HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11086, 3 October 1901, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

AFTERNOON SITITNGL

The Hcufje of Representatives met. at, 2.50 o'clock. ' ■ ■ A CONSOLTBA-TTNG BILL; A Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to shipping and seamen was introduced by .-Governor's message, and read a first time. LICENSING BILL, . , . . Mr ATKINSON gave notice tr> move sereral amendments in. the , Licensing Bill, including ih? abolition of barmaids, a more effective supervision of frly grog selling in the King Counter, ten o'elo,ck viewing of hotels, abolition of the bar at Ballamy'-s, and giving of Licensing Committees discretionary power in the grafting of licenses.. Fir.BT READINGS. '~••• -The Crow;n Grants Act,-1883, Amendment Bill {ilr La-wry), and the 10ginonfc"County Bill (Air McGuirc), were read a first time. QUESTIONS/ In reply to quej Lbns, Ministers stated that nothing Voiild.-be gained by ottering a reward lor tli2 discovrry of ptrsons-supposed to have set fire to the Grand Hotel,' Auckland; that the quastion of more effectually dealing with vicious inebriates -would be brought under the notice of the Cabinet; that the (Tovcrniarnb hid no present inbention of introducing iegisl.ation, adopting the English yunday oiosing hours in respect to licensed houses j that when tl>9 Land Purchasa Commissioner returned to Wellington, his attention Mould be directed to Che advisabltness of purchasing land on the shores of the Auckland harbour for the purpose of workmen's homes; that there was a. good deal of opposition to the Fair Rsnt Bill, and it had bstter stand over until the people were educated up to it. The House rose at 5.30 p.m.

EYEING SITTING. t

The House resumed at 7.30 o'clock. PROGRESS OF,.BILLS. The Smoking, by Youths Prohibition Bill and the Law Amendment Bill were received from the Legislative ..pouncil and read a# first time. * .THE MONEY LENDERS j^LL. On it. morion that the amendments made in Committee in the Money Lenders Bill be agreed to, Jlt ATKINSON protested againet the { bilJ being allowed to pass in its /present form. It was, he said, a harmless bill as originally introduced, but in endeavouring to enlarge its scope the committee had rendered it positively mischievous. In its amended form the bill was contradictory, and wou'.d have a far-reaching effect that was never intended by the committee. Air H£RRIES favoured the re-committal of -the bill. ilr HALL JON-ES defended the bill. He asserted that it was a very good measure, and it- would only be when extortionate rates of interest were charged tibat a man would have a remedy before the Court. - The amendments were agreed to, and the bill passed its final stages. ROYAL VISIT EXPENSES. Mr SEDDON" moved the second reading of the Royal Visit Expenses, Bill to provide for this repayment of J32250 to the Governor in connection with the Royal visit to New Zealand. He explained that bis Excellency had already disbursed £1150 on beha.f of the colony, and the balance was due for accounts rendered to the Governor for the expenditure which' was necessary for the proper entertaining of the Royal guests. The Governor had acted aa

host for the colony, and this repayment 'would not by any means cover all the expense the had been put to. The House would be consulting its own dignity, and lie believed members would be voicing the wish the people of the colony, if the bill was allowed to pass without any acrimonious discussion. Objection ihad been raised that the Amount was too larcre, but 'he.could tell members it included the cost of furnishing the Government Houses at Auckland and Wellington, which ran. into some hundreds of pounds, and for whioh the colony had on asset in the shape of a quantity of valuable furnishings, etc. Members oould not with self-jespect question the payment of any of the items. ■Mr HORNSRY pointed out that the refurnishing of Government Houses at Auckland and Wellington waa provided for in the Estimates last year. Sir JOSEPH WARD—"But that was not spent." Mr HORNSBY went on to say that thft money they were now asked to reimburse had really been spent on specially got-up receptions for a favoured few at the Government Houses at Auckland, Wellington, and elsewhere. In one year the Governor had cost the colony and he contended the country could ntirt affoid it. He would vote against the second reading of the Bill on the , principle that the House BUoulct not have been asked to vote this large amount of money, especially in face of what had been said when the Governor's Salaries and Allowances Bill was before the House, last session.

