Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP.

• -.»..-,; [By. Telegbiph.] • •-■-■■'■■ ■ _^ » (PBO* OtTB SPKOIAT. COBBESPONDBNT.) .'.!."'.• '■-■■ IWJRI.WN&TON,;This clay. The • honorarium scandal has been exercising the minds of those members who are not; busy stonewalling. The facts are simply these, as giyen by Mr Reeres •• Last session I happened to be in the lobby of the House of Representatires, and certain hon. members there were talking about the question of honorarium. It was about the time wjh|e^'lMr';' Seddon's ■ bill ; was under coMideiration as the abolition, of honorarium altogether, and hon. members talked about it and said they would get about a hundred.guinpas, I said " Obno, I will guarantee £150." The hon. member of the Council said "I will take it." I said I would give a cheque there and then for the £150, but; he said, " Oh, t that is no matter." The' understanding was that if oTer a hundred pounds was noted, I was to get the difference, and if uot I was to niake it up. Mr Wood was one of the gentlemen. I do not feel justified in mentioning ' "the other 'gentleman's name unless insisted on by the Com* mittee.—On being pressed, Eeerea said it was the Hon. E. Campbell, and at the fud of th* sesyioif he received {'row Mr

Campbell the amount in excess of the £150, namely, £30. The following is the report of the Committee of the Council on the sale of [ honorariums :—The Committee is of opi nion that, assuming all the facts as alleged to be true, no breach of privileges ! of tbe Council has been committed, but at the same time they consider any sale of honorarium, especially to a member of the House of Representatives, a very irregular and improper transaction. The Committee, however, are not able to say that, they are satisßed that, as regards the Hon. Mr Wood, the transaction which undoubtedly took place was understood or intended by him to be a sale of his honorarium. 2. We dissent from the report on the ground th at v are of opi nion upon the balance of to-fimony that the Hon. Mr Wood entered ii.'n an agreement for the sale of his honorarium to Mr beeves.—J. N. Wilson, G. Buck let, W. Reynolds. The assenting members of the Committee are —the Speaker (Sir W. Fitzherbert),. Messrs fiichmond, Whitaker, Mantell,,'P. Buckley, and Waterhouse. The evidence taken was that of Beeves, Brown, McDonald, Allwrigbt, Hurst, and Seddon, S Lowe (Clerk Legislative Council), Lahman, and Martin, M.L.C's., and a statement by the Hon. Mr Wood.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THS18810903.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3957, 3 September 1881, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
416

PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP. Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3957, 3 September 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP. Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3957, 3 September 1881, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert