NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2105, 28 June 1894, Page 23

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

♦ A GOVERNMENT VICTORY. Wellington, June 27. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, as soon as Mr Willis had made a personal explanation, The Hon. R. J. BEDDON (the Premier) referred to the motion on the Order Paper in Sir R. Stout's name respecting the Sergeant-at-Anna. - He (Mr Seddon) was of the same opinion with regard to that motion as he was yesterday. The matter was one of privilege, and if the motion was carried by the House it | would be a vote of censure on the Government. He should therefore not be justified, owing to Sir R. Stout's position, in pasting this motion over, and the Government did not cocsider it would be consistent to go on with the business whilst such a motion remained on the Order Paper. If the Government had lost the confidence of the country, all he could say was that the sooner Sir R. Stout and suitable colleagues took their places the better. He moved therefore that all other business be postponed till Sir R. Stout's motion was called on.

Captain RUSSELL asked whether it was regular to proceed with other business till after the Address-in-Reply had been disposed of. The SPEAKER said the Premier- had taken Sir R. Stout's motion as one of want-of-confidence, and it was therefore regular to take it before all other business.

Sir R. STOUT moved—" That a respectful address be presented to bis Excellency the Governor praying him to appoint some eligible person to the position of Sergeant-at-Arms." In doing so he said the Premier had adopted his present attitude of a set purpose in order to compel him (Sir B. Stoat) to declare himself in opposition to the Ministry. He was not going to be influenced by » triok _of that kind, and would proceed with his motion in order to assert the rights and privileges of the House. His motion was not one of want-of-confidence in the Government, no matter what the Premier chose to consider it. He then proceeded to refer in detail to the proceedings of last session respecting the transfer of the House officers from the Speaker's control to that of the Government, atid said the Government had appointed Colonel Fraser as Sergeant-at-Arms, a position which had attached to it £200 per annum. Colonel Fraoer had not, however, been appointed by the Governor-in-CounciJ, he presumed, because that would be in direct violation of the Disqualification Act. He quoted from that act, and asked whether the Premier should be allowed to break that law for purely party purposes. He asked young members of the House to consider that position, and said that if things were come to that pass then all possibility of purity of- Parliament was at an end, and it was time the country should know it. This gentleman was to be appointed as Sergeant-at-Arms merely as a reward for his having stood aside to allow another Government supporter to be elected. He reminded the House of the position the present Government took up with respect to the appointment by the late Government of a judge of the Supreme Court, and of the extreme steps they took to upset that appointment. Were ministers, then, to be allowed to break the law in respect to this appointment P He would ask the House whether it would allow itself to be dragged through the mire in this manner. He cared not who was appointed to this position so long as the law was not violated. All he asked was that some eligible person be appointed Sergeant- at-Ar as s in accordance with their Standing Orders, and it was for the House to say whether that was an attack on the Government. Mr HONE HEEE seconded the motion. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said members of the House were now judges of the case made out by Sir R. Stout. He held that no graver censure could "be proposed on a Government than to approach his Excellency over the heads of Ministers, as the motion proposed to do ; and Sir R. Stout might well have waited 24 hours before precipitating a crisis of this kind. If he (Mr Seddon) had not accepted the motion as he had done he should not be fit to lead the House. He complained of Sir R. Stout's action with respect to the Wuitemata and Tuapeka elections, and said it seemed to him that nothing Ministers did was right in that hon. gentleman's eyes. He denied that he wished to force Sir R. Stoufc into opposition, but he did wish the Government to be treated with respect. Sir R. Stout was told yesterday that no appointment of Sergeint-ot-Arms bad been made, and his motion therefore wis a vote of censure on the Government for nob having made it. He held that the House lss"< fission cast the duty on the Government cf reading these appointments but if the Government had made this appointment without c-insu'ting the Speaker they would no doubt b) cf-nsured for having done so. He averted there had been no violation or evasion of tie Disqualificatit n Acb over this matter, and j'tttheGuvernnje. t were now on their trial as though tb.yhad evaded or violated the law. The Government had not the slightes" intention of asking or moving that the Disqualification Act should be set aside. He denied that the Government had paid Colonel Fraser's expenses to Wellington. They had not paid him a shilling or promised to pay him a shilling till after the time of his disqualification should have expired. Sir R. Stout had appealed to the young members of the House, but why had ha passed over the older members. H8 6hould advise young members not to be deluded in this matter, and would ask them whether they were prepared to support tbis motion, which might lead to a split in. the Liberal party. The Government had not broken the law in this matter, aud it was well for young members of the House to know it. Sir R. Stout had Baid that Colonel Frastr'a appointment was a reward for his having stood aside at the last election, but he reminded the hon. gentleman of the speech made by him in 1884, when Sir R. Stout advised the electors of the Thames to return Colonel Fraser, who for years was a strong supporter of the Liberal party. Colonel Fraser had five times been elected mayor of the Thames, and had been three time.? elected to Parliament. He also had the respect of both sides of the House for years past. Ho (Mr Seddon) would also remiud Sir R. Stout that when that hon. gentleman was Premier Colonel Frast-r was appointed a J.P. (Sir R. Stout: " Only as mayor.") But the fact was, that Sir R. Stout's attack was not on Colonel Fraser, but on the Government and the Liberal party, and Sir R. Stoat, by his present action, was helping to do what the Conservative presa of the colony so much deeired, namely, to cause a split in the Liberal

