GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2247, 29 August 1891, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Wellington, August 27. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. I LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL. The Land and Income Tax Bill was read a second time on the voices and ordered to be committed the following day. . The Council rose at 9.10 p.m. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday. LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL, The Land and Income Assessment Bill passed its final stages. AUCTIONEERS BILL, The Council resolved to insist on its amendments in the Auctioneers Bill. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. MR HAMERTON’S CASE. [The following is the close of Tuesday night’s debate.] Mr Joyce’s amendment was put and carried by 21 to 16. On its being put as the substantive question.

Mr Duncan moved that the amount of pension be reduced from £250 to £2OO, and in doing so said this was one of the most disgraceful things that had ever occurred in the House. By their action to-night the House had held out an incentive to other civil servants to mismange th<jir departments. Mr Duncan’s amendment was lost by 31 to 13, and the resolution in favour of a £260 pension was then agreed to. The House rose at 2.30 a.m. and met at 3. 30 p.m. NPW PLYMOUTH HARBOUR. Mr McGuire resumed the debate on the question that the report of the Hew Plymouth Harbour Board Committee be referred to Government with a view to effect being given to the recommendations of the Committee. The Premier pointed out that if the House agreed to the recommendation of the Committee it would mean that the colony should take over the debt of the New Plymouth Harbour Board, If the Government began to negotiate with the bondholders at all they would have to take the entire responsibility; of the liability, and in the event of that coming about every other habour board in the colony would apply to the Government to take over their liabilities. A question might further arise as to whether or not the Government should take over the liabilities of local bodies in the colony. The matter was a very serious one, and the only remedy which he could suggest was the appointment of an impartial tribunal to consider some mode of relief to be given to the harbour Board, not in the direction of taking over their liabilities, but with a view to relieve the board from their present position, which pelleted more or less on the colony as a whole. Several other members spoke, and the debate was interrupted by the 5,30 p.m. adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Mr Duthie moved an amendment affirming that the House should not agree with the proposal of the committee to communicate with the bondholders of the New Plymouth Harbour Board, but that if the board could satisfactorily recast the finance the House would agree to pay over the proportion ultimately accruing on all lands already disposed of, less £5115 and any other amount due by I the board to the colony, and also advance ' £50,000 at per cent per annum, to be paid out of the first proceeds of future endowments, all such advance to be used in discharging the Harbour Board’s present indebtedness, f After considerable debate, Mr Duthie’s » amendment was lost, and the motion to refer the report of the committee to the Government was carried on the voices. THE LAND BILL. A lengthy debate took place on the motion for the committal of the Land Bill, the amendments made by the Waste Lands Committee coming in for a large amount of criticism, Li the course of his reply Mr McKenzie referred to the celebrated case of runs 228 and 228 a, Otago, and said that the Hon. Robert Campbell (since deceased) had stated that he had been to Wellington and squared Mr Richardson with the lease.

Mr G. F. Richardson, in giving a most emphatic denial to Campbell’s statement, characterised the Minister’s remark as one of the most disgraceful that had ever been made in the House.

In reply to a question Mr McKenzie said that Mr Campbell made the statement on board a steamer while on a trip to Dunedin, but he (Mr McKenzie) could not divulge the name of the person to whom the remark was made. Mr JJachardson said he would take another 1 opportunity of referring to the matter. The Bill was then committed, and progress was immediately reported. The House rose at 3.30 a.m., and met at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Mr Richardson rose to a question of privilege in connection with what had taken place at an early hour that morning during the debate on the motion to commit the Land Bill. A serious charge had been made against him by the Minister of Lands in connection with two runs in Otago, he having been confronted with the statement that the late J Hon. Robert Campbell had said that he *

had squared the then Minister of Lands (Mr Richardson) in connection with those runs. That was such a serious accusation that he could not pass it over without notice. If it were proved that he (Mr Richardson) had acted in the manner alleged by the Minister of Lands he had no right to be in the House, but if Mr McKenzie had made a false charge against him in connection with this matter, the Minister of Lands had no right to sit in the House. He therefore moved for a Committee to enquire into the whole matter, and report within seven deys. In reply to Mr McKenzie, the Speaker ruled that this was a case of privilege, and that the motion was in order, as it stated that the reflection had been made on his (Mr Richardson’s) conduct as a Minister of the Crown. Mr McKenzie asked whether his withdrawal of the words last night had removed the matter from being a question of privilege. Mr Rolleston said that he was present last night when Mr McKenzie said that he should withdraw the words, but he added that they had been uttered all the same.

