PARLIAMENTARY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9510, 4 September 1891, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY.

[Per Press 'Association.! LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, Sept. 3. AFTERNOON SITTING; The Council met at 2.30 p.m. STRATFORD COUNTIES. The Stratford Counties Adjustment Bill passed all the final stages. LAND AND INCOME TAX. The Colonial Secretary moved that the text of certain formal amendments sent down by messenger by the Government m Clause 17 of the Land and Income Assessment Bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. FACTORIES. The Factories Bill was read a third time and passed. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE. Tho Hon L. Walker brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Customs Duties Excise Bill. The Committee recommended that the Bill be allowed to proceed as printed. workmen’s lien bill. The Colonial Secretary moved the second reading of the Workmen’s Lien Bill, and explained its objects, adding that the late Government introduced the same Bill. The Hon E. C. J. Stevens desired to disabuse the minds of members of the Council as to the statement that the late Government introduced a Bill similar to the present one. The late Government certainly did introduce a Bill, but it was one entitled Building Lien Bill, which was rejected in another place. The present Bill, he thought, required careful consideration on the part of the Council, more especially on the part of the legal members of the Council, before it was referred to the Labour Bills Committee. Mr Stevens at some length reviewed the provisions of the Bill, remarking that the tendency of the measure was to do away with contracts, and to compel persons building to employ day labour. He felt convinced that the provisions of the Bill were such as would be calculated to deter persons from building; In fact, the restrictions should deter the Council from passing the Bill, which, if passed, would inflict great hardship both on employers and workmen. The Hon W. D. Stew-art regretted that the Bill had been brought down at such a late period of the session. The Bill was taken from the Canadian law, and its right title would have been Contractors Bill. The measure differed materially from the Lien Bill brought down by the late Government. When in America sixteen years ago he had taken the trouble to enquire into these Lien Bills, and therefore he was in a position to know of what he spoke. The chief feature of the Bill was that a person might easily find himself involved in a multiplicity of actions. He thought the Council should take care that owners of property should not be harrasesd by unscrupulous sub-contractors. It appeared to him absurd that the owners of land should be threatened with actions brought by workmen, notwithstanding that the laud owner was not indebted to his contractor to the extent of a half-penny, and he was bound to say that the Bill was not adapted to the requirements of this Colony. He thought that power should be given to owners of land when they might be assailed with actions to go at once into court and obtain a settlement of claims by workmen lodged against contractors. The principle of tho Bill had his support, but it would require a careful scrutiny on the part of the Labour Bills Committee. The lion E. Phaeazyn had no hesitation in saying that the object of the Government was to make owners of land abandon contracts and undertake all buildings and work by day labour. He urged that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

The Hon Dr Pollen opposed the Bill, and expressed his astonishment that a Government which was affected with Unionism as the present Government was should have brought down a measure such as the present! one. It passed his understanding. Already the Statute Book contained sufficient legislation to protect labour. This Bill, however, would injure the workmen more than it possibly could the employers, and passing it would be for workmen to cut their own throats, because it could not be expected that if it passed land-owners could enter upon new work.

Sir G. S. Whitmore expressed a hope that the Council would not shirk its work, as it would do if the amendment were agreed to. He confessed that he did not like the Bill, but he thought if it were referred to a Committee its objectionable provisions might bo eliminated. The Hon C. C. Bowen thought the Bill, which was, he admitted, a difficult one to deal with, should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill, in his opinion, was not a Workmen's Lien Bill, but one calculated to improve small contractors, than whom no more useful citizens existed, off the face of the earth. However, he hoped the Bill would be sent to the Committee.

The, Hon J. Pulton, although not considering the Bill a perfect one, would like to see it referred to the Select Committee, in order that any possible wrong to workmen by its provisions might be remedied. Tho Colonial Secretary having replied, the original question for tho second reading was agreed to by 24 to 5, and tho Bill was referred to the Labour Bills Committee.

The following is tho division list:— Axes, 24: Hons Acland, Baillie, Barnicoat, Bowen, Buckley, Dignan, Fulton, Hart, Holmes, Johnston, Mantell, Martin, Miller, Peacock, Keynolds, Shrimski, Stewart, Swanson, - Taiaroa, Walker, Wahawaha, Whitmore, Whyte and Wilson. Noes, 5 : Hons Grace, Pharazyn, Pollen, Stevens and Williams. SHOP HOXJE3. The Hon L. Walksb resumed the debate upon the question that the Shop Hours Bill be read a second time, to which an amendment had been moved by the Hon S. E. Shrimski that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr Walker remarked that he did not admire the Bill, and he hoped it would be amended in Committee, although bo could not support it. He said this because ho thought it due to the Colonial Secretary, who was ever courteous to the Council. The Hon C. C. Bowen intended to vote for the amendment. He intended to take this course as the select Committee had reported adversely to the principles of the Bill. The liberties of the people had been entrusted to tho Council, and for the sake of a little temporary popularity he hoped the Chamber would continue to guard the liberties of the people. Ho regarded the Bill as being an unjustifiable interference with the rights of certain people who were endeavouring to gain their livelihood. Speaking to the exemption clause, he remarked that he failed to see its justice. This Bill, more than any other Bill he knew of, showed a want of consideration. It was an unwarrantable interference by the legislature which would tend to degrade the people and do away with the spirit of independence which has ever been the proudest boast of Englishmen. The Eon J. Fulton objected to the exemption clause as presenting almost unsurmountable objections to the working of the Bill. He regretted to say that public opinion was drifting to giving some persons everything they asked for, to the detriment of many deserving persons. He objected to tho statement, however, made by Mr Shrimski that the object of the Bill was to crush small shopkeepers. This statement, he thought, was wrong. He believed the object had been to give those who at present did not possess the advantage of short hours tho benefit of them. But there were others, commercial, bank and Government clerks, who should participate in the privilege of working short hours. He felt acutely for this hardworking class of the community, and should like to see them relieved. For the reasons he had stated he should vote against the Bill going into Committee.

The CcuiONiAii Secketakt replied. The notice for ooinuittal was rejected by 21 to 8, and tho Bill was thus killed. Tho following is tho division list Ayes-—Hons Acland, Bailie, Barnicoat, Buckley, Hart, Stewart, Whitmore and Wilson.

Noes Hons Bowen, Dignan, pulton* Grace, Holmes, C. J. Johnston, Manteu, Martin, Miller, Ormond, Peacock, Pbarazy » Pollen, Reynolds, Shrimski, Steven , Fraser, Taiaroa, Wahawaha, White an Williams. SELECTORS LAND REVALUATION. The Selectors Land Revaluation Bill wa further considered in Committee. Clause 2, “interpretation” clause was verbally amended. ... „ The Hon J. Fulton thought the or the Bill should now be Selectors Fair Rent Bill. . . The HonH. J. Miller, from his knowledge, said that pastoral tenants had been pushed to the wall. In fact, they were being ruined wholesale. Conspiracies had been set afoot with the avowed intention of ruining these pastoral tenants, ana could it be ascertained it would be round that in Otago, at any rate, pastoral tenants had never obtained 5 per cent on their capital, and, instead of being successful, these hardworking men had lost their all. The Hon S. E. Shrimski pointed out that Crown tenants, notwithstanding their losses, had applied for renewals of licenses. The clause as amended was agreed to. A verbal amendment was agreed to in Clause 3, and several amendments having been agreed to the Bill was reported with amendments, the third reading being fixed for the following day. The Council, at 5 p.m., adjourned till the following day. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2.30. PETITION. Captain Russell presented a petition from Judge Edwards, praying the House to take his case into consideration. The petition was ordered to be printed. AUCTIONEERS bill. The Hon R. J. Sbddon brought up the report of the managers of the conference on the Auctioneers Bill. The report was to the effect that the conference had agreed that auctioneers’ fees should be paid to the local body of the place where auctioneers have their places of business. The conference had also agreed that account sales should be rendered in fourteen days after the sale instead of seven days. He moved that the report he agreed to. , ' Mr O’Conok protested against the report of the Conference, and said the effect of the Bill would now be to give the whole of the auctioneers’ fees to the towns, which would inflict a great wrong on the country districts. The Hon E. J. Seddon said he should ask that the debate be postponed, in order not to interfere with the passage of local Bills which had been set down for that afternoon. Sir John Hall agreed with tho view taken by Mr O’Conor, and thought opportunity should be afforded for full consideration of the report. Mr Thompson (Marsden) said the Auctioneers Bill should be abandoned altogether after the alterations made in it. Tho adjournment of the debate was agreed to. LOCAL BILLS. The following Local Bills were read a second time and committed: —Tuakitoto and Kaitangata Lakes Act, 1800, Amendment Bill, Thames Recreation Reserve Sale Reservoir Bill, Wellington Boys Institute Bill, Trafalgar Park, Nelson, Bill, Wellington Botanic Garden Vesting Bill, Thorndon Esplanade Bill, New Plymouth Hospital Bill, Wanganui River Trust Bill and Greymoath Harbour Board Loan Bill. A lengthy discussion took place in Committee on the Greymouth Harbour Board Loan Bill to enable the Board to borrow £50,000 for harbour construction. Several members strongly opposed the Bill. Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) moved an amendment to reduce the amount to £30,000, but this was lost on the voices and the clause passed without alteration. The above mentioned Bills, with the exception of the Greymouth Harbour Board Bill, were read a third time and passed. ’ GREYMOUTH HARBOUR. On the motion for the third reading of the Greymouth Harbour Bill, Mr Wright strongly opposed the- Bill being passed without the House having more information as to the position of tho Board. He was speaking at the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING, The House resumed at: 7.30 p.m. WOMAN SHFFSAGE. The Female Suffrage Sill was further considered in Committee. Clause 2, electoral franchise conferred upon women. The Hon J. Ballance said a large number of amendments had been proposed in the Bill, one of which he thought required careful consideration. He wished to say that this was not a Government measure, and it was no part of the Government policy. The Government was in fact not agreed on the principle of the Bill, and Ministers would vote in different lobbies on the question. Speaking for himself he was in favour of woman suffrage, and of this Bill. He had taken it up on his own responsibility, so that a majority of the House might be enabled to express an opinion on it. As to the date when the Bill should come into operation. Sir John Hall wished that it should come into force in 1893, but he (Mr Ballance) was in favour of postponing its coming into operation till 1891. He held that if the Bill were given effect to at once, there would be an immediate demand for a dissolution, in order to enable new constituencies to be formed. He did not himself think it should be followed by a dissolution, but that course was urged even by members of the House. He intended to put the Bill on the statute book this session, but thought they should postpone its operations till after the next general election, as it was very desirable that the country should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it. Ho did not think the country would reverse the decision of the House, but would support the principle of female franchise. If the country decided against the Bill it could be repealed, but if not it would remain as the law of the land. He hoped the Bill would pass with the proviso that it should not come into operation till 1894. If it became law it was certain that it would greatly improve the Legislature. After some discussion as to the way in which amendments should be moved. Clause 2 was passed on the voices. Mr Blake then moved that the Act should not come into operation until March 31, 1894. Mr O’Conoe wanted to know how the voice of the country was to be taken on this question ? It was utterly absurd and impossible to ask the country whether it was in favour of this Act at the next election. Possibly by that time some very large question would be before the country, and the existence of the Government might be at stake at that election. How then could the voice of the country be taken in such a case as that ? He was in favour of the Bill coming into force at the next election, not after it, and, letting the next Parliament be elected under it. Mr Taylor thought the Premier’s compromise a very fair one, and one that should be accepted by the promoters of the Bill.

