HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4579, 7 September 1883, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wellington, Yesterday. The 1 Appropriation Bill and Public Works Appropriation Bill were then committed.-— Captain McELenzie moved an addition to the latter to authorise the purchase of land required for a railway in his district.—lt was lost on a division of 24 to 11.—Mr Duncan wished to add a clause authorising the construction of a bridge over the Waitaki, but was ruled out of order. —Both bills were reported, and, on the motion for tbe third reading of the Appropriation Bill, Mr Montgomery moved the postponement of the debate until the remainder of the business had been disposed of.—The House divided on the question: Ayes 13, noes 27.—The bill was read a third time and passed, after further talk, Mr Montgomery, Sir G. Grey, Mr Turnbull and others urging it was unconstitutional to bring on other business after the Appropriation Act was passed.— Major Atkinson said the only questions the Government intended to bring on were the discharge of the Public Accounts Committee and the report of the Dargaville Committee. —Mr Seddon and Mr Shrimski urged that both matters should be allowed to drop this session.—On the motion for agreeing to title of the Appropriation Bill a further discussion took place. The Appropriation Bill and Public Works Appropriation Bill were finally passed. . Mr Mason moved the adoption of the report of the Dargaville Committee. He said the inquiry had been conducted in a manner as free from party feeling as -possible, and the result was arrived at unanimously.—Mr J. Buchanan thought on the eve of separation they should let the dead past bury its dead. The country would form its own opinions without any party vote being come to by the House. He therefore moved " the previous question."-r-Mr Montgomery quoted an analogous case which had occurred in the House of Commons, and nothing further had been done. This was not a time to stir up ill-feeling or to carry the matter further. The character of the Treasurer ._ was fully vindicated by the report as,it stood, and it would be a generous and kind thought to let matters rest where they were. —Mr Bryce thoroughly agreed with those who dssired to part in peace. He thought it now rested with Mr Dargaville to say a single word of regret and end the whole matter. —Mr Dargaville said the real question was whether any member was to be deterred by fear of consequences from giving expression to his convictions. If he now expressed regret, or withdrew a single word of what he had said under the full conviction that he was right, he would be unworthy tb sit in that House ; h© had been tried by a wicked Committeee.—The Speaker said he could not allow such an expression.—Mr Dargaville withdrew it, and said the report was a most unfair and one-sided one, and not at all in accordance with the evidence. He quoted from the proceedings to show how he had been narrowed down to a single charge, every portion of which charge was supported by the evidence. He was acting from a sense of duty, while Ministers were trying to screen themselves from the consequences of their own misdeeds. He would not change places with them. He challenged the Treasurer and his majority to proceed to any extremity,—to stop at the adoption of the report would be pusillanimous and deserve contempt; let them declare the seat for Auckland West vacant, and then he could appeal to his constituents. He vrould before them meet the best man that could be put forward ; be would fight the potential ring of Auckland on this question of political'corruption, but he supposed Major Atkinson would rest satisfied with his servile majority. He felt almost ashamed at the inadequate manner in which he had denounced the political corruption which, existipdjiijiider the present Govern--nient^ h^wou|| pot withdraw a,single wordvd^NCXpreSt'a ■Single regret, and was prepared to»take any consequences and appeal to his constituents. Any decision the House might come to now he would treat with the contumely which, in his mind, it deserved.—Mr Turnbuli thought the report a moderate and reasonable one. They should simply adopt it, and not give the member for Auckland West the position of a martyr, which he , seemed so warmly desirous of. —Mr i 1 Seddon thought the' Committee had 1 unduly pressed Mr Dargaville to formulate 1 his charges. He thought Mr Dargaville had acted rightly in the stand |he 'tad taken. Mr Moss thought the j whole affair a great mistake. No two ' men would probably agree in a definition of publ'.c corruption. The position was now that "Mr Dargaville was the champion, of the right of free speech iv j that House.—Mr Dodson thought Mr I Dargaville was seeking notoriety, and I was too obtuse to see tbe kind of ' notoriety he was gaining. The matter had far better be let drop.—Mr Harris defended Mr Dargaville, and Mr Shepherd said "ifc was impossible to lei the matters- remain as they were after Mr Dargaville's speech.-*-Mr Sheehan thought Mr Dargafille had been unfairly picked out, aß' ( older and abler men had frequently used stronger language. The Committee had entirely failed to investigate the real charges which haS been raado ; the charge they tried was not the char«a made in the House, The whole thing was an attack on the right of speech is wai House.—Messrs JUcKenzie and

Stevens supported the adoption of the report. The previous question was then put and lost by 30 to 17. The motion for the report was then put, when Sir Gr. Grey, Mr Montgomery, and all who had voted with the minority, except Messers Barron and White, who remained to act as tellers, left the House. Major Atkinson also withdrew. The motion was then carried by 29 to 2, and the House rose at 10.30 until 3 on Saturday.