PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3004, 1 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Pee Pbess Agency.)

HOUSE OF [REPRESENTATIVES.

WELLINGTON. .*■■/■ Monday. THE BAY OF ISLANDS ELECTOBATE. The House met at 7.30. Sir George Grey presented a petition from the Bay of Islands, stating that certain Europeans were preventing duly qualified natives from enjoying the electoral franchise, but chiefly Edward March Williams. THE FLOODS IS OTAGO. Mr Murray gave notice to ask the Minister of Telegaphs why he did not, according to promise, notify all the lower stations on the Clutha that, the river was rising. BESEEVES FOB CHABITABLE PUBPOBES. Mr Bowen gave notice to move that reserves should be made throughout the colony for charitable purposes. THE TELEGBAPH. Mr Pyke asked whether, in view of frequent interruptions to telegraph communications, the Government would cause wires to be laid in pipes under the surface im exposed places. The Hon. Mr Fisher said it was too expensive a plan to adopt. . THE HINEMOA. Mr Fitzroy again asked when the return regarding the Hinemoa would be laid on the table. The Premier said he had only the same answer be bad already given, but if the hon. member would give notice of motion that such'a return should be furnished that would afford him (the Premier) an opportunity of making such a statement as the House has a right to expect. BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. In reply to Mr Barff (he Hon. Mr Ballance promised a return of benevolent societies in the colony, having public funds at their disposal. BILES BEAD. i Several bills were introduced and read a first time, including the Bail way Reserves Sale, a bill to establish a High School at Wanganui, Girls High School in Auckland, and a bill to further encourage the education of youths in New Zealand. The Impounding Bill from the Legislative Council was introduced and read a first time. ' JUDICIAL COMMISSION BILL. On the Judicial Commission Bill, second reading, the Hon. ,Mr Stout said if anything would make one vote-for the bill, it was the able and argumentative speech of the hon. member for Mount Ida. But he would ask the House to con* sider what the bill proposed. It first of all asked for what , the Government , had no. power to do, namely, appoint a Commission. .If there was no doubt as to the power of the Judges to imprison, then there was no need of a Commission. The duty of a Commission always was to report on matter of fact, not to give mere opinions. After going over the principal propositions of the bill the hon. gentleman asked, was it wise for the House to place in the hands of the Commissioners the power of saying that the procedure of the Courts of England, America, pud the colonies, for many yean,

had been entirely in a wrong direction P The hon. gentleman then proceeded to quote from a number of eminent legal fluthorUips in support of the power enjoyed by the Judges of the Supreme Court to commit for contempt, and said that the Court of New Zealand possessed all the powers of English Courts. There was, therefor**, no need for a Commission to inquuv. because it was clear the Courts had power to commit.* It would be an unheard of thing to instruct a Commission to determine what the law of England was. The hon. gentleman set out at some length the law of New Zealand regarding the Judges. With regard to the third sub section of the bill, which referred to Mr Barton's imprisonment, lie prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not agree with the punishment which had been meted oat. While it was necessary that the fair freedom of speech at the Bar should be conserved, it was of ,a great deal more importance to conserve the powers of'the Supreme Courts. They should do nothing to lower the status of the Supreme Court. Anything which lowered that would re-act upon themselves The hon. gentleman, in, arguing it was necessary Judges should have the power to punish for contempt, pointed out that the commission asked must have the power to punish for contempt if it was to have the judicial form and power; on the other hand if judges made an improper use of the power they possessed, and public opinion revolted at it, there was a barometer which at once indicated pretty precisely the limits beyond which it was not right to go. In reply to the argument that' this law had been a growth of centuries, and was not conferred by statute, he pointed out that a law which had been observed for six hundred years in England and since the foundation of the United States, without either the Parliament of England or the Congress of America taking steps to alter fhe course, was the very best proof that the law was necessary. In conclusion, he would ask the House to be very careful how it interfered with the powers of the Supreme Court. Speaking for himself, he would oppose the second reading. '.':•■ ', :••>■■■/; , Later.

Thuday. On the Judicial Bill last night Mr Stout was followed by Mr Reel, who strongly supported the second reading of the bill. He disagreed with the argument of the Attorney-General, that because thig was a power which had existed by practice since Magna Charta, therefore it should continue for all time. The same argument might be brought up at any time when it was proposed to alter the law that had existed in New Zealand for years before. He said the AttorneyGeneral had stated that public opinion would govern the exercise of the powers which he hoped to see continued in the judges. No doubt public opinion was a.great power and a mighty engine, and could interfere with members of that House if they did not do their duty. Public opinion in aeoncrete form would use its influence at the poll.and unseat them, but public opinion had no power over the judges of the Supreme Court, and could, not remove them from the bench. He was astonished to hear, the Attorney-General speak in support of absolute power of commitment for contempt being, given to the judges. To give them such absolute power was in direct violation of the liberties of the subjects, the spirit of the constitution, and against every principle which should govern free men. It was a dangerous doctrine for judges to have the power to send a man to gaol for life, and the Crown not the power to commute the sentence. It was giving the judges power which the less could not touch nor the legislation interfere with.

Mr Bowen said that it was absurd; to suppose judges bad the power to do what they pleased without appeal. The power for commitment had rested with the judges for six centuries past. He would be very sorry to say anything harsh against Mr Barton, but he must say his conduct in the Supreme Court was such as to render judicial business impossible. He hoped the House would not take any | steps in-the matter, or interfere with the judges, unless there was a clear case. Mr Moss considered that the fact of a member of the bar being committed to. gaol, imprisoned with criminals, was a sufficient cause for inquiry. He had studied the case carefully, and was of , opinion the Judges had a dislike for Mr Barton, which was evident from their words and harsh treatment. He had [never heard of a similar case to Mr Barton's, and hoped enough had been | shown to prove the necessity for inquiry. . Mr Gisborne considered the bill would have a tendency to interfere with the independence of judges. If a judge were put on trial for this it would be sapping the foundations of the Supreme Court, and striking at the very root of the liberties j of the people. He would oppose the i bill. . Mr Tole stated that the supporters of the bill considered there was sufficient ground for enquiry * Mr Whitaker considered it essential that the judges should hold the power of commitment for contempt in order to enforce the proper administration of justice. Unless the power was conferred to punish for contempt, it would be impossible to Carry the business on. He rejected the bill. Mr Joyce moved the adjournment of the debate

The House rose at 12.40.