PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5171, 18 October 1877, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, October 17. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS. , A petition was brought up by the Hon. Dr. Mbnzies from residents of Tapanui, re. the mode of allotment of certain acres of land to be set apart for a Pastoral and Agricultural Society. NOTICE OP MOTION.' The Hon. Mr. BUCKLEY gave notice of motion for next sitting day to the effect that the motion of Colonel Brett (that this Council do adjourn from day to day until a Minister is appointed to the Legislative Council) should be read and rescinded. , MOTION. The Hon. Colonel BRETT moved the adjournment of the Council till the usual hour next day.—A long discussion ensued, during which a general opinion was expressed that the business of private members at least should he proceeded with ; but it was pointed out that when the Hon. Mr. Buckley’s motion for rescinding that of Colonel Brett came on for discussion next sitting day, ample opportunity would be afforded for discussing the question. —The motion was then put to a division, and carried by a majority of 24, the Hon. the Speaker pointing out that the Council had no option but to adjourn, after the motion they passed on Tuesday, until such motion was rescinded. The Council then adjourned till the usual hour next day. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, October 17. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at halfpast two o’clock. NOTICES OP MOTION, ETC. The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS gave notice that he would ask the Government if they intend to dispose of the Provincial Buildings, Wellington, and if so, at what time ? Mr. BURNS gave notice that he would move that the name of a justice of the peace, who had that dav been sentenced to imprisonment, be struck of the roll.

Several other notices of motion were given. THAMES BOROUGH OVERDRAFT. Mr. CURTIS brought up the report of the Public Accounts Committee in reference to the Thames Borough overdraft. The committee reported that after having fully considered the matter, they came to the conclusion that underthe exceptional circumstances in which the liabilities were incurred the Government were justified in the action they had taken in the matter. Mr. GIB B 3 asked the Government —Whether it is their intention to issue scrip in exchange for immigrants' land orders, whereby mechanics and others who have paid their passage to the colony, under the expectation of getting land convenient to their work, may not suffer the loss of the entire value of their land ? The Hon. Mr. LARMAGH replied that the Government was not yet prepared to state definite action in the matter ; but the subject would receive every attention in order to bring it to a satisfactory termination. , In reply to a question put by Mr. J. O. Brown, Sir George Grey stated that returns relating to the following subjects would be laid on the table of the House next day ;—A statement showing the roads, bridges, and other public works authorised by the Governor, and charged as p> oviucial liabilities, after the Ist October, 1876, and the dates when the works were so authorised;.a return showing the amount each Minister has received beyond his actual salary by way of house allowance, travelling, or other expenses during thelast financial year ; also, a return allowing the cost of maintenance and all other expenses in connection wjth the Ministerial residences during the last financial year, and the total amount paid or to be paid on account of purchase or lease of sueh properties up to 3Oth June, 1877. Mr. REID asked the Government,—(l.) Whether it is their intention,ou the expiration of the existing pastoral licenses in the Southland laud district, to. grant any extension or renewal of the Hceisea to the present holders,

without affording the public an opportunity of competing at public auction for the occupation of the runs iu that district ? (2.) Wh. ther they will support any alteration of the law which would enable such an extension or re® uewal of the licenses to be granted ? The Hon. Air. MACANDREW stated that the question involved was one that d served very great consideration. The present Government had hardly sufficient time to fuily consider the matter. They hoped to be able to do so before the close of the session. Mr, SEATON asked the Government, —If they intended to give effect to the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Mr. John McCartney ? Sir GEORGE GREY replied that it was the intention of the Government to give effect to the petitions presented to the Public Petitions Committee, and it was intended to do so with respect to the one in question.