Mr Seddon said that if Mr Richardson felt sore at Mr McKenzie’s words, surely he should feel satisfied after his colleague had withdrawn them. He should advise, therefore, that no further proceedings be taken in the matter.

Mr Bryce said that Mr Seddon did not see the gravity of the affair. It was not a question of withdrawing words, but of making a disgraceful charge. The Premier said that it was quite true Mr Richardson considered that a disgraceful charge had been made against him, but he was not entitled to move that it was a breach of privilege, although he was perfectly justified in giving notice of the Committee for another day. There was nothing' to imply that a disgraceful charge had been made, except the interpretation put on the words by the gentleman who had used them, and who was not now here. His colleague had no desire to shirk an enquiry, but had contended that the matter had been settled last night through Mr McKenzie having withdrawn the words. He did not see that there was any urgency in the matter. Mr Rolleston said his opinion was that no man should lie under a charge of that kind for a single hour, and he hoped that the House would agree to a Committee being appointed. Mr W. P. Reeves said that this charge had been made two years ago, and it was then stated that Mr Robert Campbell had said he had come to Wellington in connection with those runs, and had got all that he wanted from the Government. Mr Buckland said that the two things were entirely different, as that was only a vague statement; but the present was a distinct charge. The Speaker eventually ruled that Mr Richardson was entitled to move for a Committee to enquire into that portion of Mr McKenzie’s remarks to the effect that if the matter of those runs were inquired in' o it would not be to Mr Richardson’s credit, but as the other words used by Mr McKenzie had been withdrawn they really had no existence. Mr Richardson denied that the words had been withdrawn absolutely, as Mr McKenzie had uttered the other words after their withdrawal.

Mr Bryce said that there was no doubt the charges were still persisted in, notwithstanding what was said from the Ministerial benches.

The Premier contended that the Speaker had already ruled that those charges having been withdrawn they did not now exist.

Mr Bryce said that the Premier should be ashamed of himself for that statement. The Premier demanded that those words should be withdrawn.

Mr Bryce refused to withdraw them, saying that he was prepared to take the consequences. The Premier moved that Mr Bryce’s words be taken down.

The Speaker at this stage (3.30 p.m.) ordered the galleries to be cleared, and the whole of the galleries were cleared by the Sergentat-Arms and were still closed at 6.30 p.m. The galleries were reopened at 7.50 p.m. The Speaker then put Mr Rees’s motion which was under discussion when the galleries were reopened, namely, “ That the House regrets that the words taken down were used by Mr Bryce, through qualified as they by subsequent words used by the honourable member.” Mr George Hutchison moved an amendment « That Mr Bryce be informed that the words he used were objectionable, and that he be afforded an opportunity of explaining or retracting them.” The Speaker said that this could not be put at present, as they were an entire substitution for the original motion. Mr Rees’s motion was carried by 33 to 24.

