PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5157, 2 October 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, Ist October. PETITION. Mr. SHEEHAN presented a petition from the natives of Wanganui against the Native Land Sales Suspension Bill. CANTERBURY RIVERS ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD submitted the reasons for which the managers appointed to consider the amendments inserted in the Dill by the Legislative Council disagreed therefrom. QUESTION of privilege. Before proceeding to the business of the day, the Hon. Major Atkinson called the attention of the House to a question of privilege concerning the disqualification of Mr. Laruaoh, the member for the City ;of Dunedin. I he Hon. the Premier stated that it had been quite recently brought under his notice that the hon. member referred to was engaged in a contract to supply sleepers for the Government railways. The contract had been entered into on the 11th of August last, and up to the present time 1070 sleepeis had been delivered out of the 11,000 agreed upon to be supplied by Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach, at the rate of 2s. 9d. each. Major Atkinson moved that this question be referred for investigation to the Disqualification Committee now sitting, Ob the motion being put, Mr. BEES moved, as an amendment, —That the case of disqualification against Mr. Whitaker be taken first, after Mr. Kennedy’s is disposed of ; and that for that purpose the name of the Hon. Mr. Reid be added to the committee in place of Mr. Whitaker s. Mr. PYKF wished the original telegram from the Government engineer to Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach had been produced and read to the House. He could only look upon the matter in one of two lights. Either the Government, by letting this contract to such men as Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach, who must be well acquainted with the Disqualification Act, meant it as a bribe, or it was intended as a trap for those gentlemen. The Hon. Major ATKINSON explained that the offer in the first instance to supply the sleepers came from Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach, and not from the Government. Mr. PYKE: A distinction without a differeDThe Hon. Major ATKINSON continued: The action he now took was quite irrespective of any political feeling in the matter. Had Mr. Larnach occupied the benches on his (Major Atkinson’s) side of the House he would have done precisely as he did on the present occasion. Mr. J. E. BROWN asked if it was not a fact that the Government had their attention called to members of their own side of the House who were also liable to be disqualified? Mr. BURNS said that last session he had discovered that Messrs. Gnthde and Larnach had a contract for the supply of sleepers, and he brought the fact under the notice of Messrs. Macaudrew and Stout, because he (Mr. Burns) thought that if Mr. Kennedy was disqualified for contracting for- coals, Mr. Larnach was equally entitled to disqualification for contacting for timber, if he had entered into any fresh contracts. He considered the Disqualification Act was becoming an absurdity. Mr. STOTTT said that there was nothing in what Mr. Burns had said to him last session that bore on Mr. Laruach’s disqualification. He (Mr. Stout) had spoken to Mr. Larnach on the subject, but he knew nothing of the matter. The Hon. Mr. McLEAN moved that the name of Mr. Button be placed on the Disqualification Committee, instead of that of the Hon. Donald Reid. Mr. BARFF thoughtjthe present Disqualification Act tended to put the House in a ridiculous position. The absurd provisions of that Act would go to exclude several hon. members of the House. At the present time hon. members would be disqualified on mere technical grounds, and where there was no intention whatever to infringe the law. He was certainly of the opinion that the best thing the Government could do would be to repeal the Disqualification Act of last year. Instead of that Act the Government could introduce a measure that would be quite effec tive for all purposes if it went to disqualify Government contractors and civil servants. Mr. MONTGOMERY would support the amendment of the hon. member for Auckland City East. The Hon. Mr. ORMOND said, with reference to the question of contracts, there was amongst the correspondence a telegram dated in August last from Mr. Blair, saying that Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach had a large shipment of sleepers, and offering them to the Government. The sleepers being found suitable, without any further consideration the terms were agreed to. There were no grounds whatever for the imputations alleged. The Hon. Mr. REID said that one reason why he did not wish to sit on the Disqualification Committee was that he had already several committees to attend to. Another reason was he had no ambition to distinguish himself in matters of disqualification. He thought the present Act was very dangerous indeed. He hoped to see before long an alteration in the law in that respect, although it was a verydifficult matter to deal with. _ In regard to the late questions of disqualification the hon. member for Auckland City East was the prime mover. He had expended