BILLS INTRODUCED. Reave was granted to introduce the following Bills : A Bill to amend the Mining Companies Act, 1872— Mr. Button ; a Bill to provide for the endowment of the Kakauni Harbor Board Committee—Mr. Shuimski ; the South Dunedin Reserves Bill—Mr. Seaton • the Pousonby Highway District Bill— Hon. Mr. Sheehan ; the Taranaki Roads and Br.dges Ordinance 1858 Amendment Bid—Mr Kelly, motions. Captain MORRIS moved, and it was agreed to, —That the Government be request, d to cause inquiries to be made in relation to the improvements made by the settlers in the Stewart Block, Katikati, with a view of allowing Crown grants to be issued to those settlers who have got under cultivation the propoition of land specified in th.-ir agreement with the Government before the lengthened residence required by that agreement. Mr. W. WOOD moved, —That this House will, to-morrow, resolve itself iuto a committee of the whole, to consider of an address to be presented to his Excellency the Governor praying that waste lauds of the Crown of the present value of £60,000 be set apart in suitable blocks for the construction of a branch railway from Edeudale to Fortrose, on the eastern bank of the Mataura ; such lands to be those likely to bo most enhanced in value by the construction of such railway ; and that he will cause a survey to be made and plans and specifications to be prepared during the recess. The Hon. Mr. SHE EH A.V opposed the motion. There were many other mot ons of a similar nature on the Order Paper. If the Government consented to this request it would cause a scramble for railways that would be altogether subversive of all hopes of retrenchment. The subject of branch x*ailways was one Government intended giving the fullest consideration to during the recess. At the present time, however, the Government could not accede to the terms of the motion.'

Captain Morris, the Hon. Mr Macandrew, and Mr. Handers opposed the motion. Mr REID was opp„sed to the setting apart of such large areas of the waste lands of the country. Such reservations would tend to look up the country from settlement. In Otago he did not see how settlement would advance if such large reservations were to be made. He did not think it an economical way of carrying out railway works to reserve large tracts of land, and afterwards hand the reserves over to companies to construct the lines.

The motion was agreed to. ME. LUSK.

The Hon. Mr. FOX moved,—That the conduct of Mr. Lusk, a member of this House, in receiving fees for drafting Bills and promoting business in Parliament, is contrary to Parliamentary usage, and derogatory to the dignity of this House ; and that Mr. Lusk be required to pay the sum of £SO to Mr. Speaker, in order that it may be refunded by him to the City Council of Auckland, Mr. Fox, in speaking to the motion, referred to the evidence given by Mr. Lusk before the Privileges Committee. It was, Mr, Fox stated, very clearly shown that Mr. Lusk had, contrary to the_standing orders, received payment for assisting in the passage of a Bill through the House. Mr. Fox quoted a number of precedents showing the gravity with which such breaches were regarded. Mr. ROLLESTON thought the resolution scarcely dealt with the question as it ought to. As the giver of a bribe was equally culpable with the receiver, there was, he said, no doubt that the City Council of Auckland was equally to blame in the matter. It therefore would be improper to return the £SO, the fees received from the Auckland City Council; and he moved an amendment to that effect.

Mr. O’ h ORKB opposed the amendment, also the motion. He characterised the judgment as pronounced by the motion to be too severe. He did not think the House should bring culpability upon the Auckland City Council for the payment of the fee. , It was purely by accident that the matter remained in Mr. Lusk’s hands. It was not fair to implicate the City Council in the matter. He again urged that the House should deal more leniently with Mr. Lusk. It was the most severe sentence that had been pronounced on any hon. member, and he trusted that the House would take into consideration that Mr. Lusk was a young member in the House and in the legal profession. Mr. ROLLESTON explained that it was not intended to throw a slight in any way on the Auckland City Council, although they were technically wrong in offering money to Mr. Lusk.

The SPEAKER said he did not think the standing orders in any way forbade an hon. member from" drafting a Bill, although they forbadeany memberpromoting a Billfor reward. Mr. SW ANSON supported the motion. He thought it was only fair that the amount paid by the City Council should be refunded, so that the ratepayers should not suffer for money that had been, at all events, wrongly received.

Mr. MONTGOMERY said it was a matter for the House to consider whether or not an offence had been intentionally committed. He believed that the money was paid to Mr. Lusk, not for promoting the passage of the Bill in the House, but simply for the drafting of it. He (Mr. Montgomery) had communicated with Mr. Lusk in the matter, and received in. reply a telegram explaining the instructions received by Mr. Lusk from Mr. Tonks, who was Mayor at the time. It was shown that the payment made was purely for personal services, and that beyond being “ friendly to the Bill” when he came to he was to take no further steps in the way of interviewing hon. membeia. He held that Mr. Lusk had acted unwisely in. accepting the £SO after the close of the session last year. Mr. MACFARLANE complained of scurrilous and insulting language used by Mr. Lusk. The hon. member for Akaroa had read a telegram from Mr. Lusk. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had received a letter from Auckland on the subject. He read an extract from it showing that it had been pointed out to Mr. Lusk, before he undertook the work, that it was a violation of the roles of the House, and that Mr. Lusk replied that it was all right, as a lawyer could charge for anything. He concluded by moving that Mr. Lusk’s seat be declared vacant.

