STONEWALLS OF THE PAST.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20198, 28 March 1931, Page 19

STONEWALLS OF THE PAST.

V. '■ -1' ' Z ; : ' SO Bp STIRRING EVENTS HOW MR GISBORNE WAS PINED. INGENIOUS METHODS. (By F.W.W.) Stonewalling has been cultivated by the legislators of New Zealand for the last fifty years, and has been put into practice on many occasions of strong public feeling. The rules of the game, both as to what may be done and what must be left undone, have been laid down by the rulings of successive Speakers of the House of Representatives. The Labour members of the present day, while they have not invented any new expedients, have in the last week shown that they have thoroughly mastered the system of the past, to its utmost minutiae, and have displayed resourcefulness in discussion and organisation equal to those of any of their predecessors in the holding up of Parliamentary business. The'classic stonewall of New Zealand is that on the Representation Bill of 1881, in which Mr Speaker O'Rorke laid down principles which are invariably invoked when it is considered that the time has come for the majority to Assert itself against the obstructing minority. The Bill was one brought in by the Hall Government, headed by the dignified and courteous gentleman who afterwards became Sir John Hall, providing for the electoral division of the colony, which at that period was a matter fought out on the floor of the House, and not, as at present,, arranged by a$ independent Commission. So. far as there was any principle in the measure, it gave the country districts a quota 85 per cent, less than the quota of the towns. Strong- opposition was Offered to it from the outset by the town representatives. Their leader was the ££on. W. Gisborne, one of New Zealand's most distinguished statesmen, who had been Colonial Secretary in the I'd* Ministry of 1869-72, and Minister for Lands in the Grey Ministry of 1877-79. ' A Statesman's SelMmmolation. » The Bill was strongly resisted on the motion for its seoond reading, and one long evening was spent upon.it in Committee—mostly in alternate motions that progress be reported, and that the chairman leave the chair—before the critical struggle began. This occurred on the first operative clause, fixing the number of members at 91. Committal was resumed at 7.30 p,m. on Wednesday, August 31st, and that sitting lasted until 5 p.m. on the Saturday. For 48 hours thete waß a,n unbroken succession of the alternating obstructive motions, 23 in all. On the Friday evening the Chairman of Committees, Mr A. P. Seymour, of Picton, took a stern stand, jlo announced that he would accept no iftOtioiW'foi* reporting progress or leaving the chair, and that he would not allow his mling on the point to.be disputed.!. H If, ha, this; de canon tws «e challenged/it wOuld feve to be in open House, and after due Gisfcotna challenged the ruling of the Chairman. He moved* that progress be reported in order, to obtain th® Speaker's ruling. When; the Chairman refused to accept the motion, Mr Giaborne announced his intention to resist the official ruling, withih4T»bjeet of being reported as disorderly, as the only means of getting the Speaker's decision. Thereupon the Chairman left the ehair, and reported the occurrence to the Speaker. , The upshot was that Mf Gisborne was declared guilty, of Contempt, and fined SO. • • * Then it was that Sir Maurice 6'Eorfee, before 'quitting the chair, delivered the ipeech to the House which has been cited on almost every later occasion when a stonewall has jrdqturea to he levelled. "Times will arisef he said, "when the Souse must show itself to U auwtfljrin it# own house. . . There is a power to release this House', itam a deadlock, If it jhould be .attempted to bring one about. In other words, while the Housa adopted landing Orders «hich conferred certain rights upon members as to> modes of •procedure, it reserved to itself the power to jo behind those Standing Orders for sufficient reasons. Befoie the rising: on Saturday- the BUi w«s through Committee. Eventually u became law, but not without a division On every stagfc, the ordinarily formal Stage,, that the Bui do ?ow pass." The sequal to the lining incident was that before the the people of Nelson had claimed 'the honour" of paying Mr Gisborne s fine, and the amount snany times over. ;• ' ' Country Vowimfowns. Bepresentation was also the subject which; lad to the next big stonewall, that of. 1889, The Atkinson Government of that year introduced a.BiJJ Which Whs Opposed by the city and town members, again on the ground of undue concession to the rural districts. _Th debate on the motion for the committa l Of the Bill WgafcM 7.30 p.W. ?a Wednesday, July 24th, and was carried on.into the small hours of tho morning. At 2 a.m., for the, discouragement ponents, of ,the ■»•*"»«, in that they would have neither audience nor re porting, a motion was carried excludFng "strangers." The debate was.continned Witn closed doors * Unm midnight on the Saturday, wdUen from I Monday afternoon till 4 p.m. on the foi lowing .Wednesday (nearly six day«i in all), when the motion for committal was carried, and. "grangers" were re ad Jhen d the real fun began, the Committee Stage. Mr W. R Beeves, or Christchurch, was the ehief organiaer of the stonewallers, and he had pfepftreu an ingenious plan of. campaign. f, a dictionary £e picked o*«np in it that would bf any Stretcih oi(». agination apply to the BiU or jts sup porters—for instance, that they were "avaricious," that the t-ttOr % "appalling," and «o ,on to lettOr Z. himself and his ® ol W e " ould have fte Thursday and Friday. ' A Leisurely Stonewall. In one way it a Xtkis^the On b 3S?'bltween tb* negotiations o ppcnents of the

Chairman;Mr B. By Monday a compromise was arranged, Stead of the deduction of I per Cent from the populations of the four raaitt Bill, it was agreed that there should be to addition o! 28. per cent, iftjhe ease Of rural district?, whxch ev« since With this amendment the Bill inally passed-the stoneWallerß had •itotf 7 lnSpendentßeMe ß ontatl6BiOd% rXioner* wore al*o ht the tot, time BC ThTmo*t grimly-fought stonewall in Won with the Seddon e » m 1 e » t » Jlr&inal Old'aee pensions Bill in 1898. Sfs measSewas under consideration in Committee, With interspersionjl of business, front September 81st to October 6th, and 00 hours, spread Lover 12 Bitting days, were devoted to its JlausS cU s \%, b «h* fl^ ri S evening and extended, with, only the Say break, to nearly 1 a.m. on Tuesday. Exit Second Ballot Bepaal. Again there was a determined struggle over the repeal of the second Lllot at the instance of the Massey Government in 1913. A specia Bill for the purpose was blocked in its early stages. /There was, however, an innocent little Legislature Amendment Bill of that year relating to the status of the clerk-asaiatant of the Legislative Council. To that Mr Massey taeked on » simple clause declaring the repear of the Second Ballot Act of Sir Joseph Ward, and on this issue battle was loined. The BiU was taken into Committee on a Tuesday evening, ana did not come out until the early hours of the following Tuesday. The sitting was notable for the firmness of Mr Malcolm, Chairman of Committees, in "tightening W* tbo rules as to "tedious repetition" and irrelevancy, and notifying members- from time to time that he held certain, points had been adequately discussed, and came within the ban for tediousness. Another stonewall, in 1934, upon Sir George Hunter's Gaming Bill, lasted from early on a Wednesday afternoon, in a. continuous sitting, till after 8 o'clock oa the Friday. The stonewallr era weire worsted, and the Bill passed both House*.