity Bill'could be introduced without the suspension of the standing orders. The SPEAKER ruled that the course proposed was not out of order, the circumstances beingof an extraordinary character, and he took it tobe in accordance with an order of the House.

The question was then put, that the Hon, the Premier have leave to introduce the Indemnity Bill, a division being taken, with the following result :

Ayes, 44 : Atkinson, Ballance, Barff, Bowen, J. K. Brown, Bryce, Bunny. Carrington, Cox, Curtis, Douglas, Harper, Henry, Hunter, Hursthouse, Johnston, Kelly (teller), Kennedy, Kenny, Larnach, Macfarlane, Manders, Sir D. McLean, G. McLean, Montgomery, Morris, Mnrray-Aynaley, Ormond, Pyko (teller), Beynolds, Bichardson, Bichmond, Bolleston. Bowo, Bussell, Seymour, Sharp, Stafford, Stevens, Tribe, Wason, Whitaker, Williams, and Woolcock.

Noes, 21 : J. O. Brown, Burns, Do Lautour, Dignan, Fisher, Grey, Joyce, Macandrew, Murray, Nahe, Bees, Seaton, Sheehan (teller), Stent (teller), Swanson, Takamoana, Thomson, Tole, Tonks, B. G. Wood and W. Wood. The Bill was then road a first time.

The Hon. Major ATKINSON announced that he should move the second reading of the Bill at half-past seven, and suggested that the House should adjourn till then. Mr. STOUT objected to the course being taken, and made a formal motion for the adjournment of the House till half-past seven, which was opposed by the Government, and on a division being taken it was negatived by 43 to 11.

The SPEAKER ; If the. House is willing I will resume the chair at half-past seven. Hr. STOUT objected to the Speaker leaving the chair, a large majority of the members having just decided that the House should not adjourn. Mr. STAKFORD said it was a pity the. hon. gentleman had not raised that point on Saturday night, when it would have had more sense in it.

The SPEAKER stated that he did not ask for an adjournment on his own account, and stated that it was competent for the Speaker to leave the House whenever he might think proper. At this point the Speaker left the chair, and the House adjourned. On the House resuming at half-past seven o’clock, Mr WHITAKER moved the second reading of the Indemnity Bill, and briefly stated the circumstances under which it had been brought forward. Mr. S t'OUT opposed the second reading of the Bill, and reopened the point of order raised by him in the afternoon, on which he had objected to the Bill being passed through all its stages at one sitting. He disclaimed any party motive, but objected to what he considered would be the establishment of a dangerous principle. He addressed himself at some length to the principles of the Bill, and said that he and his friends desired to record their protest against the second reading of the Bill; and if the Government persisted in carrying it through all its stages that night, they would leave the House and throw the onus of the action on the Government. He justified the conduct of the Opposition during the recent protracted sitting, maintaining that the whole blame rested with the Government.

Mr. W. WOOD spoke in admiration of Mr. Stout’s speech, but deprecated the action of the Opposition in leaving the House. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six mouths. Mr. MACANDREW, on behalf of one of the most important constituencies in the colony, protested against the whole proceedings, and washed his hands of the whole affair. Mr. Rees and Sir George Grey having also spoken in the same tenor as Mr. Stout, the Opposition, excepting Messrs. Sheehan, J. C. Brown, W. Wood, Fisher, Wakefield, and Larnach, left the House. Mr. ROWE asserted that Sir George Grey did not speak the opinion of his constituency. Mr. MOORHOIJSE made a strong protest against being accused of being guided solely by expediency. Mr. Sheehan, Major Atkinson, Messrs. Montgomery, J. 0. Brown, Andrew, Whitaker, Wakefield, Reynolds, and Hialop having spoken,

The question that the Bill be read a second time that day six months was then put, and declared lost on the voices. A division was called for with the following result:—For the Government, 37; against, 2. The second reading of the Bill was then carried on the voices. The House went into committee on the Bill, which was considered, reported with a technical amendment, read a third time, and passed. The House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.