PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6260, 5 July 1890, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

I (By Telegraph.) WELLINGTON, July 4, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. PIBST HEADINGS. The following Bills were read a first time : —Coroners Inquest Bill, Thames Harbour Board Act 1890, and Dentist Act Amendment Bill. BILL COMMITTED. The Mercantile Agents Bill was committed and reported without amendments. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2 30 p.m. PIBST HEADINGS. Several new Bills were introduced and read a first time. SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The Supreme Court Act Amendment Bill which provides for the appointment of an additional Judge was introduced by message from the Governor.

Mr Seddon moved that a respectful reply, be forwarded to His Excellency, informing him that the circumstances of the colony and the administration‘of justice did not warrant the colony going to the expense of appointing a sixth Judge. He spoke strongly against Mr Edwards’ appointment. Captain Russell suggested that the amendment should be withdrawn, and that the full discussion could be taken on the second reading in the usual way. Mr Ballance thought that the Government should agree to have this question adjourned as its discussion even at this stage would take up considerable time. The Government had taken a most ext raordinary and unprecedented step in appointing this Judge to preside over the Native Land Court, and the Opposition could not agree to it. The appointment of an extra Judge was wholly unnecessary in the present condition of the colony, and he warned I the.Goverumenl that if the discussion was

not'adjourned, the Opposition would be compelled to oppose it at every stage. Mr Ei-lop asserted that Mr Edwards’ appointment was perfectly legal, and ho challenged any member to prove to the contrary. Mr Ballunce said that the Bill made provision for Mr Edwards’ salary and how, therefore, could it be lega l . He urged the Government to agree to report progress at the preient stage.

Dr Fitchett and Mr Fish supported the motion for postponement, and the latter moved that progress bo reported, Mr Hislop said that every member of the legal profession in this part of the country knew that the appointment of an extra Judge was necessary, and that the Government was losing money by the work going on as it bad been.

Mr Mitohelson agreed to report progress, and hoped that when the Bill came before them again it would bs discussed in a reasonable manner, and not in a party spirit. Mr Samuel trusted that on the next appearance of the Bill before the House, a Minister would explain the whole circumstances that led to the appointment. Sir George Grey said that this was the first effort which had been made to place a Judge upon the bench for whom no salary had been provided. There should be no adjournment. The matter should be decided at once. A crime had been committed against the whole British rase, and he for one would resent that crime being committed without the consent of the House.

Mr Scobie McKenzie believed that Mr Edwards’ appointment was wrong. However, ho advised Mr Ballanco not to adopt too high a moral tone in regard to the administration of justice, and reminded that gentleman that he had at one time made a proposal in this direction, so radically vicious, and pernicious, that nothing had been heard like it since the time of the Stuarts, That was (hat every decision of the Supreme Court Judges should be subject to the revision of a Parliamentary Committee. , Mr Ballanee denied it.

Mr McKenzie quoted from a speech made by Mr Ballance at Wanganui in March, 1887, and added that when Mr Ballance made the proposal there wais such a howl throughout the colony that heat once dropped it. He (Mr McKenzie) held that the proper time for discussion of the Bill was the second reading, and if it could then be shown that the appointment was wrong good ijould come of it, bub as it was already made, it should be validated.

Mr Ballance replied that the remarks, quoted by the member for Mount Ida were not a correct or full report of his speech. Mr Reeves (Bt. Albans) deprecated the partisan attack which had been made on Mr Ballance by the member for Mount Ida. Ihe Opposition did not desire to offer any obstruction, but tbey were determined to have a full discussion on this question. Captain Russell, in reply to Mr Fish, disclaimed having sprung any surprise on the House in the introduction of the Bill, as in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there was no debate whatever on the first reaoing of a measure. As to Mr Edwards’ appointment the Government were of opinion that he was absolutely a Judge, and when the second reading of the Bill came on they would be quite prepared to prove that he was legally and constitutionally appointed. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. At 7 30 p.m. Sir George Grey resumed the debate, and said that he believed that the whole transaction was a wrong one. He thought that Mr Edwards should retire from the bench.

Mr Bruce said that it appeared to him that the appointment was a perfectly just and defensible one, and he could not understand what political motive the Government could have had in making it. Mr Fisher wanted to know why, if the appointment was a legal one, the Bill had been introduced at all.

Mr Bryce deplored the fact that the leader of the Opposition displayed such a hostile attitude when speaking on his appointment. The Government had not made any explanation as to the circumstances of the case, but the reason of that was solely because it was unusual to debate a Bill on its first reading. Mr Seddon characterised the whole thing as a job, and he hoped that the members behind the Government would not sanction it. He would like to know out of what fund Mr Edwards’ salary was being paid. Mr Peacock thought that this discussion was at present irregular and entirely unnecessary.

Dr Fitchelt reminded members that during the discussion on the Financial Statement the Government were repeatedly charged with having made this appointment and made no reply to it. Ho considered that this appointment was a greater blow to the independence of the Bench than anything that had yet happened. Mr Ballancc said that the position he had taken up was that the fullest information should be supplied to the members on this question. Mr Bryce admitted that there was a peculiarity in the present case. He knew nothing of the intentions of the Government with respect to it, but it seemed to him reasonable that as an impeachment had been made against the Government they bad taken the first opportunity of bringing forward the Bill in order that they might be able more fully to meet the charges made against (hem. The motion for reporting progress was then put, and carried, DUMMTISM. Mr Hislop moved:—“That allegations having been made that dummyiem has taken place in regard to the selection of land in the Canterbury district, that it be an instruction to the Waste Lands Committee to inquire into and report whether such dummyism exists, and what remedy should be taken to prevent it.” Mr McKenzie (Waihemo) moved that other places be inserted in the motion as well as Canterbury.'

The motion, with this addition, was agreed

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr Yerrall resumed the debate on the Financial Statement, speaking against the Government policy. Mr Beetham thought that the Premier deserved great credit for his Financial Statement although he was sorry to say he could not agree with the whole of it. The Statement, however, showed a thorough grasp of our position, and he thought that would have great weight at Home and be very eagerly received. He foiled to see why the House'should not perform good work or why it should bo regarded as moribund. With respect to the federation question he trusted that delegates would be sent to the Conference, but he thought Captain Bussell and Sir John Hall were quite right in not committing the colony at the last Conference. His idea was that they should have one grand confederation of the whole British Empire, and he hoped they would never sever the connection between groat Britain and her I colonies. Mr Fish: Twenty-five years will see it. Mr Qrimmond moved the adjournment of, the debate. tost by 25 to 15. Dr Bodgkinson complimented Mr Ballance on the tone of bis speech on this question ; in fact, he regarded it as a model of Parliamentary decorum, but he was of opinion that Mr Ballance had entirely failed to prove that there was no surplus. The land administration of the Government had been effective and more people wore coming on the land. He expressed the opinion that further retrenchment could be effected if the constituents would u}low the Government to do it.

Mr Saunders moved the adjournment of the debate. * The House rose at 12.15 a.m.