GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2249, 3 September 1891, Page 4

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wellington, September 1. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday. BILLS REPORTED. The Public Revenue Bill and the Customs and Excise, Duties Bill were committed and reported with slight amendments. MINING BILL. The Mining Bill was read a second time. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT BILL, Mr Buckley moved the second reading of the Friendly Societies Act Amendment Bill. Mr Stevens said that the Bill imposed obligations that really were oppressive, and he moved an amendment that it be read a second time .that day six months. On a division the amendment was carried by 20 to 5. ir ■ BILLS PASSED. The River Boards Amendment Bill and the Book Purchasers-Protection Bill passed their final stages; The Council rose at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday. MR BRYCE’S CASE.

Mr Rees asked the Premier whether if Mr Bryce would agree to withdraw the words used by him on Thursday last, and which-were declared by the Speaker to be unparliamentary, the Government would give facilities for further consideration of the question, and* if it were desired, for expunging the vote of censure passed on him by the House. The Premier said the Government would be prepared to give every facility for considering the question further, and also, if the House desired it, an opportunity would be afforded for rescinding the resolution passed on the member for Waikato on Thursday last. Mr Scobie Mackenzie said that he wished to call the Speaker’s attention to four points, on which he would ask his * siding. In doing so he asked whether ' the proceedings of Thursday night were not so irregular that no member ought to be condemned for what occurred. The Speaker had only pronounced Mr Bryce s words to be technically a blunder, from which it might be inferred that actually they were not so. The word “ ashamed” had been used on the previous evening without any check from the chair. Upon the English authorities he argued that according to the Speaker’s own ruling the words were so trivial that there ought to have been delay in taking them down, bo that Mr Bryce would have had an opportunity to explain before being ■ condemned. The motion to take down the words ought, according to precedent, to have been allowed to be discussed, so that Mr Bryce could have had every chance to explain, and, if necessary, to withdraw and apologise. No such opportunity for discussion had been given. Again, when the words were taken down the offending member had the right to have them read to him, and to deny that they were the words which he used, and the question ought then to have been to the House to decide what his words really were His fourth point, again upon authority, was that if the House deemed the explanation satisfactory no further proceeding would be necessary. In this case condemnation was pronounced first and the explanation came after it. Ihus the indictment was faulty, and, following the example of the lower Courts, this the highest Court in the colony, could proceed to quash it. Mr Seddon referred to the first point raised by Mr Mackenzie, viz., that the Speaker had declared that the words used by Mr Bryce were trivial m character, and asserted that the Speaker had said nothing of the kind. What he did state was that if the additional words which Mr Bryce said he intended using had been used it would have modified the matter somewhat. He wished to remind the House that the Premier on the occasioii referred to was not at all excited, but was speaking on the subject in a calm n.ud dispassionate manner, and asking the House to uphold the Speaker’s ruling, when Mr Bryce told him he ought to be ashamed of himself. Then Mr Mackenzie stated that the same words had had been used, frequently in the House, and the Speaker had not called the member using them to order. He pomted out that similar words had been more than once ruled unparliamentary by the Speaker. In reply to Mr Mackenzie s next point Mr Seddon contended that the words by Mr Bryce were ordered to be taken down in the usual way, and as to Mr Mackenzie’s last point, that Mr Bryce had not been asked to make an explanation, he submitted that that explanation was given before Mr Bryce left the Chamber. Sir John Hall, Dr Newman, Mr Fish, and others having spoken, , The Speaker gave his ruling. He said that when asked by the Premier whether the words used by Mr Bryce were Parliamentary, he had ruled in the negative, and quoted. from Hansard of the House of Commons to show that the Speaker of that Chamber had ruled , a similar expression ont <d order. Mr Bryce having refused to withdraw the words complained pf, and said that he would take the consequences, clearly indicated that ho would ' not withdraw the words if called upon to do so, and he (the Speaker) was more convinced from the fact that Mr Bryce had in variably shown-the greatest respect and deference to the Chair. If Mr Bryce when stating that the Premier should be ashamed flat himself had used the words K for relying on & technicality” it would no doubt have minimised the effect of his remarks. As to the two other points raised by Mr Mackenzie, }?s said that the words used by Mr Bryce were taken down by his (the Speaker’s) direction under their own Standing Orders, and, further, the words were read ±o Mr Bryce, and he made his explanation. With reference to the fourth point, whether after Mr Bryce’s statement had been made it should not he sufficient for the House to accept it, he . said that Mr Bryce had made no explanation of hU action. He (the Speaker) added that there was no failure of order ©n the occasion referred to. He regretted very much what had occurred, and he should only be too glad to ofier his sendees in order to effect »vecon- . foliation*

Mr Rolleston said that before he discharged the painful duty which had been entrusted to him by the member for : Waikato, he should like to know whether the Premier had any communication to make to the House, in view of the fact that the present question affected the honor of the House and tbe country. The Premier replied that a very clear ruling had just been given by the Speaker, and he was glad to hear his intimation that he should do what he could to bring about a reconciliation. The Speaker had also stated that he thought Mr Bryce ought in some way recognise the authority of the Chair. He felt sure that he expressed the sentiment of every member of the House when he said there was no desire to inflict on Mr Bryce any humiliation whatever, and if any approach were made by Mr Bryce to the Speaker, it would, he was convinced, be quite satisfactory to the House. In that case he should be the first to move that the vote of censure passed by the House should be rescinded. No one regretted more than he (the Premier) what had taken place. He should suggest an adjournment of the question in order to afford an opportunity for the Speaker to consult with Mr Bryce to see if some arrangement could be made. If desirable an adjournment could be made till 7.30 p.m. Mr Rolleston said that a very great responsibility rested on him in connection with this matter, but he did not think that the member for Waikato should come to Parliament as a suppliant. He then handed the Speaker Mr Bryce’s resignation of his seat as a member of the House. The resignation was read to the House by the Speaker. The Premier said that it , was, with great regret he rose to, move that a writ be issued for the election of a member for the electoral district of Waikato. Mr Rolleston said that he wished to move as an addition to that motion “ That the following resolution passed by the House be expunged ''• That the House regrets that the words were used by the honorable member for Waikato, although qualified as they were by the addition of subsequent words.’ ” He thought that it was not too late for the House to do justice to Mr Bryce. He stated that Mr Bryce felt that he was asserting a great truth when he uttered the words complained of, and felt that he would be doing wrong if he withdrew them. If the addition to the resolution were carried, Mr Bryce would have the satisfaction of knowing that the House resented the indignity put upon him. The Premier thought that the House would agree that the honorable gentlemen opposite were taking a very unreasonable course. He moved that an adjournment be taken till 7.30.

The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned at 4.30. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The Premier said he regretted that he could not accept Mr Rolleston’s amendment, as he considered that it was too late as far as he (the Premier) and his side of the House was coacerned. They thought that the Speaker’s offer was a reasonable way out of the difficulty they had got into. Sir John Hall, Mr Scobie Mackenzie, Mr G. Hutchison, and Mr Fisher spoke in favor of the amendment, and Mr O’Conor, Mr Rees, and Mr Swan against it. Mr Rolleston’s addition to the Premier’s motion for the issue of a new writ for the election of a new member for the Waikato was then put and lost by 34 to 26, and the Premier’s motion was agreed to.. THE LAND BILL. The Land Bill was - further considered in Committee. Clause 163, each run to be submitted to auction, was amended so as to provide that lands shall be submitted to public application by ballot. ■ In clause 171, which allows the lessee under certain conditions to subdivide his run among members of his family, the words “ not being under 17 years of age” were added.

Clause 185,, no person or company to hold more than one run, provoked a lengthy discussion. The motion to alter the clause was negatived by 36 to 13. The clause was added to the Bill. The remaining clauses passed with slight amendment. Some new clauses were added, and the Bills were reported with amendments, which were ordered to be considered next day. The House rose at 1.30 a.m. The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.

