GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 369, 18 August 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Electric Telegraph.] {From a correspondent of the Press.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, August 17. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30. NEW MEMBER. Mr Basstian, by Mr Reynolds and Mr Cuthbertson, took the oath and his seat. WATERWORKS BILL. The Dunedin Waterworks Bill was read a second time. Opposition is threatened in committte. SURVEYOR-GENERAL, Mr Wales gave notice of his intention to ask tomorrow what steps, if any, were intended to be taken to fill up the appointment of Surveyor-General. BRANCH RAILWAYS. Hon E. Richardson gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to regulate the construction of branch railways. captains rowe and scholefield. In laying on the table the papers relating to the inquiry regarding the conduct of Captains Rowe and Scholefield, of the Engineer Militia Corps at Waikato, Sir D. McLean stated that from the 13th of this month the sole remaining corps would be disbanded. MUNICIPAL ACTS. Hon C. C. Bowen intimated that the Government intend to consolidate the Municipal Acts, THE ABOLITION BILL. The Government to-night intimate their intention of pursuing the Abolition debate to its close. Opposition will make a strong effort to go on with private business on Wednesday and Thursday as usual. Mr Rolleston leads off to-night, followed by Hon C. C. Bowen. Two hours' discussion arose over the Speaker's information to the House, that an error had arisen in entering up the journals of the House re the mode of procedure adopted on introducing the Abolition Bill. Sir G. Grey led off by asking whether everything done since the introduction of the Bill was not informal, • whether through the discussion having first been taken on a Bill which was unlawful and unparliamentary, and the course which the Governor had chosen to pursue before the measure was considered in committee of whole, the matter did not require to be begun de novo. The Speaker said he had not the slightest hesitation in answering the question. The proceedings, as far as they had gone, so far as the Abolition Bill was concerned, were perfectly correct. The Bili having been sent down by message, it was competent for the House at once to discuss it, but having appropriation clauses, the House must, after the second reading, go into committee of the whole, to consider those appropriation clauses before it could reach another stage. So far as precedents showed, what was done was quite in order, and nothing contrary to the standing orders. Mr Stafford corroborated the Speaker, whose ruling was borne out by the practice of the House of Commons up to very recent times. The most recent case was in 1872, when Mr Monck raised a similar question in reference to fresb railways, that should have first gone into committee of the whole before the second reading, and reference was then made to the case of the purchase of telegraphs, in 1868. The Speaker then decided that not until after the second reading it was necessary for the House to go into committee of the whole; that course was adopted in both cases. Mr Fitzherbert asked if the course would not have been different if a private mer/ber had brought in an Appropriation Bill. In that case the House would, first require to go into committee of the whole. The Speaker—Certainly. Mr Fitzherbert contended that the House had been hurried in its deliberations by the course the Government had pursued. The Speaker again pointed out the necessity for that course being adopted was obviated by the Bill being sent down by message. Mr O'RORKE contended that the House must be guided by its standing orders, and No 355 laid down plainly that no Appropriation Bill could be proceeded with unless in committee of the whole. The Speaker—That is quite true, but the hon member must bear ii mind that the House is obliged to be ruled by another standing order, which says when the Governor sends down a Bill by message it must be dealt with in a particular way. Mr Reeder Wood argued that a different course was pursued in reference to the Appropriation Bill, and that the standing orders having received the Governor's assent could not be departed from by the Government, they having the force of law. Mr Fitzherbert and Sir G. Grey argued the same as Mr R. Wood on the point. The Speaker again pointed out the peculiar way in which the Abolition Bill stood. It was not for him to decide as to the political bearing of its introduction ; but he had given the matter his most careful and anxious consideration, and assured the House that it was guided by the rules and practices of the House of Commons in analogous cases. He considered every step so far taken was correct. It mattered not whether the House went into committee before or after the second reading; but if the second reading was agreed to, the next step was imperatively to go into committee of the whole to consider the appropriation clauses. The Bill having been sent down by message, the House was bound to enter upon its discussion. The Appropriation Bill is not so brought down, but brought in by the Treasurer of the day under instructions of the committee of supply. The section of the Constitution Act requiring the Governor's assent to the standing orders was repealed before the existing standing orders were agreed to by the House. Sir G. Grey next rose to a point of order, and said the Bill was remarkably silent, and the Government carefully avoided the subject of finance. The Opposition first wanted to get explanations on the finance in order to enable them to comprehend the measure. If the Bill was undoubtedly wrong upon finance —["No"] —as he believed it to be. and could be so shown, the Bill was of no u<?e whatever. It was a fair and just claim in such an importaut measure that the standing orders should be rigidly observed. Through the withholding of that information on finance which should

