SIR GEORGE GREY'S AMENDMENTS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 391, 7 August 1889, Page 4

SIR GEORGE GREY'S AMENDMENTS.

Mr Hamlin cook the chair ab half-past; two yesterday, when Mr Turnbull rose bo address the small number of members present. He reiterated his approval of the leduction of members bo 71, bub was rather afraid that the step they were taking was a retrogiade one, and they were sinking back into Conservatism. Next session the very members who were trying to upset the quota would be trying to upset triennnal Parliaments. Whether it was made a Ministerial question or not, he would support Sir G. Grey's amendments. He felt thab the Bill would be so altered in Committee that, when completed they would hardly know it. They would find it so altered thab it would be dropped, Mr Withy was not prepared to support Sir George Grey's amendments. He would vote for one man one vote, for he had always held that property had no right to vote in a House established for legislation. From his short experience ho felt sure thab 71 members were quite ample to do the business and the talking required. We wanted a large reduction in our whole system of Government, and the reduction of the number of members was one of the iirsb links in bhe chain of such required reductions. Mr Jones (Heathcote) supported Sir G. Grey, bub the greater part of his speech was inaudible in the gallery. Sir John Hall said there was a great deal to be said on both sides, but he would oppose the amendment. It means a return to 91 membeis, and the electors ab bhe last election had spoken on the subject with no uncertain voice. ("No, no.") He persisted thab he was light. The spontaneous tone of the electors was very nobiceable, far more so than on any other occasion, for it had nob been worked up. As the reduction of members was made in consequence of the general wish of the electors, it would be a breach of iaith to the electors to reverse that decision. The reduced House could be tried, and if it was not satisfactory, electors could send back representatives pledged to a levisal. Sir G. Grey's amendments would destroy the Government Bill and would give no chance of altering the quota. Mr Moss replied ab length to Sir J. Hall, and declared that if it had been really only a question of the quota it could be settled in ten minutes, for the Government had only to bring down an amendment Bill of the Act of 1887, altering the quota from 18 to 25 per cent., and it would be accepted at once; but the country party had imported the question of a return to 91 membors. He advocatad a dissolution, which he considered was the natural outcome of the present deadlock. Mr T. Thompson said that the amendments had made things pretty considerably mixed. If the eflect of them was a return to 91 members, it would not be owing to the town members, but to the obstinacy of the Government and those who .supported the present Bill. Referring to the amend- ! ment in bhe second reading, movod by Mr Barron, to prevent any meddling with the present position of afiairs, he showed thab the town party were willing to sink their individual opinions and agree to the Bill of 18S7. Mr Kerr declared that the reduction of the number of members had not been put fairly before the country. The election had been decided upon the question of free trade or protection, but he was sure the question ab the next elecbion would be the reduction of the number of members. He opposed an immediate dissolution on the score ol expense. The Colonial Secretary declared that the Government would stand or fall on the question of reduction of the number of members. Mr Kerr had referred to the Auckland members as being merely delegates of debating societies, and bantered them generally. M r Withy took this up, in order to show that Mr Kerr was entirely wrong, and when Mr Kerr interposed thab he did nob include him, Mr Withy said he had no desix-e for that. He would swim in the same boat with his Auckland colleagues. Going on to &peak of the Bill, he said the country had declared for a i eduction of the number of membeis, and mentioned that he did not intend to seek re-election. He thought Government might bring in another Bill settling the quota ab 25, and bhe margin ab 500 instead of 750. Ib would be highly improper to have an election just yet, nor did he wish for the amendments to be carried, for then the country would be saddled for another three years with 91 members. H6 was prepared, if necessary, to vote for a reduction to 50. Mr Dodson could not support the amendments as they had been brought in, though he (unless his constituents were vigorously opposed to it) would favour a return to 91 members. Mr Izard declared in favour of the amendmenb3 as being bhe best way out of the present difficulby. Mr Fisher supported Sir George Grey declaring that the question of reduction of the number of members had only been a side issue ab bhe lasb elecbion. He spoke in favour of an immediate dissolubion. Mr Taiwhanga supported Sir George Grey. Mr Monk, who followed, made an excellent and well-put speech. He defended the Auckland membersagainsb theattacks of Mr Kerr, but assailed Mr Moss for his support of the proposal to obtain a return to 91 members. His election pledges he declared he would redeem, and fulfil the promises extracted on the hustings. Going on to criticise the Bill before the House, he condemned the inclusion of towns and boroughs, and made an onslaught on the stonewalling, making his remarks particularly apply to Mr Moss. He declared thab the Auckland people did nob know the real merits of bhe question, and made a strong appeal for bhe [quota for bhe country districts by practical reference to his own constituency. Mr Monk declared strongly for a reduced House, saying thab its present inflated proportions were due to the Public Works policies that demanded local ropresentation to look after the spoil. The speech of the member tor Waitemata, which began at a quarter-past five, was finished after the dinner adjournment. It was a good one — the best he has made this session, and made a good impression upon members Sir George Grey followed Mr Monk, and dealt at considerable length with the Bill, traversing the grpund he had formerly gone over, besides dealing with a number of statements made by various members. During his speech in reply to Sir John ,Hall, he showed that the House had in its own hands bhe power of dissolving, and declared thab ib was only right that the House

