Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- politics_the_post_office [2023/11/09 11:14] – judith
+++ politics_the_post_office [2023/11/09 12:15] (current) – [Legislative Council] judith
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 been well considered by several hon. gentlemen before they were passed. The Postmaster General agreed in some measure with what had fallen from Mr. Murray-Prior. He could fairly claim to support the hon. gentleman in
 his statement ... and  concluded by declaring that no fault could be found with the progress of business in this section of the Legislature. \\
+\\
+In November 1885, TLM-P was again mentioned in the Courier Mail's report of the Legislative Council, opposing the Payment of Members (of the Legislative Assembly) Bill and other means to ensure the payments: 'The majority of the Legislative Council ... entirely in the wrong, and in throwing away an opportunity offered them of influencing for good the legislation of the colony. They have taken their stand on an assumed right to amend a money bill, and have accordingly thrown out the section of the Appropriation Bill which provides fees for members of the Assembly. There are very few people in this colony outside ... the Council ... [believes the constitution] sanctions the interference of a nominated chamber with the control exercised by the representatives of the people over the public purse  ... The control of the purse by the chamber chosen by the taxpayers themselves is the very foundation of constitutional government. ... The majority of the Council ...  put themselves entirely in the wrong. ... It is no longer a question of payment of members-that point has been merged in the far more important issue [what, was not said] raised by Mr. Murray-Prior. ... The Appropriation Bill [again was considered]  ... On resuming, the Postmaster-General moved the second reading of the bill. Mr. Murray-Prior, after twitting the Postmaster-General for not speaking to the second reading, declared that there were certain matters in the bill which would not meet with the approval of the Council He noticed that in one portion of the Estimates provision was made for ... the expenses of members similar to the provisions in a bill rejected by the Council. It was a well-established rule of Parliament that the same question could not be taken into consideration in the same session when once it had been settled. It was his intention, on the committal of the bill, to move an amendment omitting that sum of money from the bill. After denying that there was any similitude between the constitution of the Imperial Parliament and our own, he said he proposed to stand within the four corners of the Constitution. Our Constitution was our bond, and whatever might be said as to the right of amending bills, that right was undoubted. The question was whether it was advisable for the Council to exercise that privilege. Under other circumstances he should decidedly have said that it would not be advisable to alter a money bill, and hitherto, ever since separation, the Council had refrained from so doing. He had thought over the matter and had tried to look at the end of the amendment he was about to propose. Ministers and others in the other place, who were custodians of the public purse, had, against all Parliamentary usage, voted money to themselves. It now became the duty of the Council to step in and assert their privileges and to avoid a recurrence of the same action on the part of the Assembly in the future, and
+to preserve the money of the people. Wherever a wrong was done Nemesis followed and worse happened. The Council should do what was right and take the consequences. He did not take a stand on the privileges of the Council, for even those privileges should succumb to the good of the people. He took the position he had done believing that it would tend for the good of the people. At first he thought it would be better, in the present state of the country, to refrain from proposing any amendment, and let the bill pass. But on mature reflection, he could not see how they could make themselves //particepes criminis//. Another plan was that the Council should throw out the Estimates altogether, and some considered that that would be the best plan. But he proposed his amendment, in the first place, in order that the Council might exercise their rights, and, in the second place, in order to give an opportunity to Ministers to reconsider what they had done. If the Postmaster General and his colleagues wished the welfare of the country, and not to disturb the finances of the country, they would bring in another bill omitting the sum for the payment of members. Having asserted that the motive of his amendment was not to come into collusion with another House-" Collision,"' corrected an hon. member - or to cause what was called a deadlock, he declared that it was meant solely for tho good of the country.' TLM-P's argument was supported by F.T. Gregory. The 'Postmaster-General, replying to the opening sneer of the Hon. Mr. Murray-Prior, said it was not customary for the leader of the Government in that Chamber to make a speech on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, and that for reasons which must be self-apparent to every member of the House. ... Having expressed astonishment that the Hon. Mr. Murray-Prior had left untouched the constitutional question, the hon. gentleman ... that the Council could not amend a money bill ...  In rejecting the Payment of Members' Bill originally, the Council [opposed the will of the people]...  The bill was then read a second time, and ... when the question was put that the clause do pass, Mr. Murray-Prior moved its amendment reducing £1,804,575 to £1,797,575, which he said was "in fact to excise the vote of £7000 for the payment of members." A divisuon was taken, when there voted for the amendment Messrs. Box, E. B. Porrest, W. Forrest, Graham, P. T. Gregory. A. C. Gregory, Hart, Lambert, Macpherson, Macdougall, Murray-Prior, Power, Smyth, Taylor, Thynne, and A H. Wilson-total, 16 ... and against ... Messrs, Cowlishaw, Foote, Holberton, King, Maodonald-Paterson, Pettigrew, and Swan ; total 7 ... The amendment was, therefore, declared carried.(//Brisbane Courier//, 12 November 1885).\\
 \\
 ====== Other aspects of TLM-P's Political Career ======