The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5158, 3 October 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1877.

Triples light as air have apparently far more attraction for a large portion of the members of the House of Representatives than the solid necessities of business and the clamant requirements of the colony. Yesterday afternoon was wasted on questions of privilege, about which the sensible people of the House care little and the country at large cares less. We had first the amazing anomaly of a member of the Legislative Council being permitted to send letters to the Speaker of the Lower House, which letters discussed the action of members of the people’s Parliament, about which Sir George Grey, when it suits him, talks with much fervor, while at the same time sneering at the nominee House, cue of whose number was thus allowed to intrude his opinions into the representative chamber. And not only did the Speaker read this letter, but Mr. Stout, by pre-arrangement of course, read what he called a statement drawn Up by the same honorable Councillor, Mr. Henry Russell, in which statement it was declared by Mr. Russell that a member of the House of Representatives had stated what was “ false.” And this, by a supineness we can scarcely comprehend, was permitted to pass unchallenged. There is a little too much of this, and it is all done to gild and glorify the reputation of one member, Sir George Grey, who has about the least regard for the reputation of his opponents of any politician in the House. No member is more ready than he to assail others and prefer charges with reckless profusion when attacking an opponent, and yet all this fuss is made, and the decent order of Parliamentary propriety is disregarded, in order to permit a member of the other House to appear by proxy and to make, through other mouths, speeches which would not be tolerated from any member of the House.

Nor is this the sole absurdity which marked the performance of the political theatre yesterday afternoon. Again was Sir George Grey and his reputation the theme. This time it was concerning ‘ ‘ Hansard ” reports, the correction and alteration of proof-sheets of the speeches of members, and the eternal Hawke’s Bay debate. The leader of the Opposition (begging Mr. Larnach’s pardon, for, after all, Sir George Grey is the leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding Mr. Larnacii’s no confidence motion) rose on another question of privilege. It is “ Figaro here, Figaro there, Figaro everywhere !” He had applied to the Speaker for the production of all the members’ proofs of the speeches delivered in that acrimonious debate on the land purchases in Hawke’s Bay. The Speaker, after consulting precedents, found, or believed he found, he had the power to produce members’ proofs, and they were produced accordingly, and waited only the order of the House to be formally laid on the table. That order, however, did not

make its appearance, although Sir George Grey moved for it. The Premier pointed out the great inconvenience which would result from this indiscriminate practice of producing “Hansard” proofs, for if Sir George Grey could arrange to secure such production on any plea, of course it must follow that any other member might claim a similar privilege on the bare assertion that his reputation which, however humble a legislator he may be, is as dear to him as is that about which the leader of the Opposition is so surprisingly careful—was at stake. He complains, it seems, of the almost universal practice among members of correcting their proofs, and of that toning down of expressions made in the hurry of debate which subsequent reflection shows it is not wisdom to set down in print. True, this sometimes takes the edge off an effective reply, for it sometimes happens that the accusation made by one speaker and cleverly replied to is eliminated altogether from the proof-slip of the first orator, while the reply of the other party is printed, and' the reader looks in vain for the remarks to which the triumphant reply referred. This naturally causes some chagrin, and Sir George Grey himself has been a sinner in this very direction, having in a former session had struck out from his proofs statements which ho made in the House and which were answered, but winch in “ Hansard” were not to be found, so that the . person assailed Was in print apparently replying to nothing. But for others to follow this example is in the eyes of the worthy knight a high crime and misdemeanor, and hence his demand for all the members’ proof slips of a long debate, which, for the credit of the House, had better have been buried than preserved in print. Sir George Grey’s proofs, as well as those of the hon. member for the Hutt, were once asked for in the House, on the occasion to which the Minister for Justice yesterday alluded. But that easy concurrence which met Sir George Grey’s private request yesterday was not accorded by the speaker of that day, Sir F. Dillon Bell. On that occasion the Speaker said that “if the ‘Hansard’ proofs of that particular discussion , were ordered to 1 be produced, the same thing might be done at any time with regard to other reports,

and therefore it was out of the question to adopt the course recommended.” And the present Speaker on that same occasion took, as a private member, an exactly similar view. He said that if they were to produce the proofs in one case, they would have to do it in all cases, and all their time would be occupied. ” But now we find the Speaker’s views wholly changed. Then it was inconvenient for Sir George Grey to have his proofs produced. Now it is convenient for him to have the proofs of someone else laid on the table; and to gratify his longing, the Speaker, with kindly simplicity, produces the proofs of every member who spoke on that long debate. And thus “our time is occupied;” and thus fish is made of one and flesh of another. And this is Parliamentary government. It is right to give due acknowledgment of the position of a prominent member with a past history; but the forms of the House and the sentiments of members should be justly regarded, and in these directions Sir George Grey has no right to privileges which have been denied to other members of less prominent standing. Nine-tenths of the members might have individually asked for this concession in vain. Why should he be the remarkable exception, especially in the face of the opinion of the member for the Hutt, expressed two years ago 1 No wonder that the practical Mr. Macandrew imploringly inquired if members would ever awake to the fact that this is the eleventh week of the session, and that the House was wasting a day on a very small matter. And it is small. Some people would call it childish, and in so doing would employ an accurate nomenclature. .