tMr WITHEFORD said the money had been expended for the benefit ot'the colony at the request of the colony, and the tradespeople had received most of it. Mr BARCLAY thought it probable the wine merchante\ got a, share of it. Hβ held that the expenditure of* hundreds of thousands of pounds annually on Royalty did not give any more prestige than the expenditure of £10,000 on the President of the United -States. . * ' Mr PIRANI objected to tie practice of annually making a grant of some land to the Governor, and disapproved! of the action of the Government in continually fringing the representative of the King on to the floor, ol the House, The Gknverooi had. to !send' to 1 Parliament messages for payment to Mnr- of money in contradiction of terms of hie ..appointment. The King ■himself would not interfere -in. repreeentative affairs at Home in. the manner in which his representative was compelled to interfere in New Zealand, and- representations ■ should be made to the Home ,autho> * lities of the relations existing between the New Zealand Government and the Governor. •" ■ • ' - ' Mr FISHER would -vtote against the Bill. He considered a great part of $he moneyhad. been spent on "a very limited ■ circle of people in the colony. • , - - ' ■ Sir JOSEPH WARD reminded • member* that the invitation to the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall ,to ' visit the' colony came from. Parliament, and it was bad form for the House to cavil over the' comparatively small amount spent in entertaining them. The -whole of the £70,000 expended by the ' Government in connection with' .the visit had been made up by increased revenue through railways and Customs. , The personal expenditure by the Governor on account of the visit had 'been enormous as oompared with his ordinary expenditure, and he (Sir Joseph, Ward} would, be sorry to think that the opposition to. the Bill was general, ,for it amounted to an at- ! tempt to repudiate the expenditure incurred , by the Governor at the request of, «nd on behalf of, the colony. Mr R. McKENZiE had nodpubt that, i the Governor bad acted in the interest* of the colony,, but he had been,placed in a false position, and the rejection of the Bill -would not be a reflection on him personally. . , \ . Mr G. W: RUSSELL would vote for the- second reading of the Bill, bu£ he contended that the matter ehoruld never have come before the House, because his Excellency should not have been, placed in. a position of spending this money. The whole of the expenditure should have been left in the hands of a Minister. Mr HONE HEKE thought that to oppose the payment would certainly , deteriorate from the splendid reception to their Royal Highnesses. Mr. HOUO supported the BUI, eaying that the people of' New Zealand were not going to 'begrudge , the payment to the Governor of any moneys £c had expended. Mr MONK thought a, want of feusiawra method was responsible for placing the House in this position. He -should vote against the Bill on principle. ivir MEREDITH said that the extra vote granted last year had been given on the understanding that it was to meet the expenses of the Royal visit, and he would vote against the Bill. • • ■ Mr A. L. D. FRASER denied that last year's vote was intended to meet the Royal visit expenses. The increase of salary was to go not to. this Governor; out to future Governors also. It was regrettable that the matter should have been debated as it had been debated that evening . Mr COLLINS said he might object to the expenditure of public money by the Governor on his own initiative, but the colony had invited the Royal visitors, and he objected, as a democrat, to the Governor bearing the burden of the expenses whioh properly belonged to the colony. Mr McNAB supported the Bill. Mr ATKINSON opposed it. Mr SEDDON, in replying, paid that thft increase of salary granted last year was to •be permanent, and, therefore, had not been granted in anticipation of the Royal visit. He had seen in the newspapers articles regarding "The decadence of Parliament," but if proof were wanted of that decadence, it could have been witnessed that night in ths debate on this Bill. The voice of the p:ople was not in accordance with certain speech?!: they had heard that evening. The taxpayers desired that the dignity of the House should be consulted. If the expenses to which the Governor had been put was not to be reimbursed, whwre, he asked, was the commercial honour of this colony. ' In reference to the views expressed by Mr Hornsby, he said that the democracy of this country were loyal, and would be willing to pay this bill if their opinions could be heard iij that Chamber.

The second reading was carried by 38 votes to 22, and the committal of the Bill was made an order for next day. The House rose at 12.20 a.m, . .

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS