PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5191, 10 November 1877, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, November 9. The Speaker took the chair at half-past 2 o’clock. NOTICES OP MOTION. Several notices of motion were given. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. LUSK said he occupied a peculiar and unprecedented position in the House, and he desired to place the circumstances before it in a fair light. When the motion for a committee was brought forward he stated that owing to urgent private business he would be absent from Parliament when the report of the committee was laid before it for discussion. The committee were well aware that he protested strongly against the finding of the committee, and it would only have been fair play to have allowed him an opportunity of replying to it. Many lion, members were led to believe that he assented to the finding of the committee, and that he had left for Auckland on a Saturday with a full knowledge that the matter would be discussed on the following Monday. He emphatically denied that he had any such knowledge. He had no fault to find with the members of the committee. The only gentleman’s conduct he had reason to feel aggrieved of was that of the chairman of the committee. He had stated while the committee was sitting that its finding was entirely against the evidence. The evidence he had given before the committee did not differ in any degree from the statement he had previously made in the House. Mr. Lusk quoted the evidence that not a single clause in the Bill he had drafted had appeared in the Municipal Corporations Act. The plain meaning of the Standing Orders was that no member should receive pay or reward for bringing a Bill before Parliament. But no Bill for the drafting of which he had received any money had ever been brought before Parliament. However it had been stated by the Speaker that it had been the custom for legal members of the House to receive fees for drafting Bills, and Mr. Sheehan and Hr. Bees admitted that they had received money for such work last session. Mr. Whitaker had also admitted the same thing. Mr. WHITAKER denied that he had ever received money for drafting Bills whilst he was a member of Parliament. Mr. LUSK stated that he had recently seen an account of the firm of Whitaker and Bussell, of £33, for drafting the Thames Harbor Board Bill. He concluded by saying that there had never been a case in which the evidence was more twisted than in his case. He was perfectly certain that he had done no moral wrong, neither could he believe that he had infringed the letter of the law. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. On the House proceeding to the orders of the day, the question arose as to whether the following motion by Major Atkinson could be considered: —That all the orders pf the day and notices of motion be postponed until the House has disposed of the notice of motion,— That this House has now no confidence in the present Government.—Along discussion ensued, in which Messrs. Stout, Bees, Travers, Barff, Reynolds, Whitaker, Sheehan, and Lusk took part. Ultimately the Speaker intimated that as the question was an important one he would take till half-past seven to consider it.—The House rose at ten. minutes past five. On the House resuming at half-past seven o’clock, Dr. Hodgkinson asked permission to address the “ ’ouse” on the subject, and proceeded to do so, depriving the House of an “ h” at every possible opportunity. Mr. BOLI.ESTON pointed out that the precedents of the House and Standing Order No. 7, were in favor of Major Atkinson’s motion being put. After some remarks from Mr. Joyce, The SPEAKER'said he had been under very great anxiety about the question, and hoped for the consideration of the House in dealing with it. After reviewing the matter at length, as well as the arguments pro and con adduced by lion, members, the Speaker decided that the motion of Major Atldnson could not be put in consequence of the first order of the day being the consideration of a Bill in committee, and he was therefore compelled to leave the chair without the question being put. THE LAND BILL. The House then went into committee on the Land Bill, and after a short statement from the Hon. Mr. Sheehan the Bill was proceeded with. Clauses 1 to 72 were agreed to with some slight amendments ; and on clause 73 being proposed, providing that land possession of which had been recovered by the Board on payment of the improvements thereon, being taken into consideration, some discussion ensued in regard to the third section of the clause, which set forth that the surplus of the sale, after deducting 25 per cent. as damages for breach of license, should be awarded to th Mr. VINCENT PYKE argued that the clause was altogether in favor of the Government, and left that body, Shylook like, in the position to grasp at the efforts of many an • unfortunate selector who, after spending his all, found that he was unable to proceed any further, and was therefore obliged to forfeit his improvements. Mr. STOUT argued that the clause was only a very proper safeguard against the unprincipled speculator who had no idea of really cultivating the soil. Mr. DONALD REID supported the clause as it stood, and contended that the 25 per cent, by way of damages was not by any means an undue charge for breach of license. Mr. Thomson and Mr. W. Wood respectively addressed the House on the subject, after which a division was called for on an amendment to insert the words “ such sum not exceeding” before 25 per cent, in the clause. The question resulted on the divison—ayes, 21 ; noes, 43. The clause was therefore passed as it stood. The following clause, enabling a Crown grant of land to issue on the expiration of a license on certain conditions, was agreed to after a slight verbal amendment, proposed and agreed to on the motion of Mr. Rees. The succeeding danse, providing that the holders of nn agricultural lease might exchange' for a lease on deferred payments, was likewise agreed to, with a slight verbal amendment. "Regarding clause 83, dealing with the sale of land by public auction in certain allotments, considerable discussion ensued. Mr. STOUT contended that the whole object of legislation on the matter was to discourrge large estates as much as possible ; and therefore in his opinion it was the business of the House to see that the interests of the smaller speculators were as much as possible respected. He therefore moved au amendment to the effect that no holder of 2000 acres should be allowed to get more than 5000 acres of pastoral lauds under the deferred payment system. On the amendment being put it was lost by a majority of 27 against 20. The Bill was further discussed in committee, after which progress was reported, and the House, shortly after 1 o’clock, adjourned until half-past 2 o’clock on Monday next.