3

1.—7

the speeches which were made on that occasion by members of the House, and from them it would be seen that the Bill was introduced as one which had been prepared with the sole view of carrying out previous arrangements made with the Messrs. Brogden. That was the general tenor of the whole of the speeches. He would now read Mr. Stafford's speech in moving the second reading of the Bill. The report is as follows :— Mr. Stafford, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that he did so because he found, by correspondence which had taken place between the late Government and Mr. Brogden, that there was an express understanding arrived at with that gentleman that Judges of the Supreme Court should be made arbitrators in case of dispute between the Government and the contractors with respect to the construction of works. At the same time he took the opportunity of stating that he altogether disapproved of the principle, and if he had not found that there was an honorable obligation binding the Government, he should not have taken up the Bill. There was also a correspondence with the Judges, who expressed their objection to the method proposed, while they at the same time stated their willingness to assist the Government in the matter. There being an honorable obligation on the Government, under which contracts were submitted to Mr. Brogden and accepted by him, those contracts reciting that Judges of the Supreme Court should be the arbitrators, the Government had no option but to ask the Legislature to fulfil that obligation by passing this Bill into law. There was nothing in Mr. Stafford's speech from which it could be gathered that this was anything more than a Bill to carry out the conditions of the contract with Messrs. Brogden, and to enable the Judges to act as arbitrators. Not a word was said with regard to the Act limiting the time under which the arbitration should take place. Mr. Pox, in speaking on the subject, said: — That the honorable member seemed to consider himself to be in a better position to interpret the wishes of the -Judges in the matter than those who had carried on the negotiations, although he had only read the correspondence. Those who had carried on the negotiations now told the honorable member plainly that the Judges were quite willing to act, and all they required was, that the matter should be put in such a form as would prevent their position as arbitrators from conflicting with their judicial functions. He might take that opportunity of saying that the Government had received every assistance, in this and other matters, from the Judges, who had never shrank from encumbering themselves with any work which the Government asked them to do. Mr. Bolleston said: He would not, after what had fallen from the Premier concerning the circumstances under which this Bill was brought down, offer any objection to the second reading. In saying that, however, he did not wish it to be understood that he considered this a Bill which ought to have been submitted to the Legislature. He looked upon it as one of those appendices to the public works scheme which would be considered hereafter as one which should not have been brought into existence. If there was one thing the Legislature should watch over more than another it was its judiciary, so that the position of the Judges might not be embarrassed, which would be the case if this Bill were passed. It seemed to him that cases might arise under a Bill of this kind, if its operation were extended, in which great evils might accrue. There were in this Colony District Judges, each having his own district, and a vacancy might arise, when very considerable pressure might be brought to bear upon the Government of the day to put some particular person into that district, having well known views of cases which were likely to come before him. He did not say that was probable, but he was putting an extreme case to show that the Bill was wrong in principle. There were things in a free country which the Legislature should guard most jealously. One of those was the freedom of the Press ; another, the free expression of public opinion ; another, the independence of the Judges ; and another, trial by jury. He looked upon this as a most dangerous Bill, but, in consideration of the way in which the Government was pledgpd to it, he would not oppose it. The present Government was in a most difficult position with regard to this measure, for in the contracts already entered into with Mr. Brogden, they were committed to these Courts of arbitration, although the House had not given its sanction to that system. If, however, they were to throw out this Bill, Mr. Brogden might say to the Government, "We entered into contracts with you on the understanding that the Judges were to be arbitrators : that condition has not been fulfilled, and therefore we will come down upon you for compensation." In such a case as that, the Government might be placed in great difficulty. He wished, therefore, to record his opinion that under ordinary circumstances he would certainly have opposed this Bill, but, as matters stood, he thought the Government and the House were committed to it. Mr. Shephaed said : The honorable member for Avon said it might interfere with the judicial duties of the Judges, but he forgot that, without this Bill, the contractors must go before the Judges, whereas the Bill did away with all legal technicalities, and enabled the Judges to make an award. The functions of the Judges were in no way interfered with, as the Bill merely gave them extended jurisdiction. Mr. Fitzheebeet said the Judges were not sitting as a Court of arbitrators, and his impression was, the ease was settled by the Judges sitting quoad Judges. The whole of these observations, however, did not touch the point at issue. They were not sitting there to discuss the question as they would be if that Bill were one introduced by the Government. In fact, the House was not asked to give a free vote upon the measure, because its action had been forestalled, an agreement having been de facto entered into which contemplated an arrangement of this kind. Let them not, then, discuss the merits of the Bill as if they were free agents debating the expediency of the Judges acting as arbitrators, for their hands were tied. He did not think this was at all an occasion for impugning the conduct of the late Government, which might have been wise and proper, and had the present Government been placed in the same circumstances, he would not say that it would not have decided in the same way. But that was not the case before the House. They had before them these facts : An agreement had been entered into with Messrs. Brogden, contemplating an arrangement of this sort. Now, should they give these gentlemen any ground for complaining that this contemplated arrangement had not been carried out ? It must not be ordinary reasons that should induce them to pursue a course like that; but they must be very grave reasons indeed. No such grave arguments presented themselves to his mind. Objections did present themselves, but not of such an overwhelming character as to induce him or the Government to enter upon a different course of action to that which their predecessors had followed. Thereupon the Bill was read a second time. On the 24th September, 1872, the Bill was passed in the House of Bepresentatives, and on the following day it was read a first time in the Legislative Council. The second reading took place in the Legislative Council on the Ist October, 1872. The Hon. Mr. Sbwell, who introduced the Bill, said :— That the Bill provided for the settlement of any disputes that might arise between the Government and Messrs. Brogden in respect to the railway contracts with that firm. He would not trouble the Council with details of the circumstances which gave rise to the arrangement that was the foundation of the Bill, which provided that all disputes should be referred to the arbitration of a Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. No doubt the objection would strike honorable members that it would be constituting the Judges of the Supreme Court into a tribunal of arbitration which ordinarily has the character of an inferior tribunal, and would itself be usually amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He had been led to believe that the Judges themselves would not raise any practical objections to the present proposal, which, no doubt, provided the highest and best possible tribunal for the settlement of any disputes that might arise between the Government and the large contracting firm he had referred to. The Hon. Mr. Watebhotjse understood that the Bill was the result of an arrangement entered into between Messrs. Brogden and the Government, and the question could scarcely be reopened without reopening negotiations that had, to a certain extent, been brought to a conclusion. Under these circumstances, doubtless the Council would riot think it desirable to take any other course than to accept the Bill. At the same time, he would say he should do so not without some degree of misgiving, for it appeared to him they were devolving upon the Judges of the Supreme Court, functions which should scarcely be imposed upon them. It was for the Judges to decide more as to a question of law