should, if so inclined, ' use that power, and urged the immediate necessity of a dissolution. No election pledges that he had yet heard of would prevent any member, from voting for this amendment. ' Mr Bruce replied, and, while prepared to vote for one man one vote, deprecated Sir George Grey's advocacy and the importance he placed upon it. Sir George Grey replied, and Mrßrucealso had another word to say, when Mr Turnbull broke in and, in a vigorous and oxcellent, though short speech, defended Sir G. Grey. He showed that what had been done in the way of large tracts of land being obtained by individuals would nob bo undone, bub Sir George Grey wished to guard against the future. He showed that the proposed quota gave the political power to bhe country ; that a great sbrugglo was coming on when the incidence of taxation would be decided, and if the power was in the hands of the country the large landowners would escape, bo the cost of the inhabitants of the cities — of the masses. Mr Monk explained that he was in favour of one man one vote if brought in in a proper manner. He would be prepared to accept a quoba of 25 per cent, for rural districts. Mr Hobbs laughted at the abolition of plural voting. He said he was prepared bo vote for it because he thought there was nothing in it, but he would nob vote for it inttoduced as ib was. He laughed at the Triennial Bill, declaring that the Grey Government had never inbended to pa&s ib. He then letb the Chamber, as Mr Taylor rose and hoped he was not going away. Mr Hobbs simply bowed and retired, when Mr Taylor proceeded to demolish the statements of Mr Hobb3 and defended Sir G. Grey's amendments. Mr Fisher said that the Representation Bill was dead against democratic government. The peop^ were beginning to recognise that their rights were endangere and the passing of the amendments shoud, be carried and a dissolution would follow. Id Mr Bruce wished he had a leader he could follow with enthusiasm. Parbies in the House were in a chaotic state, and he thought they would have nothing satisfactory until they appealed t,o the country. Mr Verrall suppoibed Sir G. Grey. Mr Perceval thought the best course out of the difficulty was a dissolution. The only other course was compromise, and he went over the negotiations between parties. He showed that the town party were ready to take 27 per cent. Mr Perceval pledged himself to the amendments, and defended any attempt to restore the number of members to 91. Mr Hislop declared that ab the proper bime the Government would be prepared bo bring down a compromise. Mr Stuart Menteabh welcomed this declarabion, and threw on bhe G'overnmenb bhe whole onus of the late stonewalling. He supported theamendmentsand declared that he had never been asked by his constituents to support the reduction of the number of members.

A POINT OF ORDER. Dr. Fitchett supported the amendments' and the Piemier &aid the .Chairman would now leave the chair, dt being 10.30, to resume at 10.30 this morning. Then the question of Parliamentary procedure again came up. Mr Scobie Mackenzie raised a point of order that the Chairman could not do as he proposed, and was supported by Messrs Fisher, Downie Stewart, Fish, and others ; while the | Premier and Mr Samuel opposed him. Authorities were freely quoted in support lof the point of order. The question at issue was whether the Chairman has power to leave the chair without reporting 1 pro- | gress and asking leave to sib again. It was shown that the natural and logical conclusion of the line of argument adopted by the Ministers was that the Chairman could leave the chair and say he would sit again in six months. The Speaker, who was present, declared that he could not interfere with the Chairman of Committee. He was the proper judge. As it then seemed as if the matter would be slurred over, and nothing definite arrived at, Mr Downie Stewart moved that the Chairman leave the chair, but on this being put it was negatived by 56 to 23. The Chairman then gave his ruling that he could leave the chair when the majority were agreeable, for an hour or more. Mr Scobie Mackenzie dissented from this while not disputing it, and moved that progress should be reported. After a little bickering this was put to a division, and lost by 49 to 29. The question was again raised by Mr Guinness, who showed that according to standing orders only three motions could be put from the chair, and a motion to leave the chair being carried superseded all business. A scene of confusion ensued. Mr Hamlin said his asking leave to do so was not a motion, but Mr Guinness persisted amidst cries of "yes," " no," " order," " chair." Finally Mr Hamlin asked to be permitted to leave the chair until eleven to-day, which was carried on the voices, though it was evident that many members dissented from this decision.