PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4933, 31 October 1884, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY GOSSIP.

[By Teleg-baph.] (FROM OtTIl OWN COEEESPOKDENr.) Wellington, Last night. The Speaker's Billing' Criticised.

At last the resolution having reference to the purchase of the district railways has been disposed of; as to its ultimate effect there is much difference of opinion, the balance of that difference, however, leaning towards the assumption that the Government have .still power, notwithstanding the amendment, to make what arrangement they please, and that whatever those arrangements or agreements may be, the House will be bound to ratify them next session. The debate on the resolution has been of a most dreary character, principally because the'whole question was so threshed out when the district Railways Bill was before the House. The only point of interest in the subject since the resolution was first brought down is the constitutional point on which the Speaker ruled yesterday. Upon this subject the Post, this evening, says:— " The debate in the House of Representatives yesterday, on the question of order in connection with Sir J. Vogel's notice of motion, reviving the proposal to purchase the district Railways, was a very important one, becanse it involved the creation of a precedent which may materially affect the legislation and the party politics of the future. The real issue was whether the question of the purchase of the dis> trict railways, having been decided once this session in the form of a bill, could be revived in the form of a resolution without a violation of constitutional principle and Parliamentary procedure. On that point Sir Maurice O'Rorke delivered a ruling which we cannot think altogether satisfactory. He himself appeared to have some misgiving as to its soundness, for he prefaced it by the expression of a hope that the House ' would not deem it too finely drawn.' The Speaker ruled that the notice of motion as originally placed on the Order Paper was clearly unconstitutional, since it sought to override the other branch of the Legislature, but that the motion proposed to be substituted for it avoided any conflict with the other chamber, and might therefore be put. As to the technical point raised by Mr Bryce, he acknowledged the authority of Sir Erskine May, that it is a rule not to permit any question or bill to be offered, which is substantially the same as one on which the judgment of Parliament has already been expressed in the current session, and also that " a mere alteration of the wording of a question, without any substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to evade this rule," (May's Parliamentary Practice, theless decide that there was a distinction 9th cd., p.p. 808-330). But he would never, between a question and a bill, and that a matter which had been disposed of by one method might properly be received by the other method during the samo session, provided the terms employed were not unconstitutional. This is the ruling which Sir Mannie O'Rorke feared might be deemed " too finely drawn," and we must say we think his fear was not ill founded. The ruling appears to ug to be so finely drawn as tq be practically i'epugnant to the principal plainly laid down by May, and illustrated by numerous cases cited by that author." This day. Writing on the subject of yesterday's Pistriet Railways' resolution, Jhp Nfjw Zealand Times says s—" When the reg@» lution which was adopted came to be re*

ported, there appeared to be a doubt on the minds of hon. members as to whether the Government had gained a victory or sustained a defeat. The Government has kept persistently to the one great object of securing to itself the position of being able, with the sanction of the House, to deal effectively with the District Railways Companies daring the recess. If as a consequence of last night's proceedings that position has been secured, the Government is victorious; if not, it is badly beaten, for it is evident that Mr Stout and Sir J. Togel from the first have attached the greatest importance to obtaining a decision satisfactory from their points of view. Our contention is that the resolution, which was carried, practically settles the question of the purchase of every one of the district railways. The majority has authorised the Government to buy the companies out, and those who have lent themselves to this thoroughly unconstitutional course of procedure cannot, after the bargain has been struck, turn round and repudiate (he action of their own agents; in short, as Sir George Grey puts it, a miracle will be required to enable escape to be made from the arrangement which will be completed during the recess. Those who will principally gain by the transfer of the railways to the Government are a few rich men who prefer that the taxpayers rather than themselves should bear the losses arising from unsuccessful speculations. It is useless to pursue the subject further at present; the Government has hoodwinked the House and the speculators are triumphant."