Mr Pish said if tlie people of the Colony desired this .momentous change, he was quite willing that they should have it, but it was only right that the country should have an opportunity of deciding that question. It could r.ofc be asserted or proved that the people bad had an opportunity of voting on this direct issue, and, as _ a matter of fairness it should not he denied them. He appealed to Sir John Hall not to refuse those who differed from him the right of deciding at the poll whether they would have the change or not. , Mr Eolleston did not approve of tnia Bill, and had opposed its second reading. He wished most distinctly now, however, to disassociate himself from the course the Government was taking over this Bill, and ha should vote against the proviso that had just been introduced. It ' vas utterly wrong to put a measure on the Statute Book giving the franchise to women, ana yet postponing its operation for five .ye-rr. Ho complained of the want light and leading over this matter, and said it tee Government had put this view before the House-af; first the effect migbt- baTe been

very different. The whole position now was very despicable, and he hoped the House would pass the Bill and reject the amendment.

Mr Kara heartily supported Mr Rolleston’s views, and said if they passed tho Bill it should take effect at once. Sir John Hall thanked the Premier for allowing this Bill to come on, but he also expressed his great disappointment at the line of conduct now pursued by the Premier, The House had, by a majority of 33 to 8, affirmed the principle of female suffrage, and this was the fourth time a large majority of the House had passed the Bill. There was, therefore, no reason whatever for now postponing the operation of the Bill till 1894, which would practically keep the women of the Colony from exercising their rights for five years and a half. He quite agreed with Mr O’Conor that the voice of tho country could not be ascertained on this question, and it was a delusion and a snare to urge this view on the House. His proposal to bring the Act into operation in 1893 was, ha thought, a fair and reasonable one, and he hoped the Committee would agree to it. As they had affirmed the principle of female franchise, ho saw no reason why they should postpone its operation till 1896, which was what was meant in reality. Mr Rees condemned the proceedings that had taken place over this Bill, and said the whole thing was characterised by expediency. On the previous occasion Mr Fish had stonewalled this measure, and had threatened the Government with desertion, hut now it was publicly stated that he had gone back to the Government party in consequence of Ministers having agreed to postpone the c oming iuto operation of this act till 1894. He should like to know whether the House would allow itself to be terrorised by any hoa member in this way. The member for Dunedin was perfectly sincere in his opposition to this Bill, and had evidently a wholesome fear of its coming into operation, which could not be wondered at after his violent opposition to it. He could not say, however, that the Premier’s action was very sincere after his advocacy of the proposal to postpone this Bill taking effect till 1894. He hoped they would not agree to any weak-kneed compromise such as that now proposed, blitwould carry into effect the principle that had been affirmed by a large majority of the®Houße. Mr Carroll would support the proposal to postpone the operation of the Bill till 1894, and if that were lost he should propose a further amendment to the effect that woman should be eligible for seats iu the House. If he were convinced that the women of the Colony desired the franchise, he should support it at once. Mr Smith (New Plymouth) opposed the amendment, and hoped tho House would not consent to accept Mr Fish’s little game. If the -female franchise were carried he (Mr Smith) should come back to tho House with an overwhelming majority, but the opponents of the Bill would have precious little chance of being returned again. Mr Mackintosh said Mr Blake’s amendment was a most astounding proposal in face of the large majority that voted for this Bill a few nights ago. He hoped the House would not stultify itself by agreeing to this amendment, as nothing had occurred to justify this course since the second reading of the Bill, except the movements of certain individuals.

Mr Duthie also opposed the amendment, but would prefer to see the matter delayed till the next general election. As far as he could ascertain, tho franchise was nob desired by the women themselves. If it were to become law, however, he should oppose postponing its operation till 1894. Mr Fisher resented the imputation so frequently cast at the opponents of this Bill, that they were allies of a liquor ring, and thought those insinuations were unworthy of hoa members. This was a measure of a most revolutionary character, and until the people of tho Colony bad time to express their opinion on it, the House had no right to inflict it on them. Ee cared nothing as to when the measure was to come into force, but he did think the question should at once be relegated to the constituencies if they passed the Bill.

Sir G. Grey asked whether it was manly of the House to declare that women should have the franchise, and then try to shuffle out of it by an amendment of this kind ? The Premier undertook to carry this measure through Parliament, and still he proposed to pass a resolution that would kill it. They had no right to treat the women of the Colony in this way, and on every ground women had a right to a voice in the government of tho country. Why, two of the greatest sovereigns of England were women, and surely women were well qualified to exercise the privilege now asked for. He contended that Mr Ballaace was bound in honour to see that this right should be extended to women, and he hoped Sir John Hall would be firm, when he would find that he (Sir G. Grey) and other supporters of the Bill would rally round him. They had delayed carrying this principle into effect for an unreasonably long time as it was, and he hoped they would not separate that night till they passed tho Bill and sent it to the other Chamber. A great deal rested on their decision that night, and he hoped it would not be a decision of shame. He hoped also that they would not rest till they had achieved this triumph for womankind.

Mr Thomson (Bruce) said he was opposed to female suffrage, but as the principle had been affirmed he saw no reason why its operation should be postponed till 1894. He did not think the women of the Colony wanted the franchise.

Mr Saundees said they had seen enougbj of determined, resolute men setting the; House at defiance, and he hoped they were; not now going to reverse the decision they: arrived at previously. He strongly opposed! the amendment to postpone the Bill till! 1894.

The Hon J. Ballance contended that he i had fully redeemed his pledge in affording; facilities for bringing this Bill up thatj night. He denied that the amendments would postpone the operation of the Bill till 1596. Thera was great probability of, an election taking place in 1894, and that; meant that women might be able to ex-/ ercise 'the franchise. He was afraid Sir| John Hall was making this question political stalking horse, but be wished tef say again that if he (Mr Ballance) had notrtaken charge of this measure it would have been slaughtered among the innocents. ;

Sir John Hall absolutely denied the; Premier’s assertion that he had used thi? question as a political stalking horse, an<J the Premier could not advance a shadow of proof for that statement. He had moved in this matter as far back as 1879, and ho nearly carried the principle of female suffrage then. In order to put something practical before the he should now move that “ 1893 ” be substituted for “ 3894.”

