Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1886.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1918, 28 July 1886, Page 2

Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1886.

Some bucolic members of up-country Parliamentary Unions have peculiar ideas ot parliamentary practice and the duties of parliamentary officers. The other day we were shown a letter in which the writer set forch that, at a newly-formed mimic parliament in his rustic village, he had been elected Ser-geant-at-Arms. He recognised the full importance of his office and desired information as to his duties ; indeed he fully believed tha% as bearer of the mace, he was the most important member of the House. This is sufficiently funny ; bu T • the Sergeant-at-Arms in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly really has figured as the most prominent officer of that Assembly. There the “ cornstalk ” members have been stonewalling the Customs Bill brought down by the Jennings Government, and, not content with talking day and night for we don’t know how long, have disgraced their Assembly by indulging in the most disorderly and larrikin conduct. So far have these elect of the people gone that several members have been suspended during the Speaker’s pleasure, and others have been handed over to the tender mercies of the Sergeant-at-Arms and placed in durance vile. The Chair has been openly defied and the Speaker’s throne has been defiled by a gentle - man named Gibbes —quite a common member ! who essayed to find repose and woo the drowsy god in that capacious and luxurious retreat. Upon being remonstrated with by the Acting-Chairman of Committees he refused to budge on the ground that there was “ no house,” but was eventually persuaded to place himself in the care of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who, probably, found him other equally comfortable quarters. Mr Speaker had to resume the Chair at one time in order to restore something like order, but his authority was scoffed at by an fax-Attomey-General and, until the latter waa suspended, he was powerless to control the House. Evidently the Assembly was once ashamed of itself; for the gallons*

were cleared in order that s rangers might not witness the degradation and humiliation of the pavliamentaty institutions of New South Wales. Bat the bad manners of legislators in the sister colony are, it appears, contagious, for the pub’ic pven could not leave the galleries quietly; (hey yelled and groaned and, metaphorically, spat at the members below. For several, days and nights the Assembly of New South Wajes was a perfect pandemonium. The stonewalling of the Customs Bill in that Chamber is a disgraceful episode in the parliamentary history of the parent colony of Australasia. The Sydney press have depicted one mem t er, Mr J. C. Neild —“Jawbone Neild,” they call hin now—as something of a hero, because he spoke for nine hours. Mi Neild—who, by the wav, is an oid New Zealander—was doing his simple duty in helping to stonewall, but he has not broken the stonewall record, however, Thus a Sydney paper “ The now historic nine-hours’ speech of Mr J. C. NeMd, though wonderful, is not unique. David Gaunson, of Victoria, once talked for seven hours, an Irish member of the Home Government for eleven hours, and Leonard M’Lure, a member of the British - Columbian Legislature, wiped out all records by orating for 17 hours.” But this record was broken in New Zealand by Clulha Thompson, who spoke on a motion of Sir George Grey in 1876, to the effect that Ministers had infringed the provisions of the Disqualification Act, and held the ear of the House from 2 o’clock in the morning till 8 o.clock the same evening On the same occasion Mr W, L. Rees spoke for some sixteen hours, Coming nearer home there is on record a great stonewalling speech made in the Marlborough Provincial Council some years ago by Mr Beauchamp, who spike thireen or fifteen hours on the question of the removal of the seat of Government from Picton to Blenheim. But this by the way. Stonewalling is a legitimate, and sometimes useful, parliamentary resort. Such tactics have more than once been employed in our New Zealand Parliament ; but never have there been such scenes here as have recently degraded the parliamentary institutions of New South Wales. This, no doubt, has been as much due to the superiority of the men who have from time to time occupied the Speaker’s Throne in our successive Parliaments as to any other cause. Under the guidance of Sir Maurice O’Rorke, for instance, the present Speaker of the House of Represen sentatives, it would be well nigh impossible for such scenes as we have depicted to occur here. Our New Zealand Parliament ha 3 for long enjoyed the reputation of being the model Parliament of the Colonies, Let us hope that reputation may be retained, and that such scenes as have recently taken place in New South Wales may never occur here.

The amendment to the Loan Bill moved the night before last by Mr Richardson has not one redeeming feature about it, It is not conceived in any spirit of-economy. It does not propose to lessen the expenditure of money, but it mere’y seeks to transfer the votes proposed for one part of the colony to some other more favoured localities. This amendment is the most flagrant and disgraceful attempt at log-rolling that has ever been made in the Parliament of New Zealand. A number of members have banded together and have said, “We will not allow this money to be spent in Marlborough, or on the West Coast) we require it for our own districts.” That is exactly what the amendment mean?. It means funhwr that the members whose districts are intersected by railways, and whose districts have reaped the benefit from the prosecution of public works in past years, have suddenly become virtuous, and now demand that no new railway lines shall be undertaken until their own lines are completed. It may be a wise policy to carry railway lines already commenced to a reproductive point, but this should not te done at the complete sacrifice of the requirements of those parts of the colony already so long neglected. There is an element of injustice and selfishness in the principle contained in Mr Richax’dson’s amendment to which we are entirely opposed. There are thousands of struggling farmers in outlying districts who have no means of getting their produce to market, but f r tnese there is no consideration in the principle enunciated by Mr Richardson. As we have said, the amendimnt is a most discreditable attempt to introduce the pernicious system of log-rolling into New Zealand politics. It is constructed with a crafd es 3 worthy of Old Scratch himself, but, after all, it will not, we hope, affect its purpose. It is a contemptible catch-vote amend*, ment, but as it completely traverses the Public Works policy of the Government, the Premier was bound to accept it as a want-of-confidence motion. It may catch a few vote?, the voie3 of men who are afraid of their constituents and the explanation they would have to give at the impending general election, but we hope the House will rise superior to Buch a palpable trick, such a discreditable and pernicious attempt to introduce here one of the worst phases of political corruption, and that the amendment may be negatived by a large majority.