much trouble in endeavoring to establish grounds for disqualifying certain hon. members on the Government side of the House. He (Mr. Rees) did so on the eve of a want of confidence motion he brought forward, and with an air of self congratulation for the manner in which he guarded the purity of Parliament. If hon. members were to be disqualified, that should be done totally irrespective of what side of the House they occupied. After farther discussion, Mr. Button’s name was substituted for that of the Hon. Mr. Reid, and the motion of the Hon. Major Atkinson, with Mr. Rees’ amendment, was adopted. NO CONFIDENCE .MOTION. The debate on this motion was resumed. The Hon. Mr. McLEAN, in resuming the debate, said that although it was now asserted that this was not a want of confidence motion, before it was tabled the word was wired all over the colony that it was to be a want of confidence motion. In fact, the Opposition had gone so far as to calculate within a vote or two how the division would take place on the subject. Hon. members would therefore ao-ree that the proper plan for the Government was to accept the moti»n as one of want of confidence. By the Government doing so, every hon. member was enabled to dragup every charge that could be brought against the Government. Yet, after all, it appeared that there were not very many charges to be dragged up. Mr. Stout was the only hon. member who properly opened up this matter, and discussed the policy of the Government in a general way. It had been stated that Government were unable to carryout their measures. Had the Opposition been on the Government beaches they could not have done more than that which had been done. With regard to the publication of tho libels that appeared in the Wahl Maori, they consisted of letters sent for insertion from certain natives. For the publication of those letters the Government were never asked to apologise. It had been said that the Government were defending an action against a political opponent. I his was not the°case. It had been proved in Court that those letters were published before they were seen by the late Native Minister, Sir D McLean. Mr. Russell was not a political opponent of his (Mr. G. McLean’s). No attempt had ever been made to get an apology for what had been published against Mr. Russell. The case was brought with a view to injuring the lato Native Minister. Much had been said about the plea of justification. What other plea could the Government put forward ? 1 An Hon. Member : Apologise. Tho Hon. Mr. McLEAN : An apology was never asked. The plea of justification was put in by the counsel employed, and after that plea was entered a commission went to Napier to examine a large number of Maori witnesses, and the result of that commission of inquiry was an opinion that the plea of justification could be maintained. It was well known to legal gentlemen that if nine-tenths of a ]„ a „f justification are sustained, and if it fail in the remaining tenth, the case will go ■

against the defendants. Had the Government withdrawn that plea, and paid money into Court, they would have been condemned by most hon. members for so doing. The publication of the Waka Maori was now no longer carried on, and he did not think the Government would again take any part in its resuscitation. Private enterprise would most likely take up the matter, and in a short time it would no doubt be found to pay. He was sure that if the Government were turned out on such a motion as the one brought forward about the Waka Maori, the matter would be a laughing stock in the future history of the colony. The Opposition could not point to a single act that would bring discredit on the present Government. There might be charges of error of judgment, to which all were liable ; but such matters as the Waka Maori were altogether too paltry upon which to decide the existence of a Government. Mr. TAIAROA admitted signing the letter asking for the Waka Maori to be carried on under certain conditions. But these conditions had not been fulfilled. It was promised that the paper should come out weekly instead of fortnightly. But this had not been done. No issue had taken place for the last three months. He thought the Maoris would rejoice when the Waka was no longer published. He complained that although private troubles demanded his presence at home he had been refused by the Government to be allowed to pair. He had in past times been a consistent supporter of the Government ; now he had changed. But the Hon. Mr. Reid had done the same, so they were equal. He would support the motion of' the hon. member for Dunedin city. Mr. BEETHAM thought it necessary the Government should have a Maori newspaper to counteract the teaching of the Wananga, a Repudiation organ. The Wananga had been conducted with a very considerable amount of vigor, aud in a manner that would result disto the native race and to the interests of the colony generally. The political articles that appeared in that paper were written by the hon. member for Rodney, aud of course went to carry out the views of that hon. member. He (Mr. Sheehan) was the moving spirit of the Wananga, and in that paper things were stated that were not in accordance with fact. [Mr. Sheehan here handed a note