PARLIAMENTARY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9511, 5 September 1891, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY.

[Peb Press Association.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, Sept. 4, AFTBBNOON SITTING. The Council met at 2.30. auctioneers bill. The Hon S. E. Shbimski brought up the Managers’ report on the Auctioneers Bill, in which they recommended several amendments. _ , , Consideration of the report was set down for Monday. electeic lighting. 1 The Hon J. 3. White, moved-the, second, reading of the Auckland Electric Lighting B The Hon W. Swanson opposed the Bill, because he did nob believe the ratepayers of Auckland were in favour of it. Ha was quite sure the City Council of Auckland to a man was opposed to it. Some of the propositions were the coolest he had ever heard of, notably the proposition that no ratepayer should have more than one vote as to whether the city should adopt the electric lighting system or not. He 'moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. • The Hon G. M'Lban suggested that tne Government should bring down a general Bill, embracing the lighting of all the cities of the Colony, next session. The Hon Dr Pollen thought the proper course to adopt would be to let the Bill go to the Private Bills Committee. The time to object to the Bill would be when the third reading came on. The Hon P. Dignan opposed the second reading of the, Bill. After further debate Mr Swanson withdrew his amendment. The second reading was agreed to, the Bill being referred to tho Private Bills Committee.

FIRST READINGS. The following Bills were read a first time Wellington Botanic Gardens Bill, Trafalgar Park Bill, Wellington Boys’ Institute Bill. Thames Recreation Bill, New Plymouth Hospital Bill, Wanganui Eiver Trust Bill, Female Suffrage Bill (second reading on Wednesday next, Mr Fulton in charge). AGRICULTURAL. The Hon E. Phaeazyn moved that in the opinion of this Council the establishment of a well equipped expert Agricultural department is urgently required in New Zealand; that the function of the department should he , to inform and advise cultivators on animal and vegetable enemies to cultivation in the Colony, and on the best means of dealing with them. The Colonial Secretary said the initial cost to the State would he about JB2OOO or .£3OOO, and this amount he felt sure could not be afforded by the country. The debate was adjourned till Tuesday on the motion of the Hon W. D. Stewart. MONDAY SITTINGS. The Colonial Secretary moved that the Council sib on Mondays during the remainder of the session. Agreed to. customs and excise. The Customs and Excise Duties Bill was read a third time. The Hon Dr Grace said the Select Committee had found that the loss to the revenue by growing l totacco nere would amount to £1250 per year. The Bill was passed. selectors’ land re-valuation. The Colonial Secretary moved the third reading of the Selectors’ Lands Ee-valuation Bill. The Hon S. E. Shrimski entered his protest against the Bill passing. The Hon J. Fulton moved the recommittal of the Bill on Tuesday, which was agreed to. LAND BILL. The Colonial Secretary moved the second reading of the Land Bill, which he ventured to say was one of the most important measures that had ever engaged the attention of the Council, dealing as it. did with the remaining portions of the Crown lands of the Colony. The Bill provided for the settlement of people on the land in accordance with public opinion. Tho Bill tended to settle yeomen farmers, and if this was accomplished, it would prove of incalculable benefit to the country. Each succeeding Government had, he believed, honestly endeavoured to introduce a good, sound Land Act, but each Act had been merely of an experimental nature. It was astonishing to note the large amount of exports of the Colony, when the comparatively small number of bread-winners was considered. A prominent American citizen yesterday had assured him that New Zealand possessed a climate and eoil which was nob to be equalled in the United States of America, and he (the -Colonial Secretary) fully believed him. The Colonial Secretary at some length reviewed the former land laws of the Colony, with a view to show that the present Bill was a progressive measure. By the provisions of the Bill it was proposed that power of purchase should be retained. The hon gentleman at some length explained the provisions of the Bill, and expressed pleasure in moving the second reading. The Hon E. C. J. Stevens remarked that the Bill was necessarily a consolidating measure, but there were clauses which were quite new, and these deserved to be criticised. The 81st Clause made it impossible for any man to purchase for a child any land whatever from the Crown. 16 was difficult to understand why any person should not be permitted to purchase an endowment for his child. Nor could a wife have a land endowment from her husband under the Bill. A man purchasing land would nob be permitted to endow with land purchased from the Crown either his wife or children, and if he did bo he would he liable to two years’imprisonment, either with or without hard labour. Referring to Clause 13(3, “double improvements to bo effected by non-resi-dents electors,” he remarked that the conditions were calculated to prove exceedingly' oppressive. With regard to • the provision contained in Clause 149, “ perpetual leases,” he expressed the hope that the Council would reject its provisions, as it had done in the past. He considered that the Council would not do its duty it it did not insist that the right of purchase should be included in connection with perpetual leases. Alluding to pastoral tenants, ho submitted that some relief should be extended to this class of settlers, who for some reason or other had paid too much for their land. Mr Stevens went on to refer to the “one-man-one-run” provision. He thought that provision, if it were adopted, would lead to great loss to the revenue. He failed to’ eee why there should be any limit to the number of runs a man might hold. The abolition of the purchasing clause and one-man-one-run clausa were highly objectionable features in the Bill. From a close scrutiny of the measure, he must say that a simple method of dealing with the State lands of th. 6 Colony had yet to be discovered. He regretted these continual interferences with the Land Acts, which he regarded as monstrous, interfering with the rights of the people and retarding settlement and the prosperity of the country. Sir G. S. Whitmore moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday, which was agreed to. / AUCTIONEERS BILL. ■ message was received from the House, announcing that that Chamber.had agreed with the report of the Managers on tne Auctioneers Bill. The Hon S. E. Shrimski moved that the Managers’ report on the Bill bo agreed to. This was agreed to. LOCAL BILL. The Palmerston North Hospital District Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. The Council at 4.25 p.m. adjourned till Monday next. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. afternoon sitting. The House met at 3.30. DU POLLEN. Mr Saunders brought up the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the claim of Dr Polleu for arrears of pension. The Committee recommended that £1389 be paid to Dr Pollen, from July 3, 1873, to .Oct. 30,1876.