be given from the first, he and some of his" friends had gone thoroughly into the financial part of the Bill, and satisfied themselves from the prospects disclosed, that they were absolutely fallacious—that the framers of the Bill had no knowledge of these financial proposals ; he was firmly convinced of that, and asked in justice to the country that so important a matter should be pursued through all stages properly, regularly and according to the standing orders. Hon Major Atkinson complained that Sir G. Grey had gone a little further than was customary on such occasions. The proper course was fGr the House to support the Speaker's decision. If dissatisfied with it, it was for the member to "give notice that he disagreed with it, and to take the further opinion- of the House upon it. The course the Government had taken had not only been decided by the Speaker to be in accordance with the standing orders and precedent, but he contended, with reason. A great principle was involved in the Bill; the Government asked the House to agree with that principle. If it negatived the principle, there was no use going further ; if it agreed with it, then the House would discuss the matters in detail. It was evidently quite hopeless to make ihe hon gentleman opposite understand the Government finance. In due course he would show thoroughly what it was, and then it was for the House and country to s»y whether the Government really understood the financial position of the colony or their own financial proposa s. [Cheers.] Mr Reid contended that the minority had a right to insist that the forms of the House, framed for the protection of minorities, should be rigidly observed. The Speaker again repeated that he wa£ satisfied his ruling was correct, but there was no necessity for the member to give notice. He was but a servant of the House, and at any time it was competent for tha House to overrule his decision.> • ■ Mr Luckie said this was the new policy of the Opposition—anything to gain delay, Mr Bunny insisted on Mr O'Rorke's interpretation of the standing order 355 as correct, Mr Wood argued that the House had no power to set aside the standing orders, except in accordance with the latter; when leave was given to suspend them, it must be first obtained. Referring to Mr Luckie, he said amid roars of laughter, that " his tongue must eternally go, because he has impudence at will." Mr Luckie rose to order. He thought Mr. Wood had gone a little too far. Mr Wood when interrupted was giving a description of an individual referred to by the poet Gray. [ Loud laughter.] .He reminded the Government that the Opposition came to the House innocent of such a question being raised. The Speaker observed it was his place tc argue the matter. He had already expressed his opinion, carefully and maturely considered, and saw no reason to alter it. After considerable discussion, Mr Bunny—Are we subject to our stand* ing orders or not ? The Speaker—Certainly. Mr Bunny—Are we bound by them ? The Speaker—Certainly. .. . Mr Bunny—Then an attempt is made to get over them. We contend under rule 355 we must go into committee of the whole before we can proceed with the second reading. We call upon you to protect the minority from the Govei nment breaking the rules. The Speaker—There is no further need of a statement from me.' [Cries of " No."] Mr Montgomery pointed out the different course pursued last 3 ear on the introduction of the State Forests and Civil Service Bills, and called on the Speaker to give his reasons. The Speaker—lt is not for me to give reasons. I simply decided that the course taken by the Government is in accordance with the Standing Orders and the practice of Parliament. [Cheers. J I have come to that conclusion after a careful and serious deliberation, and the fullest search for precedents for my guide. I decline to allow the. discussion to proceed further. Mr . Sheehan moved that the Speaker'sruling in reference to going on with thesecond reading before going into committee of the whole, be further considered tomorrow, and in the meantime Order No 1 (Abolition debate) be postponed. This was not done for delay, as there were countless ways of gaining that, but to definitely determine the point at issue. He was authorised to state that in the last session of the New South Wales Parliament the Stamp Duties Bill introduced passed through all its stages, and after the third reading its progress was arrested on a poinl of order, and the Bill declared informal, because they had not gone into committee of the whole before the second reading. It was a request, therefore, which was not unreasonable. Mr Reeves seconded the motion. The Government in bringing in the Bill exercised a novel and ingenious method. If they had shown half as much ingenuity in framing the Bill it would have been better for the country. [Laughter.] Sir D. McLean said the Government musb oppose the motion. The Speaker ha4 — clearly laid it down that it was the right course which had been taken. The action of the Opposition meant delay—to take up the time of the House and the country. Mr Macandrew considered the head of the Government wrong in imputing such a motive to the Opposition. Sir G. Grey would make another appeal to the members on the Government benches. He affirmed that most important principles hinged on theii finance. Strongly as public opinion was running against the Government now, it would run stronger against them. The House and country had a right to know what were the finances embodied in. the measures. He was new to the House, and did not know the proper forms to be