Disgraceful Proceedings in Parliament.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 486, 29 July 1890, Page 3

Disgraceful Proceedings in Parliament.

THE ESTEEMED LARRIKINS. [special to the standard.] Wellington, Saturday night. The shocking loss of self respect, and the undignified — nay, disgraceful — proceedings that characterise our present Parliament were exemplified by the conduct of tho House yesterday. Some members had taken to locking one another up, and then nearly an afternoon was wasted in discussing the subject, the disgraceful affair being considered a really good joke ! A full report is well worth giving to show the electors the class of men that represent them, and I take the folloving from this morning’s journal Sir George Grey rose to a question of privilege and wished to move—Tnat in consequence of the sitting which took place last night, the business set down for yesterday’s Order Paper should be taken this day, and that to-day's business should be taken to morrow or on Monday. There was no doubt the proceedings of the previous evening were very irregular, and were duo to certain members being p’aced in duress. (Laughter.) These proceedings were a disgrace to Parliament, and dishonoured it in the eyes of the country. He accused the Government, which should lead the House, of being absent on the previous evening when the House was counted out. If what he now suggested was done, it would remove the disgrace which at present the House was labouring under. In order to put the matter formally before the House, he moved, That a breach of privilege occurred last night through certain members being prevented from attending the House. Mr Hobbs, who was greeted with ironical cheers, said he had heard on the previous evening that there was to be a count out, and so he went out to bring some members in. (Laughter.) Thinking the House would not take his word for it—(Opposition cheers) —he appealed to other members to confirm what he said. He found Mr Monk in the Whip’s room, and that gentleman, upon being told what was going on, appealed to Mr Scnbie Mackenzie whether a count out would affect all the business on the paper, and Mr Mackenzie said it wou’d not. Then he heard the door locked, and jumped for the window

—(laughter),—got out and came to the Chamber, being obstructed twice. This, he thought, was a very serious question—the liberties of members had undoubtedly been interfered with. Mr Scobie Mackenzie rose to explain that he had not obstructed Mr Hobbs. He described how Mr Hobbs, after inviting the members in the W.htp’s room to Gome out, suddenly jumped at the window. Dr Fitchett: Yes. Well they knew what first impressions were. When he saw Mr Hobbs disappearing in that way he feared the consequences, and seizing the hon. member by the leg. asked him where he was going. (Laughter.) Moreover, it had been suggested, by Mr Monk, he thought, that Mr Hobbs had the key of the room in his pocket. Then Mr Hobbs became violent, and he had to let him go. He agreed with Mr Hobbs that this was a very serious question, but he would suggest that it was very inadvisable that the time of the House should ba taken up with the discussion of private members’ Bills which were not likely to pass. He appealed, especially, to Major Steward to consider this suggestion. Major Steward warmly insisted on his right to bring forward Bills which remedied the grievances of any class. He added that there was no opposition to his Bill, but the measure was simply used as a means of obstruction in order to kill other Bills, especially that introduced by Mr Walker to amend the Hospitals and Charitab’e Institutions Bill.

Mr Pyke, as a member who had sat in the House for 22 sessions, never knew of anything that cast so much disgrace on the House as the occurrence of the previous evening. If this sort of things were to be allowed, the result would be that the House would develop into larrikism; and he thought this should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. He should say something very strong about Mr Scobie Mackenzie, but as he was going to keep the hon. member out of his seat next time he should not. (Laugh ter.) He hoped such “ indecent exposure ” (Oh!) —as that which had been reported would be stopped. Mr W. P. Reeves remarked that there were many members—Sir George Grey, for instance—who were not locked up, and who did not come into the House when the bell rang. He himself (Mr Reeves) did not come in ; he was preparing an elaborate speech on the Elective Governors Bill, which he considered a most important measure, not only to this Colony, but to the whole Empire. Mr Fish was glad to hear this debate, because it settled a question which had risen in his tnind. He was engaged in addressing the House on “ the important subject of dogs ” at the time of the countout, and had just reached a very interesting point—namely, the color of the dogs—when the House was counted out. He had feared that his oratorical skill had driven members out, but he now learned that the causes were otherwise. Mr Seddon remarked that when ho was coming into the House there was a crowd of members at the main entrance, among them two Ministers, who could have come in if they had wished to do so. The Native Minister disclaimed any sympathy on the part of Ministers with the proceedings, and intimated his willingness to have a sitting on Monday night for private Bills.

Sir John Hall supported the motion, considering it a reflection on members of the House that they had absented themselves from the House.

Mr Samuel resented some suggestions which had been made with reference to the legal profession “ stonewalling ” the Law Practitioners Bill. Ha referred also to the action of “ certain persons in newspaper offices, who were a disgrace to journalism,” who had made such remarks, and said these “ nasty, mean, spiteful creatures ” were always to be found in newspaper offices. Mr Buchanan deprecated the “ count out,” and could not hold the Government free from blame. The Minister for Education said this talk about the disgrace of a “count out ” was the “ purest bunkum.” The House of Commons was counted out once a week. He denied that there were two Ministers among the crowd mentioned by Mr Seddon, and thought the count out showed the necessity for some better regulation of business. Mr Seddon repeated that was a large crowd of members standing outside, and said he was obstructed by the Government whip. Mr Buxton frankly admitted that he stayed away voluntarily, knowing there was to bo a count out, and preferring that to a stonewall. Mr Monk could not find language to express his feelings at the indignity put upon him by the loss of his liberty. He eloquently depicted the grief which he felt when he found he was a captive, and regretted when he was released by the kindness of a page, instead of finding members with their eyes suffused with tears, he found them lurking in niches, with Machiavellian leers on their faces.

Mr Beetbam reminded Sir George Grey that some years ago, when a quorum was wanted to pass an appropriation Bill, Sir George Grey himself went out of the House purposely to break a quorum. Mr Smith said the gentleman who locked the door was one of Mr Monk’s friends and a member of hia party, who, fit was said, was one of a convivial gathering being held in the room. Mr Rhodes, as one who was denied tbat Mr Monk was holding a convivial meeting. Sir George Grey having replied, the motion was carried on the voices. Sir George Grey then moved that the business set down for the previous day should be taken on Monday evening,—Lost by 88 to