to Mr. Beetham, to the effect that he (Mr. Sheehan) had had no connection with the Wananga for the last three months.] He (Mr. Beetham) thought that the hon. member for Geraldine had acted disingenuously in only partially quoting from the letter of the Maori clergyman about the tanivvha. He hoped that hon. members would vote according to their consciences. Mr. MURRAY contended that the motion was one of censure, but that the Government had converted it into one of want of confidence. He would be sorry to see the Government turned out on the present motion, because it would not give them an opportunity of giving an account of their stewardship. He would not at all admit that the present Governmenthad no responsibility in the late libel action. The present Ministry was the continuation of the Vogel Government, and was fully responsible for what that Ministry had done, including ■ the publication of the libels. After dwelling at considerable length upon the action of Mr. Stafford in 1873 in betraying his party, he proceeded to show that the natives in the Waikato were pleased with the Wananga and had no more trust in the Waka Maori than they had in the Government. In regard to the libels, Mr. Clarke refused to have the Maori letters containing the libels published until they were first submitted to the then Native Minister. The Hon, Mr. Russell was willing to accept au apology for the libel published regarding him, and asked for the payment of £2OO to a charity, but the Ministers chose to take the matter before a Court of Law, and the result was that the country would have to pay £6OOO. BREACH OP PRIVILEGE. The SPEAKER called the attention of the House to an alleged breach of privilege, contained in a letter addressed by the hon. member for Waitemata to the hon. member for Franklyn, wherein it was stated that the latter gentleman had received the sum of £SO for services rendered in connection with a Bill which had been brought before the House. Mr. STOUT asked whether it was proper that the letter on which a breach of privilege was founded should have been sent for publication to au evening paper. The letter must have been furnished to the papers by Mr. Macfarlane himself, and he regarded it as a breach of privilege. The SPEAKER said it was highly improper, and disrespectful to the House. Mr. MACFARLANE said that the letter in the paper was a copy of one which he had handed round to several members of the House. He hadnot given the letter to the evening paper. He could not, however, prevent others copyingit. Mr. Macfarlane then read extracts from “ May” showing that it was a breach of privilege for any member of the House to receive fee or reward in consideration of services rendered in connection with any Bill before the House. He moved that the following members be appointed a committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the letter:—Sir George Grey, Hon. Mr. Stafford, Hon. Mr. Fox, Hon. Mr. Reymilds, Hon. Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Travers, and Mr. Curtis. Mr. LUSK regretted that the matter had not been brought forward in a more distinct manner. However, he took it to mean he had received money from the Auckland Corporation for services rendered in connection with a Bill brought before the House. The hon. member, had discovered a marc’s nest. A month before last session the Mayor of Auckland waited at his office and requested him to draft a Bill to meet the particular wants of the Corporation of Auckland. At that time he was unacquainted with the forms of the House. The price agreed upon was fifty guineas. When he came to Wellington he waited upon Sir Julius Vogel, and they compared the draft of the Bill, and it was found that there was nothing in the Auckland Bill which could not he incorporated in the Municipal Corporations Act to be brought in by the General Government. The Bill was then brought into the House, and he was not aware that a single provision in it was inserted in the Municipal Corporations Act. He wrote to the Auckland City Council to send down a commission to look after their interests in connection with any Bills they were interested in. That commissioner was sent down, and the amount paid to him appeared in the letter. He (Mr. Lusk) had not received a single penny in connection with any services rendered in Wellington. The motion was agreed to. Mr. BURNS said he had another breach of privilege before the House. He had seen that he himself was disqualified through the Mosgiel Cloth Factory supplying articles of clothing to the Government. He admitted that he was one of the proprietors of the factory, and desired to know what further steps he would take in the matter. The SPEAKER intimated that the hon. member had done sufficient by bringing the matter before the House. The House then resumed the debate on the NO CONFIDENCE MOTION. Mr. BALLANCE said the issue which was selected by the Opposition to test the confidence of the House in the present Government was an unfortunate one. He had not heard anything during the debate to prove that the resolution itself was in accordance witli fact. No evidence had been adduced by tho Opposition to show that the Waka Maori was carried on at the public expense. Ho failed to see that Government had continued the publication of the paper for any other purpose than the good of the colony. He believed that the resolution of tho previous session striking off the item for the Waka Maori was a catch vote. Tho Government should have come down with tho item again, and stated plainly that the continuation of the paper was for the good of the colony, and if defeated on it they would go out. He would not say that the Government as at present constituted had his entire confidence. The Attorney-General had stated that tho present Ministers were not responsible for their predecessors. He understood that the present Government was a continuation of the Vogel Ministry ; and if a reversal of the policy was to take place, their party should have been informed of it. However, he believed the