pursued. Had he known, he would have objected immediately. His ignorance of forms should not be used against himself in an important matter like this. He charged the Government with wantonly breaking through the standing orders. In a neighbouring colony, when the Government discovered their error, they took the path of rectitude and right, but this Government, when they made a discovery, determined not to follow that path ; tha* the people should have no knowledge of the financial details of the Bill until after its principles were confirmed and the Bil read a second time. Every step taken U- reference "to thu Bill was unusual. It Pas unnecessary to mould two Bills into r-ie, to make the Queen's representative to *it his name to it and advise him to pledgees words, in point of fact, to amend the Bi : if framed, whilst there was withheld fror him the opinion of the Attorney,Geueral which stated that doubts were raised or oae question, and that

it ought to be referred home. They deceived him and another branch of the Legislature. [Cheers and dissent from Ministerialists ] That was the case, by moulding the two Bills into one they shut out the upper branch of the Legislature from any power to alter the measure, which otherwise they possessed. They took steps, which only a few days ago he discovered, although before suspected, that it was against the standing orders for the protection of the minority. It should first have gone into committee of the whole, in fairness and justice to the minority—to their fellow colonists, whom they were about to deprive of their representative institutions— [" Oh "] —replacing them by nominated Superintendents. L LoU(i noise, and cheers from the Opposition.] nominated public officers, making the whole country one great government of the civil service, whose slaves the Government were in point of fact. [Laughter and cheers.J Why not let the Speaker decide as a Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by each side to-morrow. It was a point of the most vital importance not only to their House but in time to come, when minorities might be protected against tyrannical majorities like that which now occupied the Government Benches, who were determined to introduce a measure and force it through, against which the public voice had been raised, until they had an opportunity of considering it. [" No."] He said, " Yes, yes." The step taken was simply over-riding the people. It was unfair to the House. If the Government gave the people time to consider what was before them the Opposition were prepared to unite hand and heart in favor of a proper constitution, which would last for years. On an occasion like that he asked the powerful majority not to trample on the minority, a course in which they must ultimately fall, in spite of every effort to the contrary. [Opposition cheers.J Hon 0. 0. Bowen said the Government had taken care that everything was done .constitutionally. The point now raised was purely technical, which the Speaker, who had given the matter bis earnest attention, hart .decided. No possible good could result from delay. The Opposition objected to .discuss the Bill on its merits but pressed for idelay on questions of detail. Mr Stafford pointed out that the Standing Orders of the English House of Commons were word for word the same as theirs. Mr Sheehan's motion was then negatived on the voices.

fPEE Press Agency.] Wellington, August 18 The House resumad at 7.30 yesterday evening, when the debate on the Abolition .Bill was re-opened by Mr Eolleston, who said he always endeavoured, whenspeakiDg in the House, to do so from a Colonial point of view, disassociating his position as a Superintendent from that of a member ol the House. He then adverted to what Provincial Governments had done already. Public works and education add to the many social benefits which had resulted, and would result, from local government. What was the reason for the Bill? The people were not dissatisfied. If there had been bad administration, that should have been rectified. The short comings of one province should not be made a pretext to destroy all, neither should the question be dealt with from the narrow and monetary point of view. Even what the Native Minister called the constant display of antagonism between the General and Provincial Governments was but a sign of the wholesome activity and attention to the political j interests of the people. The Government, in bringing forward this measure, showed forgetfulness of the first want of national life. The organisations of Government and society were like those of nature, continuous and progressive. This Bill was opposed to all true principles of constitutional Government. While, however, he was satisfied that we could not remain as we are, circumstances had arisen which necessitated great changes, but not in the manner proposed by Government. The financial position of the colony re- - quired all their attention. The colony was now in that position that the customs revenue would pay little more than the interest upon borrowed money. Every family - in the colony contributed from £2O to £3O per head. Evidently the Bill arose from our financial necessities. The Government were ■mistaken in thinking they could control the "affairs of the country from a centre ; they misunderstood the value of local Government; their plan was opposed to the idea of simplification of Government in the examples of Canada and United States. They should have endeavoured to make the two co-ordi-nate Governments work together harmoniously, and while exercising a wholesome restraint, they should have aided the Provincial Governments in carrying out their work of progression. He maintained that the election of superintendents and Provincial Governments were an essential of popular