PARLIAMENT.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1052, 27 June 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. - Tuesday, June 26. In the Council to-day, Mr Whitaker moved a resolution in favour of the colony guaranteeing its share of the expenses of the annexation of the New Hebrides. Sir G. Whitmore and Mr Holmes approved of the proposal, and Dr Grace opposed it. The debate was adjourned. ~ TEeTParTi a men tary Privileges Bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, June 26, In the House to-day, amongst the petitions presented was one by Mr Bryce, which he characterised as one of unusual importance. It was from Wahanui, Tawnui, - Manga, and 412 other principal natives of the Waikato, praying for some less expensive method of investigating the title to native laud and dealing with it afterwards. The petition was read, and ordered to be printed. In reply to questions, Ministers said Government were not prepared to introduce an act to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act. The railway between Waverley and Patea would be open for traffic next month. The Speaker, before calling on Sir G. Grey to move for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal, so far as it relates to New Zealand, an Act of the Imperial Parliament known as the Constitution Act, said that it would be for the House to consider whether it would permit a Bill to be introduced, the effect of which was to declare ourselves free from Imperial control, and whether it was consistent with their own dignity to assume powers which were distinctly prohibited. Sir G. Grey contended that an Act of the Imperial Parliament of 1865 removes the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1857 on the powers of the Assembly to repeal certain sections of the Constitution Act. The course he proposed was strictly legal and constitutional. The Bill, of.cpurse, could have no effect unless assented to by the Crown. Major Atkinson regretted that Sir G. Grey had not withdrawn bis Bill after the Speaker’s expression of opinion. Government had looked into the matter, and arrived at the conclusion that the House had no such power as the Bill assumed. The Act of 1865 did not give any such power, and the prohibition of 1857 was clear and precise. If the House desired power to abolish the Legislative Council, it should pass a resolution inviting the Imperial Legislature to pass such a Bill, as the present one would render the House ridiculous. Only the Imperial Parliament could repeal its own legislation. He appealed to Sir G. Grey to withdraw the Bill. Mr Montgomery said that Sir Geo. Grey simply proposed to put in the form of a Bill what was really a resolution, which would have no effect until the Queen assented to it. The Assembly surely had the power. He would therefore support Sir G. Grey. Mr Shepherd would also support the introduction of the Bill, as a test of the power of the House to deal with amendments of the constitution. Sir George Grey, in reply, said that a mere resolution of the House would not have the same effect as the Bill. On a division, leave to introduce the Bill was granted by 38 to 34. The following is the division list on Sir George Grey’s Constitution Bill: —-Ayes 38 : Barron, Bathgate, Bracken, J 0 Brown, J Buchanan, Cadman, Daniel, Dargaville, De Lautour, Dun- j

can, Feldwick, Fish, George, M W Green, Grey, Harris, Hutchison, Ivess, Joyce, Kelly, Levestam, McAndrew, P W McKenzie, McDonald, J McKenzie, Montgomery, Moss, O’Callaghan, Pyke, Seddon, Shepherd, Shrimski, Smith, Steward, Swanson, JW Thomson, Tole, W White. Noes 34 : Allwright, Atkinson, Beetham, Bryce, W C Buchanan, Dick, Dodson, Fergus, FitzGerald, Pulton, J Green, Hurst, Hursthouse, Mason, Mcllraith, McMillan, Mitchelson, Munro, Peacock, Petrie, Postlethwaite, Rolleston, Shaw, Stevens, Sutton, Sntter, Tawhai, H Thomson, Trimble, Watt, Wynn Williams.