party. The House was now face to face with this motion, and that being so the Government conld not bring down the motion which they had promised uutil it was disposed of. Sir R. Stoat, by his action was assuming a great responsibility, as the Imprest Supply Bill must be passed before the Ist of July He hoped the House would not pass Sir R. Stout's motion. The Government were nob time servers, and if they had not the confidence of a majority of the Liberal party, the sooner they made wsy fcr others the better it would be. Mr HUTCHISON (Waitotara) pointed out that on a previous occasion the senior messenger had acted as Sergeaut-at-Arms, and there was no reason whatever why this could not have been done in the present case till after the House met. Colonel Eraser's appointment to the position had, however, been mentioned in the press all over the colony and had never been contradicted by anybody. The Premier had told thorn Colonel Eraser's appointment was not a reward for political services, but he read a telegram from the Premier to Colonel Fraser dv.ring the election in which he Btated that he know, in asking Colonel Fraser to retire in Mr Kelly's favour he was asking him to make an enormous sacrifice. Well, Colonel Fraser did retire, and within two months afterwards they found him installed in the House as Sergeant-at-Arms designate, as soon at anyrate as the House could put itself in order in appointing him. He condemned this action of the Premier's, especially to soon after the elections in which so much had been heard about party government Captain RUSSELL said it was absolutely clear that there had in this case been an endeavour to infringe the Disqualification Act. The lengthy speech made by the Premier told them nothing at all. He asked, if there had been no appointment, in what capacity had Colonel Fraßer appeared in the House P Was he there as a messenger or in what other capacity? He should vote for Sir R. Stout's motion, not on party gronnds at all, although he should never shrink from party responsibility. The Government knew their overwhelming power, and that being the case they challenged Sir R. Stout to come on and fight it. If this sort of thing were allowed to go on, if appointments which were absolutely indefensible were forced on the House, the whole country would say it was not creditable to Parliament, and it would be a serious blot on their^present form of government. He did not believe that outside the six occupants of the Treasury benches there was a single member of the House who could lay his hand on his heart and say this was a desirable appointment. HONE HEEE said he had seconded Sir R. Stout's motion because he saw no one had been appointed as Sergeant-at-Arms, and he thought the appointment should have been made- the first thing. Sir R. STOUT, replying, asked the Premier whether he had not asked Colonel Fraser to come to Wellington. — (Mr Seddon: "No.") Who asked him then ?— (Mr Seddon : " Ask him.") He (Sir R. Stout) held it was by such answers as that that the word of the Premier was not received with such credit as it should be. Were the Liberal party to be asked to violate the law in the manner proposed by the Premier, and was thai; party reduced to this : that it could only get support when it was asked to violate the law P He challenged Mr Seddon to quote a single word from his speeches in which be had asked the Thames people to return Colonel Fraser. He said he had simply moved his motion in order to test those members who desired to uphold the purity of Parliament. The motion was lost by 48 to 19. The following is the division list : — Ayes (19). — Messrs Allen, Bell, Buchanan. Button, Duthie, Earnshaw, Fraser, Green, Heke, Lang, T. Mackenzie, Ma&sey, M'Guire, Mitchelson, W. R. Russell, Stout, Te Ao, Wilson. Noes (48).— Messrs Buddo, Buick, Cadman, Carncross, Garnell, Carroll, Collins, Crowther, Duncan, Flatman, Graham, Guinness, Hall, HallJones, Harris, Hogg, Houston, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, W. Kelly, Lawry, Mackintosh, Maslin, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, R. M'Kenzie, M'Lachlan, M'Nab, Meredith, Millar, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, O'Regan, Parata, Pinkerton, Pirani, Reeves, G. W. Russell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, G. J. Smith, Stevens, Tanner, Thompson, Ward, and Willis. - - Note. — The name of Mackenzie appeared twice on each, side. Evidently it was cent in mistake for G. Hutchison or Dr Newman in the " Ayes " list. The House rose at 5.10 p.m.