Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 976, 7 September 1881, Page 2

There is likely to be a little scandal in the Upper House over a “business” transaction between Mr. Reeves and two “ Lords.” It arises in this way : Last year the Hon. Mr. Wood (M.L.C.), saw Mr. Reeves and expressed a fear that the honorarium would be considerably curtailed, and that members would probably not get more than £lOO. Mr. Reeves said, “ Oh ! you’ll get more than that. I’ll guarantee that you will get £150.” It was then arranged that if the honorarium was less, Mr. Reeves should make up the balance, but if on the other hand, Mr. Wood got more he should give Mr. Reeves the surplus. The Hon. Mr. Campbell coming up at the time suggested that Mr. Reeves should make a similar agreement with him, which he ultimately did. He promised to advance the £l5O at the time, but this was declined. It so transpired that the honorarium was £l9O, and Mr. Campbell loyally paid Mr. Reeves the £lO surplus. Mr. Wood did not. Well, last night in

the whips’ room when Mr. Brown said, “ By the by, did you ever get the money from the members whose honorarium yoil guaranteed Mr. Reeves, and Mr. Campbell had paid him but not Mr. Wood ? The little arrangement thus getting tVind, Mr. Waterhouse brought the affair up yesterday afternoon, as a matter of privilege, and moved for a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case. The committee having been appointed, a request was sent down last night by message, to the House, calling upon Messrs. Reeves and Brown to attend upon the committee, to give evidence on “ a question of privilege.” The following is a report of the discussion : — Mr. Waterhouse : Sir, I wish to raise a very important question of privilege. I have heard that during last session, when the course that would be taken with regard to the honorarium of members of the Council was a matter of great doubt, one Hon. councillor sold his interest in his honorarium to a member of the Lower House. I believe the purchaser has admitted that the statement is perfectly correct. If the assertion is true I believe the question is a grave one, seriously compromising the dignity and position of the Council. After very mature consideration; and having satisfied myself that there is really some foundation for the statement, I now propose to move without notice “ That a select committee, consisting of the Hon. the Speaker, Major Richmond, Messrs. Whitaker, Mantell, Wilson, Reynolds, G. Buckley, P. A. Buckley, and Waterhouse, be appointed to examine and report within a week upon the allegation that during last session, in anticipation of the passing of the estimates, a member or members of the Legislative Council sold their right in the honorarium to a member or members of the House of Representatives.” I believe a member of the other House does claim to have bought the right and admits to having received a beneficial interest in it. Before the Committee, I shall be prepared with evidence that the statements I have referred to have been made; Mr. Wood: I second the motion. The Speaker : No doubt the question of privilege takes precedence of every other question, but the only doubt is how far a distinct resolution unless upon a very urgent question can be put without notice. Is there any dissentient to the motion. Mr. Peacock : I would like to ask, supposing the Committee is appointed and reports that the allegation is substantiated, what can we do in the matter ? I could understand it if it was a question of the disqualification of a member, and J am as anxious to preserve the dignity of the Council as anyone. But might we not look ridiculous if we are unable to do anything? Supposing that the Committee reports this has taken place, what then ? Mr. Waterhouse: Wait till we have the report. Dr. Grace : It is most important to prove the truth or otherwise of this allegation. Ido not think the mover can be sufficiently thanked for the action he has taken to effect it. Mr. Lahmann : I think this important question should be inquired into. I heard the statement referred to twelve months ago, but I had doubts as to its truth. Since then I have heard that the transaction really did take place, and, therefore, the matter deserves the fullest consideration. The motion was then carried. Mr. Waterhouse: I now move, sir, “ That a message be sent to the Lower House asking that Mr. Reeves and Mr. J. C. Brown may be allowed to give evidence to the Committee.” Motion carried.