Mr C. H. Mills strongly supported female franchise and combated the arguments made against it by stating that the fact of several thousand'women petitioning the House in favour of the principle was a sufficient answer to that. He was opposed to the Bill being postponed till 1894. Mr J. Mills had always contended that women in responsible positions should have the franchise, and ho would have been content to stop at that; but rather than nob give them the franchise at all he supported the present Bill. He thought, however, there should be some delay in putting the Bill into operation, but he did not think it of much consequence whether it should be 1893 or 1891. He should probably vote for the Bill coming into force in 1893. Mr Blake’s amendment to extend the time till 1894 was lost by 27 to 22. The following is the division list Ates, 22. Messrs Ballanco Messrs M'Kenzie, T. Blake Mackenzie, J. Cadman Parata Carncross Keovea, B. H. J. Carroll Beeves, W. P. Diwson Smith, W. C. Duncan Swan Pish Taipua Fraser Taylor Fisher Valentine Hogg Ward

Noes 27. Messrs Buchanan Messrs Mills, C. H. Buokland Mills, J. Buick Newman Earnshaw O’Conor Brey Pinkerton ’* ! Hall Kees Harkness Richardson Houston Rolleston Hutchison, YL Saunders Kelly. J. ' Shers Kelly, W. Tanner Macdonald Thomson, J,,MV.. MTatosh Wright Meredith Pairs : Ayes. Noes. Messrs Rhodes Messrs Russell Mackenzie, M.J.S. Joyce Hamlin Smith, E. M. Thompson, T. Mitcholson Guinness Hutchison, G. Lawrie M‘Guire Valentino Wilson Seddon Thompson, E. . Mr Blake then moved that the Bill should come into operation on June 30, 1893. The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order, as it had just been decided by the Committee to strike out March 31, 1894, and they could not go back. He suggested that a new clausa mignt be moved to meet the case if the-Committee negatived the present one. Mr Rees protested against that, and said they were there to work, not to play. Sir G. Grey moved that the Bill come into operation in 1892. Lost on the voices. It was finally agreed that Mr Blake’fe clause be withdrawn. Sir John Hall then moved 1 that the Bill should come into operation on June 1, 1893. Agreed to. Mr Pratt asked Sir John Hall whether Maori women would be allowed to vote under the Bill ? Sir John Hall said the Bill made no distinction, and it would allow Maori women to vote as well as Europeans. Mr Carncross moved a new clause enabling any female elector to be elected as a representative for the House of Representatives. Sir John Hall hoped this proposal would not be pressed. There was no reason, because a woman had a right to vote, that she should also become entitled to bo a representative of the people. They had now achieved a groat step in advance, and they should not attempt too much. Mr Pish supported tho proposal, and hoped Mr Carncroas would press it to a division.

Mr Mackenzie (Olutha) also supported the proposal. Sir G. Grey thought they should not arrive at a decision too hurriedly. His opinion was that a special Chamber should be provided for women, apart from the House of Representatives. Mr Rolleston did not think it was a good principle, any more than he thought the principle of tho Bill was good. If ho were on the side of the Housa that believed in the principle of the Bill, ho would not consider it necessary that women should sit in the House. Dr Newaian could not see why women should not be allowed to sib in tbe House if they were allowed the franchise. The Hon W. P. Reeves saw no objection to a limited number of women having seats in the House. Sir John Hall and other supporters of the Bill, however, were of opinion that a proposition of this kind would kill the Bill. Therefore, as he had promised to give them every reasonable assistance in carrying the measure, he should oppose Mr Carncross’ proposal. After a very lengthy discussion, Mr Carncross’ clause was carried by 30 to 24. The Bill was ordered to be reported with amendments. ELECTORAL BILL. The Electoral Bill was further considered in Committee. Clause 3, interpretation (postponed clause). Sir John Hall drew the Premier's attention to the fact that he had moved in this clause that , “person” includes females, and he wished to know whether that amendment could not be put now. The Hon J. Ballance said the clear understanding was that this clause in the Electoral Bill should not be allowed to pass till it was ascertained whether the Female Franchise Bill had passed both Houses. He then moved to report progress. Agreed to. WOMAN SUFFRAGE. On the motion that tbs Female Suffrage Bill be read a third time, Mr Fish said that the Bill had not been carried on its merits, and that there was not a real majority of tho House in favour of it. The reason why the Bill had been carried was because certain members had given a pledge to support it at a time when they had no idea it would become a question of practical politics. He spoke strongly and at some length in opposition to the Bill. Messrs Pinkerton, Carncross, Fraser and Sir John Hall also spoke on the Bill, after which it was read a third time on the voices. The House rose at 1.20 a.m.