PARTIALITY OR INCONSISTENCY.

Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 156, 31 December 1887, Page 2 (Supplement)

PARTIALITY OR INCONSISTENCY.

TO THE EDITOR. 'Sir— l observe that Sir William FitzherLort has decided to allow the Wellington Oirla' High School Bill to he proceeded with, on the ground that the Hon. Mr. Waltaha's vote on the motion for the second reading was recorded in error with tho Noes, whereby tliat motion was negatived. Contrast this with the action of the same Speaker in 1883 (see p. 337, vol. xlvi., of Hansard). It is there recorded that on tho proposal for the commital of the School Committees Election Bill (tho principle of which had been affirmed by tho carrying of the second reading without a division two days before) tho Council divided— Ayes, 17 ; noes, 17. Whereupon — I quote from the Hansard report — " the Hon. jSIv. Campbell said he intended to vote 'aye,' and wished to have his vote recorded with the ayes. Tho Hon. the Speaker asked tho hon. member how he had given his voice ? Tho Hon. Mr. Campbell said he had called 'No,' but ho had made a mistake, as ho had intended to vote with the ayes. Tho Hon. tho Speaker said he know of no ralo which would allow of the vote being recordod in opposition to the voice, and the vote must ttand." Sir William thereupon, alleging as a consideration "the late period of the session," proceeded to give his vote for the noes, thus throwing ont a Bill in favour of which he was awaro there > was an absolute majority of two. The Bill in question, however, did not happen to be one of special interest to Wellington, whereas the Wellington Girls' High School Bill undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, I do not for a momont insinuate that thoro has been partiality shown, but there has unquestionably been tho most glaring inconsistency. I am, &c , Wm. J. Steward. fTho Speaker acted quite in accordance with Parliamentary rule in each case. The vote must always follow the voice. This has been ruled tune aftor time. Major Wahawaha gave his voice and voto right, but the Clerk made a mistake in recording tho latter. Tho two cases are not in tho least on all fours.— Ed. E.P.]