PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5464, 1 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, September 30. The Speaker took the chair at 7.30 p.m, PETITIONS. Petitions were presented by Messrs. Macfarlane, Turnbull, McMinn, Sutton, Gref, Tole, and Moss. NOTICES OP MOTION. Notices of motion were given by Messrs, J. 0. Brown, Hobbs, Murray, Swanson, Richardson, Rolleston, Tole, Saunders, and Bowen. PAPERS. Papers were laid on the table by the Hon. Mr. Ballance and the Hon. Mr. Fisher, TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION. Mr. PYKE asked the Postmaster-General, -—Whether, in consideration of the frequent interruptions to telegraphic communication caused by the wires being blown down, the Government will cause the wires to bo laid in pipes under the surface in exposed places? This -practice of laying wires in pipes was very common iu France and other continental countries. The Hon. Mr. FISHER replied that it was not tho intention of the Government to do this, as the cost of underground over overland telegraph lines was as three and a half to one. THE HINEMOA. Mr, FITZROY asked the Government,— When the return asked for on 2nd August last, having reference to the Hinemoa, will be laid before this House ? Sir GEORGE GREY said he could only repeat hia former answer. If the honorable member would put his question in the form of a notice of motion, he (Sir George Grey) would ‘be able to make the explanation on this subject he desired. (Hear, hear.) Mr. FITZROY said he had up till this moment understood that the Government were willing to furnish this return. BENEVOLENT SOOTHES. Mr. BARFF asked the Government, —If they will lay before this House a return showing the number of benevolent societies in New Zealand having public funds at their disposal, together with the names of the districts in which such societies have been formed, and the mode (if any) of electing members of the societies ? The Hon, Mr. BALLANOE replied that immediate steps would be taken to have this return laid on the table. PUKEKOHE DISTRICT. Mr. HOBBS asked the Minister for Public Works, —Whether the Government will appoint two persons in Auckland to hold an inquiry as to the equitable claims (if any) of certain settlers in the Pukekohe District to compensation, in regard to puriri timber, about which there is a difference between the District Engineer of Auckland and the said settlers ; with power to call for persona and papers ? The Hon. Mr. MACANDREW replied that the Government had no objection to adopt the suggestion to appoint a commission on this subject. ORMOND AND GISBORNE RAILWAY, Captain MORRIS asked the Minister for Public Works, —What description of rails the Government intend using for the Ormond and Gisborne railway ? The Hoa. Mr. MACANDREW replied that in all probability rails would be used which had been condemned for light railways; but nothing definite would be done without consulting the House, NEW BILLS. On the motion of Sir Robert Douglas, leave was given (in committee) to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a High School at Whaugarei. The Bill was read a first time. Oa the motion of Mr. O’Rorke, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the further encouragement of the education of the youth of New Zealand. The Bill was read a first time. On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Stout, leave was given to introduce the Railway Reserves Sale Bill, The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Thursday next. On the motion of Mr. Moss, leave was given to introduce a Bill for the establishment of a Girls’ High School at Auckland. .The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Wednesday week. RECENT FLOODS IN THE SOUTH.