Mr Bryce, who had left the chamber while the discussion was proceeding, was sent for by the Speaker. On Mr Bryce taking his seat the Speaker informed him of the resolution just passed by the House. Mr Bryce said that he did not know that he had any right to address the House on the present occasion, but perhaps the House would allow him under the circumstances to say a few words. He should now inform the House that the words he intended using were “that the Premier should be ashamed of himself for relying on a' technicality to prevent an enquiry into a disgraceful charge against another member.” He had only got so far as “ technicality” when he' was interrupted by seveal members and could not finish his sentence. He wished to say that he perhaps personally regarded the word “ ashamed ” in a different light to other members. Mr Ballance was possibly not far wrong when he had said that the word “ ashamed” was in a phase peculiar to himself (Mr Bryce). If he (Mr Bryce) did any injury to a man wrongfully he was always ashamed of himself and this was the first raiult of the shame he felt in trying to make an atonement for having done the Premier an injury. He used the words shame in no way expressing disgrace, but the opposite of it. The Government would admit that during the session he had given them some assistance in the conduct of business, but he supposed that the whipping up of j their supporters for the motion just I carried was the Government’s usual mode j of expressing gratitude for his past con-1 duct this session. He went on to state j that the Speaker’s predecessor had stated •

that he (Mr Bryce) had never been called to order, whilst he (Sir Maurice O’Rorke) presided over the House. He was proud of that commendation from Sir Maurice O’Rorke, and he felt proportionately miserable in having now received the censure of tfle House, although that

censure was brought about under the scourge of the Government whips. In conclusion he said he should now leave the House, and whether he would enter it again would be a matter for his own consideration.

Mr Bryce then bowed "to the Speaker and left the chamber.

The Speaker said that the House would now proceed on the question of privilege. The Premier thought that Mr Richardson should give notice of his resolution.

Mr Scobie McKenzie said that as the Minister of Lauds ' had last night withdrawn the words he had used agaiast Mr Richardson, he saw no reason why ho should not do so nowin the presence.of a full House. After the despicable victory which the Government had gained over. Mr Bryce they would surely not object to the Minister of Lands again withdrawing the words. The Premier asked whether his colleague was required to withdraw the charge in view of the future step to be taken. He felt sure that if it were desired the matter could be settled at once. The Minister of Lands would not hesitate to make a statement, but it would be very different if he were asked to withdraw the words as part of some future line of action. Mr Richardson declared that the Government had done’their best during the afternoon and evening to prevent the enquiry he had asked for, and he appealed to honourable members to remember that it might be their turn next. He had been charged with corruption, and he asked for an inquiry into the accusation.

Mr McKenzie : “ I made no charge di corruption.” Mr Richardson said that four of the Ministers on the benches had by their attitude during this discussion suggested that there was something in the charge. He should to-morrow give notice of a Committee of Enquiry which would be arranged by the leaders of both sides, but after that he should take no further steps in the matter.

Sir John Hall asked whether it was fair|orjust that a member who had been charged with a serious offence should not be afforded an opportunity of clearing his character.

Mr W. P. Reeves wanted to know how they could appoint a Committee _to enquire into a charge that had heen withdrawn, and which was really never made. It was simply ridiculous to assert that four Ministers had affirmed the charge. He had expressed no opinion at all on it, but had pointed out that a similar charge had been made two years ago in connection with the same subject. Mr McKenzie said that if anyone in the House had reason for complaint of the conduct of the Opposition it was himself. One thing in particular they had constantly charged him with, and that was that he was discourteous to the House. He challenged any honorable gentleman to say whether he had been discourteous to members, and if he had been he apologised for it at once. He wished to say that in anything he had mentioned about the Otago runs he did not for one moment accuse Mr Richardson of corruption. At the request of the Speaker he had withdrawn the words complained of, but made no reservation in doing so. He saw no good to be gained by again withdrawing the words, and he did not intend to go on his knees to humble himself before members of the Opposition and the Press of the colony, • Mr Pinkerton moved the previous question, which was put and carried by 36 to 22. Mr Richardson’s motion therefore lapsed. THE IAND Blliti. The Land Bill was further considered in Committee. ■ In clause 31, the penalty for lighting a fire in a forest was fixed at six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £SO. Clause 33—Land Boards established. Mr McKenzie said that he proposed next session to bring down a Bill providing for elective Land Boards. Mr Rolleston remarked that every Minister of Lands had made a similar promise, but had been been unable to give effect to it. Elective Land Boards would not be practicable. The clause was passed, ) Progress was reported, and the House rose at 12.45 a.m.