The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE disproved of the line of defence set up by Mr. Lusk. It would have been better had Mr, Lusk candidly admitted his error, and offered to return the amount he had wrongly received. Without imputing any wrong motive, there was no doubt that the money had been improperly paid. He would support the motion of the hoa. member fnr Wanganui, together with the amendment of Mr. Rolleaton. He (Mr. Gisborne) did not see how Mr. Lusk’s seat could be declared vacaut. Mr. THOMSON said there was nothing in the evidence to bear out the charges made. The House should, in considering the matter, remember the ill-feeling that existed between Mr, Macfarlane and Mr. Lusk. The Hon, Mr. REYNOLDS thoroughly agreed with the finding of the committee. He thought the case against Mr.-Lusk was clearly proved. He would support the amendment proposed by Mr. Rolleston, Mr. Reynolds read a telegram from the Mayor of Auckland at the time, Mr. Touks, stating that he (Mr. Tonks) had raised the question with Sir. Lusk as to the infraction of the rules of the House, by accepting the £SO.

The Hon. Mr, SHEEHAN would support the original motion of the hon. member for Wanganui. He (Mr. Sheehan) did not think the case was one that should be severely dealt with. , , Mr. W. WOOD did not believe, nor did he think that any member of the House was of opinion that the money had been paid in the nature of a bribe. The public body of Auckland had never intended the payment as a bribe, and the hon. member had never received it as such. '

The -SP K AKER said that it was not contary to the standing orders or the usages of Parliament for a member to receive payment for drafting Bills, so long as he did not undertake to promote them in Parliament. However, notwithstanding the standing orders, if the present motion were carried members would lie prohibited in future from receiving money for drafting Bills. Mr. HEKS thought not much notice could have been taken of the matter had it not beeu for the statements of the hon. member for Erauklyn himself. The report did not say that Mr. Dusk had taken money for carrying a Bid through the House, but for the preparation of oue. He thought it was clear that there was no intention to evade the rules of Parliament.

’l'he Hon Mr. FOX, In reply, pointed out that the hon. member for Franklin had contradicted himself iu the most complete manner. He had said that some time ago he became acquainted with the standing order ; but he had since said that he had not become acquainted with it till the present session of Parliament. That was only one of many instances in which he had contradicted himself. He thought it was never intended by the standing orders that a member of the House could receive payment for the drafting of a Bill. Such an interpretation would open the door to great abuse. Mr. DE LAOTOUR said the hon. member for Wanganui had remembered too much as a lawyer, and forgotten too much as a man. He had inferred that a gentleman had set bis brains to work to evade the rules of the House. Reflections of that kind should not be cast upon a gentleman who was not in the House to defend himself. If the motion of the hon. member was carried, it would be difficult to get a legal member of the House to draft a Bill. Whether the motion was carried or not, the political reputation of a young member was blighted. It appeared to him that the hon. member for Franklin was to be sacrificed for the purposes of party. He thought it would be iucouvauient that the first time Parliament was laying down a broad principle a member should be branded with a further step of humiliation for a past action There was nothing in the bill of items which would justify the House in calling upon Mr. Lusk to humiliate himself. He should hesitate before endorsing the opinion of a nonjudicial committee on a legal question without having an opportunity of sifting the evidence. He moved,—That the conduct of Mr. Lusk, a member of the House, having been taken into consideration upon the report of the Privileges Committee, it is resolved, that whilst there ap pears to have been an infringement by Mr. Lusk of the privileges of this House, there is nothing to indicate the existence of any such grave conduct on his part as to require further action on the part of this House. Mr. STOUT said they could not get at the spirit of an Act except by the interpretation of the letter of the Act. There was nothing in the standing orders to prevent a member of the House being paid for drafting Bills, as long as he was not paid for advocating them in the House.