Government. Provincialism was no doubt much overgrown, but any change necessary would naturally come with time. If Provincial Governments had failed in carrying out properly the functions entrusted to them, the fault lay with the General Government. He then referred to surveys and gaols. The whole administration of the General Government had not been such as to commend itself to the people. His idea of a simplification of the form of Government - was a division of the colony into shires, to be conterminous with the electoral districts, and to possess local organisation, and to have large powers of government and taxation ; but he saw nothing of this nature in the Bill. He thought nothing had ever been done to secure the efficient operation of Provincial Government. They should have been m ore fairly represented in the Upper House. He saw great need for reform in our system " of taxation. Gaols, asylums, and charitable institutions should be charged on the Cus- ' toms revenue. The real theory of the land revenue was to devote the proceeds of the land to the land itself, any reference to the compact of 1856. He could make nothing of the Bill but chaos, and .thought its introduction inopportune. First, we were never greater slaves to the native -difficulty than now, then the House and the Ministry were never in a more disorganised state than now. In the Ministry there is no guiding mind, the member for Timaru pulled the strings. The administration of Government in many things was unsatisfactory, but eminently so in the matter of confiscated lands. If this Bill passed, the land fund would become common property. He was strongly opposed to the clause of the Bill which provided for the requirements of such provinces as had no land fund by Treasury Bills. If this Bill were passed, immediately, the cry of separation would be raised. Mr Bowen replied, and denied that the state of the finances had caused the Bill. If

tliere had been financial difficulties the provinces created them. There never yet had been a Colonial Treasurer who did not frum time to time protest against the raids made for money by the provinces. Ten years ago the member for the Flutt charged £125,000 to the loan account, having had to provide that sum for the requirements of the provinces. Mr John Hall said it was utterly impossible to guard the colonial chest from such organised banditti, who year after year demanded your money or your life. No wonder therefore the late Treasurer determined to sweep them away altogether. If they were not swept away the country would be landed in financial disaster.' The hon gentleman quoted from a lecture of Mr Godley's, given twenty years ago, which was prophetic of the position the provinces had arrogated. The circumstances which required provincialism then, no longer existed, and its continuance was detrimental to the unity of the colony. Referring to the cry raised about the liberties of the people, he compared the Superintendents to the Cassars, who always ignored the people's representatives, and appealed direct to the people by plebiscite. They had an instance of this personal government when a Council one day passed a resolution favoring abolition,.and next day rescinded it because it was displeasing to a Superintendent. It was easier to govern New Zealand now from one centre than to govern England in the time of their grandfathers. How could people main+ain that the existence of provincialism was necessary, when it existed in no other country. If that were fair reasoning, then the heptarchy under which some of the noblest qualities of the British race were brought out should have continued to this day. The change was necessary, every one admitted it, the Superintendents also, for when the cry came from North to South for abolition, the Superintendents said all or none. The hon gentleman explained that by retaining provincial districts they did so because there was a mass of legislation in each province that extended no further than its boundaries, and to prevent confusion they determined to leave these laws valid for the present, and they wished to avail themselves of the services of the Superintendents during the transaction, in the same way as a person taking over a new business would retain the old assistants. They had been charged with reducing the capitation allowance, but that > was balanced by several provincial charges being taken over by the General Government. Only two courses were left open to ; the Government, either to carry out abolition 'and earn the gratitude of the country, or return to obscurity with the ignominy that ( accompanies cowardice. Mr Murray opposed the Bill, and cast a 1 great many imputations upon the Government and its administration. Mr Ballance made his maiden speech in defence of the Bill. The speech was exceedingly good in matter and! manner. He , combated in detail the chief arguments urged against the Bill by different speakers, and was enthusiastically cheered on concluding. Mr Beid moved the adjournment, which led ( to considerable discussion. The Government steadily opposed it. A division was taken, 1 35 members voting for resuming the debate, . and 21 against it. It was now midnight, ( and more discussion took place upon the . adjournment. Ultimately Sir DONALD MoLBAN moved that the debate be resumed J at 2.30 this day. Another long discussion f was followed by another division—Ayes, 12 ; , Noes, 34. ) Mr Thompson then moved an amendment f to resume the debate at 7.30 on Thursday ( evening. This was about 3 am. , Sir G. Grey, Messrs Beid, REEVES, , Murray, Fitzherbert followed, appealing , to the Government not to hold to their in- j tention. About ten minutes to four Mr Sheehan announced the Opposition were satisfied at having made their protest, and the House adj turned. '.