PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5184, 2 November 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, Ist November. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at 2,30 p.m. POINT OP ORDER. Before proceeding to the business of the day the Hon. Dr. Pollen rose and said that he desired to draw the attention of the Hon. the Speaker to the fact that a certain memorandum (relative to the appointment of Mr. J. N. Wilson to a seat in the Legislative Council) had been laid on the table of the Council by the Hon. Colonel Whitmore without either the command of his Excellency or the permission of the Council. —The Hon. Colonel Whitmore replied that he had laid such a memorandum on the table, but that it had been superscribed “by command of his Excellency,” and that he had especially drawn the attention of the Clerk to this point at the time he tabled it.— The mistake appeared to have arisen from a misprint in the Order Paper, and the matter was allowed to drop. REPORTS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN brought up the reports of the Waste Lands Committee on the Wakapuaka Telegraph Site Bill, the Dunedin Town. Hall Site Bill, and the Waiwera School Glebe Exchange Bill. The reports were read, and the Bills ordered to be committed next sitting day. With reference to the WaiweraSchool Glebe Exchange Bill, the Hon. Dr. Pollen stated that it had been considerably altered, as the committee did not consider that the proposed exchange would be a fair one to the Education Board of Otago. The Hon. Captain BAILLIE brought up the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of the inhabitants of the Provincial District of Taranaki re the New Plymouth Harbor Bill. The report was read, and on the motion of the Hon. Captain Baillie, the petitions were ordered to be relegated to the select committee to whom the New Plymouth Harbor Bill had been referred. NOTICE OP .MOTION. The Hon. Colonel WHITMOBE gave notice of motion for next sitting day, to the effect that the Volunteer and Other Lands Bills should be re-committed for the purpose of making certain alterations therein. NEW BILL. The Hon. Mr. HART gave notice that on next sitting day he should move for leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to amend the law with respect to wills of personal estate in New Zealand made by British subjects thereout. MOTIONS. The Hon. Colonel WHITMOBE moved for leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to enable the Governor to exchange certain Hospital Endowment Reserves in the Upper Waikato District for other lands in the same district. —Agreed to. The Hon. Sir D. BELL moved,—-That the select committee upon the New Plymouth Harbor Board Ordinanco 1875 Amendment Bill consist of the Hon. Mr. Holmes, the Hon. Mr. G. B. Johnson, the Hon. Mr. Menzies, the Hon. Mr. Miller, the Hon. Dr. Pollen, the Hon. Mr. Robinson, and the mover. —Agreed to. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed: —The Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, The Conveyancing Ordinance Amendment Act 1874 Amendment Bill, The Wanganui Harbor Endowment and Borrowing Bill, The Kaiapoi Cemetery Bill, and the Auckland City Endowment and Reserves Bill COMMITTALS. The following Bills passed through committee, were reported with amendments, and were ordered to be read a third time next sitting day.—The Municipal Corporations Act 1876 Amendment Bill, the City of Wellington Loans Consolidation Act Amendment Bill, the Lyttelton Harbor Board Land Bill, and the Peninsula County Libraries Bill, ORDERS OP THE DAT. The Public Health Act Amendment Bill, the -Auckland College and Grammar School Bill, and the Otago Girls’ and Boys’ High Schools Bill were committed; but progress was soon reported, and leave obtained to sit again on the first Bill on Wednesday next, and on the two last named on next sitting day. st. Andrew’s church bill. The St. Andrew’s Church (Wellington) Trustees Act 1873 Amendment Bill was committed, and the following new clause inserted in it on the motion of the Hon, Mr. Hart : “ Provided always that no conveyance, lease, or other disposition of tho said site, or of any site which may bo substituted for tho same, shall bo executed by tho said trustees [see interpretation clause], unless and until an absolute or conditional contract shall have been

entered into by the said trustees for the purchase of a site suitable for the purposes of the trust.” The Bill passed through committee, was reported with amendments to the Council, and ordered to be read a third time next sitting day. The Council then (at 5 p.m.) adjourned till the usual hour next day. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, November 1. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. Mr. PYKE said that he was surprised that the members of the Opposition had not given a better exposition of the views which led them to the unprecedented course had adopted in tabling the present motion. The hon. member for Kaiapoi strongly reminded him of the fop who so much irritated Hotspur. The Opposition might believe that they were actuated by patriotism, but the public at large attributed their action to the love of place and power. The arguments of the late Ministry consisted simply of saying to the Government, “ Get out of that place : it belongs to us.” If the present Ministry were turned out without a fair trial, there would be a howl of indignation from one end of the country to the other. The accusation that the members of the Government were not unanimous came with very bad grace from the hon. member for Egmont. It was strange that he did not think unanimity necessary till he went into Opposition. The speaker then alluded to the in opinion amongst members of the late Cabinet on the Land Fund and Separation questions. It had been stated that the representative of the Government in the Legislative Council had enunciated a different policy from that by the Premier. The speaker denied this, and quoted from the speeches of the hon. gentlemen to show that their opinions were in perfect accord. He did not see any inconsistency in Sir George Grey sweeping away the last remnants of provincialism after the people had decided that the provinces should be abolished. He alluded to the high Tory principles at one time of Mr. Gladstone ; yet he was the instrument that swept away the State Church in Ireland. He believed the policy of the present Government would result in a more perfect unity of the colony. He referred to the Government of the country in the past having been divided between the Pox and Stafford parties, the same as it was in England when the Greys and Bussells ruled the country. But the ice had now been broken, and such a system would not be resorted to in the future. The people would not trust the men who voted aye one day and no the next; and what could be said of those members who a few days ago voted that they had no confidence in the Atkinson Ministry, but now were resolved to place the members of that Ministry again on the Treasury benches ? Mr. HISLOP said he had hoped that after the short statement of the finances of the country made the previous day by the Colonial Treasurer, something would have been said in explanation by members of the late Government. A most unfair inference had been drawn from a speech made by the Colonial Secretary in the Legislative Council. What was meant by the Colonial Secretary in referring to a conservative policy was that no change would be attempted in the present institutions of the country, or on the questions of separation and removal of the seat of Government. The hon. member for Totara had not cleared himself from the charge of inconsistency. He had heard him pledge himself to support Sir George Grey through the session so long as'no attempt was made to effect separation. If members were debarred from holding office by the abstract views on the question of separation, it would accelerate a movement in that direction. Otago and Auckland would virtually be disfranchisedif such opinions as those of the hon. member for Totara were to prevail in the House, and the consequence would be that the people of those provinces would insist that separation should be a cardinal principle of their representatives. PRIVILEGE. Mr. STOUT rose to call attention to a case of breach of privilege in the concluding sentence of the Governor's memorandum about calling Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council, and contended that this aimed at the root of. responsible government. It was one of the principles of pailiamentary privilege that the King was not to know what took place in Parliament except it was placed before him by his responsible advisers. He quoted from “May” to show that it was a breach of constitutional liberty for the Crown to take notice of debates. It was only through his constitutional advisers that the Governor could take cognisance of what occurred in Parliament. The Marquis of Normanby had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of Parliament by referring to what took place in the House. He (Mr. Stout) had brought the question forward in no party spirit. He could prove that peers had been nominated to the House of Lords in England' after a vote of no-con-fidence in a Ministry was carried. But no such vote had been passed on the present Ministry, and it was the duty of the Governor to follow the advice of his constitutional advisers so long as they remained in office. It was not a party question; it was one of the dignity and liberty of Parliament. He moved that the position assumed by his Excellency the Governor in the latter part of his memorandum, dated 27th October, in reference to the appointment of Mr. James Wilson to the Legislative Council, was contrary to the privileges of the House. Mr. EOLLESTON said the question was not one to be lightly dealt with. One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government was that the Crown could do no wrong. The Crown was only known to Parliament through its Ministers. They were not now in a position to discuss this question unless the Ministers were prepared to defend the Crown. If they were not prepared to do so, it was their duty to resign. If on the one hand Ministers were in accord with the House, on the other hand they should be in accord with the Crown., In 1864 the Governor of the colony had asserted a course in opposition to the Ministry and Parliament. Mr. Weld, who was Premier, then stated that if there was a serious difference of opinion between the Ministry and the Crown it was the duty of the Ministry to resign. He believed that noGovernor could ultimately resist the will of the people of the colony. If Ministry after Ministry resigned, it was that the people of this colony should not attain their ends. He thought it was undesirable that what occurred between Ministers and the Governor should be brought down for discussion in the House while there was no party in the House to represent the Crown. It was unsatisfactory that Ministers should allow such a motion to be brought down by a private member. He thought sufficient notice should have been given before such a motion was tabled. Mr. BARFF thought ample notice was given the previous day by' the papers in connection with the matter being printed. He ridiculed the idea that the Crown could do no wrong. Mr. SWANSON remarked that as yet there was nothing to show that the Ministry were not prepared to defend the action of his Excellency. For aught the member for Avon knew they might take a very decided course in that direction. Mr. TBAVEES said that the reasons given by the Governor in his memorandum for not following the advice of his constitutional advisers appeared to be a breach of the privileges of Parliament. It was a new question in these colonies, and he thought members should approach its discussion with a full knowledge of the subject. He was of opinion that the question was one which could be discussed at once, but ho did not think it was one of great urgency, and ho held it was one which should be discussed free from party animus. He did not believe that the Governor in his action in any way intended to infringe on the privileges of Parliament; but ho may have committed an error of judgment, and it was competent for the House to express its sense of that error. In order that members should be.in possession of fuller information on the subject ho moved that the House adjourn till half-past 7. The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD pointed that the motion of the hon. member for Dunedin

was not sufficiently specific. He should have mentioned the exact ,words he objected to .in his Excellency’s memorandum before asking the House to discuss such au important subject. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE said he would desire to see the motion assume a more definite form, to the effect that the House expresses its regret that his Excellency the Governor had taken notice of a discussion in Parliament as a reason for declining to follow the advice of his constitutional advisers, and that it was the opinion of the House that such a course was contrary to parliamentary usage. Mr. FOX could see no reason why the adjournment of the debate should prevent the House going on with the ordinary business of the country. It was then close upon 5 o’clock, and it could hardly be expected that members would have time to become acquainted with authorities on the subject before half-past 7. Mr. BUNN’S then moved that the House adjourn till the following day at half-past 2 o’clock. This was agreed to, and the House rose at 5 o’clock.