AUCKLAND ELECTRIC-LIGHTING BILL. The Auckland Electric-Lighting Bill was read a third time and passed. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. Replying to questions it was stated that the Government were endeavoring to obtain ammunition for Martini-Henri rifles at cheaper rates, and if they were successful rifle clubs would be given the advantage the of concession ; that the Government did not propose to ask for any vote this session to , give assistance to nominated emigrants, but possibly a small sum might be set apart for the purpose of bringing out the relatives of people already in the colony. LAND BILL, The Land Bill was recommitted. Clause 163 was amended so as to provide for the ballot system of disposing of runs of 5000 acres. Clauses 164 to 176 were amended consequently to provide for the ballot system. Clausa 236, Governor exclusively may purchase or lease native land under the Thermal Springs District Act, 1881, provoked a long discussion, Mr Carroll moved an amendment that every existing lease should be validated. The amendment was agreed to. The House rose at 5.30 p.m., and resumed at 7.30. The Laqd Bill was reported. On the motion for the third reading Sir John Hall made a few remarks. He said that the Premier was a strong believer in land nationalisation, and the Minister of Lands had openly stated that a Crowm-grant would be unknown in fifty years. That being the case the Government would no doubt go in the direction of withdrawing from future settlers the right of the freehold, and to this he took a strong objection for several reasons, but he thought that there was no more cliance of the Minister of Lands doing away with the desire that' existed ampasst the people for possessing free-

hold than there was of that estimable lady Mrs Partington sweeping away the Atlantic with a broom.

Messrs Buckland, J. W. Thompson, Valentine, G. Hutchison, Duncan, Macintosh, Taylor, and Dr Newman also spoke. The Hon. Mr McKenzie, in replying, said that every argument adduced that night had been answered by him time after time. With respect to the remark made by Sir John Hall that the option of tenure was taken away by this Bill, he denied that statement, and said that he had no intention of taking away from the people of the colony the right of tenure. As to the freehold system which Sir John Hall had defended so eloquently he said that in some districts 50 per cent, of the freeholds were heavily mortgaged. He held that three systems of tenure remained in the Bill, and it seemed to be forgotten that anyone who wanted to take up land could do so, under perpetual lease, which., could eventually be turned into a freehold. There was no doubt, that public opinion was tending in the direction of Bill. He thanked Mr Rolleston for the very able assistance which he had given him in passing the Bill, and he also, thanked Mr Richardson, his predecessor in the Lands Department, for the valuable assistance he had rendered him in connection with the Bill. Theßill was read a third time and passed. LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL. The Land and Income Assessment Bill was received by Message from the Governor, with an amendment. The Premier, explained the nature of the amendment, and said that it was of a purely technical nature, being simply to allow the assessment under the Bill to be made before April, 1892. He moved that the amendment be agreed to.

The motion was carried. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

The Premier moved the second reading of the Legislative Council - Bill to alter the mode of making appointments of members of the Legislative Council, and to regulate vacancies therein. The Bill would effect an important reform, and would tend to accomplish what they on that side ■ of the House desired to see, namely, -that Chamber more in accord with the wishes of the people. He proposed in Committee to ask that the original number of seven years’ tenure be inserted in the Bill. He also would ask that the Speaker of the Council should be appointed by the Crown instead of by the Council as altered by the Council, and he should also propose that the age of members be made 21 years instead of 35 years as altered in the Council. Whatever might be said against this Bill, it must be held to be a great reform in many respects. Mr Rolleston did not think that-the Bill was a reform, nor did he think it would interest the public at all. If members of the Council were appointed every ten years it would largely do away with their independence in dealing with public questions. The his mind the only real reform worth fighting for would be to make the Legislative Council an elective body under a form of local government. After considerable debate the motion was agreed to on the voices. WORKMEN’S LIEN BILL. The House went into committee on; the Workmen’s Lien Bill, which went through without amendment, and was read a third time and passed. The House rose at 12.30 a.m.