The motion was put, that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question, and was carried by 34 to 20.

Mr. S I’OtTT said that party feeling had a great deal to do with the vote just given. It was out of pure party spite to injure a political opponent. He defied any lawyer who had any rega d for his professional reputation to get up and say that it was any infringement of the standing orders for any member to receive money for drafting a Bill. Mr. ROLLESTON said he framed the amendment in accordance with the report of the committee. It was the general opinion that the offence was a grave one, and they were determined to treat it in a way that would be a precedent for all time. The Hon. Mr. FOX pointed out that a majority of the committee belonged to the same side of the House as Mr. Lusk, and that the report was agreed in by every member of the committee. There never was a more baseless assertion made in the Hou-ie than that this question had been dealt with in a party spirit. The Hon. Mr, GISBORNE said that the hba. member for Dunedin (Mr. Stout) should not monopolise the virtue of the whole House. He endorsed Mr. Fox’s statement, that a majority of the committee were of the same party as Mr. Lusk. Sir George Grey, their political leader, had been absent from the House that night, simply because he did not desire to vote on the motion. Mr. MOORHOUSE said his view was not altered in the least by the powerful address of the hou. member for Dunedin (Mr. Stout). Notwithstanding his opinion, he was satisfied that there had been a breach of the standing orders of the House. (A Voice: Motu, motu) If any gentleman wished an inquiry into that transaction he (Mr. Moorhouse) was willing to afford every facility. It was the duty of the lawyers of the House to vindicate themselves from any charge of corruption. The Hon. Sir. SHEEHAN regretted that the question had taken up so much time of the House. He thought the proposal of the hon. member for Mount Ida would have fully met the case.

Mr. TRAVERS, as a member of the committee, regretted that the resolution of the hon. member for Wanganui did not follow strictly the words of the report. The members of the committee were not, prepared to say that Mr. Ltiakhad acted from corrupt or improper motives, though that was the purport of the motion then before the House. The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW was of opinion that the penalty should be reduced, as it might he regarded outside as of a vindictive character.

Mr, CURTIS said he was opinion that there was no idea on the part of the committee to attribute corrupt motives to Mr. Lusk. He showed the resolution of the member for Wanganui to the member for Wellington city, and he said he approved of it.

Mr. BARFF considered that if Mr. Lusk was guilty of any infringement of the rules of the House a dozen other members were equally so. He had a Parliamentary paper in his hand, iu which it was shown that Mr. Stafford, a partner of an hon. member of the House, was engaged in Parliamentary transactions. , '

Mr. MOORHOUSE, in explanation, stated that before ente/ing into partnership with Mr. Stafford, it was expressly stipulated that if the latter undertook any Parliamentary business it would be solely ou his own account. He (Mr. Moorbouse) pledged his word asagentlemau that ho had never received a shilling in connection with any Parliamentary business while a member of that House. He courted the fullest inquiry on the subject. ME BARFF said he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the hon. member, and the subject dropped.

The House then divided on Mr. Fox’s motion, as amended by Mr. Eolleston, which was carried by 33 to 29.. PETITION OP A. STITT. ’.the petition of Alexander Stitt, praying that the sum of £BOO be placed upon the Supplementary Estimates, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee, was considered in committee. The committee resolved that it should be further considered next day. BILLS. The Patea Harbor Hoard Bill passed the second reading. The Havelock Comraage Bill was considered in committee, reported the third time, and passed. The Christchurch District Drainage Act Amendment Bill also pawl. The Wanganui Harbor Board Endowment and Borrowing Bill was reported from committee. The Roxburgh Recreation Reserve Bill was conudered in committee, reported, and passed the third reading.

- -The- Otago Harbor -Board Management. Bill was postponed for a week. The Waiwera School Glebe Exchange Bill was reported , from committee, and passed the third reading. ■ The Mataura Reserves Bill was considered in committee, and reported without araendment. . ' \nx •*. The Peninsula County Libraries and Uhnstchurch City Reserves Bills were considered in committee, reported to the House, and passed their third readings. ' , The Auckland Harbor Bill passed the third reading without any material amendment. The House rose at 12.35.