Mr. BOWEN’, without notice, wished to know whether the Government would instruct the engineer to report on the damage done at Chaiuey’s corner on the Great Northern Bailway (Canterbury), and if he would report as to whether there were any claims on the Public Works Department in consequence of the works having shifted the bed of the river ? The Hon. Mr. MAC ANDREW replied that the engineer would, on his return to Wellington, send in a report on the whole subject.. JUDICIAL COMMISSION BILL. The debate on this Bill was resumed. The Hon. Mr. STOUT said he had read the speech of the hon. member for Mount Ida, and if there was anything which would make him vote for the second reading of this Bill, it was the clear, able, and argumentative speech made by the hon. member for Mount Ida in moving the second reading of the Bill. He approached the Bill in a perfectly unbiassed manner. If a commission were required, it was certainly pi*eferable to seek for its appointment by means of a Bill rather than to leave it to an executive department to say whether a commission should be appointed or not. No commission could gather any further evidence, or give a clearer idea of the law bearing on the matter than that already known. This being the case, he would ask whether it was desirable to appoint a commission, with power, if it so chose, to report against the law laid down in England, America, and in New Zealand itself ? The power of the superior Courts in England to commit for contempt of. Court was undoubted, and the superior Courts of New Zealand possessed the same powers with regard to committal for contempt as the superior Courts in England. In America also the same power was possessed by the superior Courts. It would therefore be an absurd thing to appoint a commission to inquire into what the law of England was on the subject of the power of superior Courts to commit for contempt. This disposed of the first point involved in the Bill. With regard to the second branch of the subject, concerning the terms under which the Judges held their positions, no commission that could be appointed could put the mattor in a clearer light than it had been placed by our own statutes and the opinion given by Mr. Higinbotham when that gentleman was Attorney-General of Victoria. With regard to the case of contempt that had arisen in Wellington, he might say that the only report lie read was that contained iu the “ New Zealand Jurist,” and he must say frankly that he did not agree with the punishment that had beenmeeted out on that occasion. (Hear, hear.) He considered it was excessive. But there must rest with the superior Courts the power of imposing punishment for contempt. .If they took away this power from the Judges of this .colony, they would be asserting that the Judges of New Zealand were unfit to exercise those discretionary powers which were possessed by Judges in other parts of the world. He did not see any necessity for this Bill. Public opinion had been aroused to that extent which showed clearly that no wrong could be done without the subject being discussed by the Parliament of the colony. Under all circumstances he would ask the House to pause before giving its consent to any measure which would interfere unnecessarily with what must be regarded as the safeguard of any country—its superior Courts. The power of commitment for contempt was a power that had reposed in the Judges of the superior Courts in England for ages; that power was held in the same manner by the Judges of the superior Courts of New Zealand. It was a necessary power, and public opinion would bo.ever ready to declare whether that power had been unduly exercised by the imposition of an undue amount of punishment. Public opinion would govern the use of it. He therefore considered the present Bill unnecessary, and would vote against the motion for its second reading. Mr. BEES disagreed with the argument of the Attorney-General, that because this was a power which existed by practice since Magna Charta therefore it should continue for all time. - The same argument might as well be brought up on every occasion when it was proposed to alter a law that had existed in New Zealand for years before. The Hon. the At-torney-General stated that public opinion would govern the exorcise of the powers which he wished to see continued in the Judges. Public opinion was a great power ; it was no doubt a mighty engine ; it could interfere with the members of that House. If they did not do their duty, then public opinion, in its concrete form, would exercise its influence at th? poll and unseat them. But public opinion had no power whatever over the Judges of the Supremo Court; public opinion could not remove the Judges from the Bench. Ho was astonished to hear the Attorney-Gene-ral speak in support of the absolute power of commitment for contempt being given to the Judges. To give them such an absolute