Native Lands Bill was a reversal of the policy of Sir Donald McLean. The present Premier was appointed the leader of the party to carry out the policy of Sir Julius Vogel; but he would ask whether the hon. member for Waikato or the hon. member for Egmont was the leader of the Government? The AttorneyGeneral had stated that he had been opposed to the policy of Sir Julius Vogel; and the Ministry had disorganised their party by selecting one of their number from the Opposition. Coalitions were formed at a sacrifice of principle. He could not, however, vote against the Government on the present occasion, as he believed that they were not influenced by any corrupt motives in regard to the Waka Maori, but that the paper was carried on because the Ministry honestly believed that it was for the welfare of the country. Dr. WALLIS thought that there was not a single allegation in the motion refuted. He would vote for the motion, and trusted that the Ministry would be defeated, aud appeal to the country. The House, as at present constituted, was not • fitted to legislate for the large requirements brought about by the Abolition policy. He thought there were too many lawyers in the House, who helped to make the confusion in our Acts worse confounded. If there were as few lawyers as clergymen in the Legislature, the laws would be better. There were two great courses open—the unification of the colony, with a common purse, or its division into two colonies. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS regretted that the debate had not been confined to four or five members. He looked upon the motion as one on which there was not sufficient grounds to censure the Government. There was a want of sincerity on the part of the Opposition. It was not so - much objection to the Waka Maori as a desire to occupy the Treasury benches which actuated the Opposition. _ He had more confidence in the present Ministry than anyone that could be formed from the Opposition. Mr. FISHER thonghi the motion was not strong enough. They had determined 'to act in opposition to a vote of the House, without showing any cause. Their action had cost the country thousands of pounds. And this was done simply for the purpose of crushing political opponents. Mr. HURSTHOUSE would not vote for the resolution, as he did not believe if the present Ministry were turned out, the Opposition, from its discordant elements, would be able to agree on a policy. Mr. W. WOOD thought that too many members in addressing themselves to the question had gone outside of and around it. He regretted the vote that he would be compelled to°give ou this matter, as if the side with which he voted was in the majority the result would be the unseating of the present Ministry. Mr. BARFF said it appeared to him that the talking power of the supporters of the Government was pretty well exhausted. For himself he desired to make a few remarks as to the vote he purposed giving. He contended that there was a distinction between this motion and one of want of confidence, and the Government had, in his opinion, taken up a totally wrong position. The G overnment had by their action passed more votes of want of confidence in themselves than ever the Opposition had attempted to do ; and this was particularly noticeable in reference to the process of laceration to which the Government measures had been subjected this session. At the conclusion of Mr. Barff’s speech there were loud cries for the question to be put. The SPEAKER then put the question, and a division being called for, the result was as follows; For the Government, 42 ; against, 33. The following is the division list:— GOVERNMENT. Atkinson Hursthouse Richardson Baigent Johnston Richmond Ballance Kelly Kowe Beetham Kennedy Russell Bowen Kenny Siiarp Burns Lumsden Stafford Button Macfarlane Stevens Curtis Manders Sutton Douglas McLean Tawiti Fitzroy Moorhouse Teschemaker Gibbs Morris (teller) Wason (teller) Harper Murray-Aynsley Whitaker Henry Ormond Williams Hunter Reid Woolcock. OPPOSITION. Barff Hodgkinson Seaton Brown, J, C. Joyce Sheehan Brown, J. E. Larnach (teller) Shrimski Bunnv Lusk St' mt (teller) De Lautour Macandrcw Swanson Dignan Montgomery Taiaroa Fisher Murray Takajnoana Gisborne Hahe Thomson Grey O'Rorke Tele Hamiin Rees Wakefield Hislop Eolleston Wood, W. PAIRS. For. J gainst. Cox Reader Wood Fox Travers Reynolds Wallis Carrington Bastings Seymour Pyke. Messrs. Bryce and Brandon were absent. The House adjourned at 11.25.