power was in direct violation of the liberties of the subject, and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution under which we. live ; it was absolutely against every principle which should govern free men. (Hear, hear.) He submitted that there was no position so exalted, no rank so sacred, that it was not open to fair criticism. If they set up one class of irresponsible men, they must set up a dozen. Why should an absolute power be placed in the hands of a certain set of men, who were totally irresponsible to everybody else f It was a most dangerous doctrine to set up, that Judges should have the absolute power of sending a man to gaol for life, and the Crown no power to commute the sentence. The giving of such an absolute power to the Judges amounted to the setting up of a power above that of the Legislature itself; it would place people at the mercy of men whom the law could not touch nor the Legislature interfere with. It was this creation of a power in the State over the Parliament that had cost Charles I. his head. According to the doctrine laid down by the Attorney-General, an absolute power would be given to the Judges, and no law could touch them. There was nothing which would induce men to go beyond precedent more than the knowledge that they had absolute power. If they granted this absolute power, they would at once dispose of the rights and liberties of the people which, as represented, they were elected to conserve and protect. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BOWEN said he was glad to hear the remarks that had fallen from the AttorneyGeneral. It was absurd to suppose, as the hon. member for Auckland City East asserted, that the Judges had power to do just what they pleased without appeal. The power of committment for contempt had rested with the Judges in England for six centuries past. Judges had been removed from the Bench in England for misconduct, and they could be removed from the Bench in New Zealand if the case could be made out against them. He should be exceedingly sorry to say anything harsh against a gentleman who was so highly esteemed in private life as the honorable member for Wellington (Mr. Barton), but ho must say that the conduct of the honorable member for Wellington in the Supreme Court was such as to render the process of the judicial business of the Court impossible. (“Ob, oh,” and “Hear, hear”) The honorable member for Wellington seemed to have a monomania about judges, and ever since this unfortunate occurrence the conduct of the judicial business of the Supreme Court had been brought into contempt by the scenes which had taken place from time to time. He hoped the House would not take any steps in this matter, or interfere with the Judges, unless their was a clear case for their removal from the Bench. Mr. MOSS considered that the fact of a member of the Bar, standing up in defence of his client, being committed to gaol for a month, and there imprisoned with common criminals, was a sufficient ground on which to ask for an inquiry. He had studied the whole circumstances of the case most carefully, and it was his firm conviction that for some years past certain Judges of ‘the Supreme Court had regarded Mr. Barton with peculiar feelings of dislike ; it was evident in their words, in their acts, and latterly, in the. harsh treatment to which Mr. Barton had been subjected. The public of Wellington bad given evidence of what they thought on the subject; the Dunedin and Christchurch Bar had each considered an inquiry necessary, and was it now for Parliament to deny that investigation ? He sincerely hoped not. The Judges so outraged their powers in this case that there was no longer the same respect for the Supreme Court of Now Zealand that previously existed. He did not say Mr. Barton was right and that the Judges were wrong, but the circumstances were so strong as to establish the necessity for an inquiry. Not only did Mr. Barton suffer a month’s imprisonment, but there was no doubt that it would ruin his professional business. Was it I'kely that litigants would entrust their cases to a barrister who had incurred the hostility of the Judges before whom their case would be beard. He had never heard of a case similar to Mr. Barton's. There were instances (which the hon. member cited) where counsel in England had shown a great deal more independence and firmness of speech than Mr. Barton had done ; but in England the Judges felt the importance and responsibility of the powers entrusted to them, and where they had a doubt, they never acted with undue haste. Things had come to such a pass in New Zealand that the floor of that House was the only place in which men could express an opinion as to the conduct of the Judges. He would caution the House against the danger of exalting the Judges to that degree that they wculd become tyrants and consider that their actions were altogether beyond the reach of criticism. Enough had been shown in this matter to prove the necessity for an inquiry, and he trusted that such an inquiry would be granted, and that the Bill would be allowed to pass. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE considered that the Bill now under consideration would have a tendency to interfere with the independence of the Judges. H the House passed this Bill, the effect of it would be to put the Judges on their trial before a commission—put on their trial, not on any charge of incompetency or corruption, but for having committed what might be an error of judgment. If the Judges were to be put on their trial for this it would be sapping the very foundations of the Supreme Court and the independence of the Judges, and they would be striking at the very root of the liberties of the people. It was for this reason that he opposed the Bill. Mr. TOLE intimated that ho would support the Bill. In this case there was sufficient ground for an inquiry, and he sincerely trusted that the House would in in its wisdom arrive at a very righteous decision in voting for the second reading of this Bill. Mr. "WHITAKER considered that it was absolutely essential the Judges should hold the power of commitment for contempt, in order to enforce the proper administration of justice. Unless there was power conferred to punish contempts it would be quite 'impossible to carry on the business of the Courts, He trusted the House would reject the Bill. Mr. JOYCE moved the adjournment of the debate. The debate was adjourned until next day, and the House then adjourned. •