Several members protested against the payment of this money. Mr J. Kelly moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for reconsideration, which was ; agreed to on the voices. questions. Replying to Mr Mills (Waimea-Picton), The Hon W. P. Beeves said a small sum would be placed on the Estimates to defray the bare travelling expenses of members of the various District Educational Institutes to the next annual meeting, to bo held in Christchurch in January, 1892. Eeolying to Mr Mills, The Hon W. P. Beeves said it was desirable to hold a conference of inspectors, teachers and educational authorities at tho Christchurch meeting, but it was a matter that should be left to the Education Boards. Replying to Captain Bussell, The Hon J. Ballance said he was afraid it was too lata in the sossoa to set up a special Committee to inquire into the petition of Judge Edwards, presented yesterday by Captain Bussell. He had not yet seen the petition, and was not aware of its contents, bub he should look into the matter, and give a definite reply on Monday or Tuesday. auctioneees. The Hon B. J. Seddon moved that the report of the Conference on the Auctioneers Bill ha agreed to. He said the House would find that the amendments made by the Council in the Bill were of a widening rather than a restrictive character. The motion was carried. electoral bill.' The Electoral Bill was further considered in Committee. . . Clause 7 (postponed clause), Maoris only qualified to vote under part S. Sir John Hall moved an amendment that half-castes in the-Middle Island shall not be qualified to register for European elections. ...

After- a very lengthy discussion, the amendment was lost on the voices.

Mr Buick moved a new clause, to the effect that any person who supplies or causes to be supplied to any other person on tho polling-day any intoxicating liquor shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £SO, and not leas than £5 for each offence. Sir John Hall suggested that the clause should be altered, as at present it would prevent any person from supplying members of his own family with a glass of wine on the polling-day. He thought an alteration should be' made to make it apply to holders of licenses. The Hon J. Eallance pointed out that supplying liquor on an election dajt was a corrupt practice, and therefore it was not necessary to legislate for it. Mr O’Conor said a clause of this kind was absolutely penal, as it would prevent a man from giving a friend a glass of hear at his own dinner table on the election day. Mr Carncross also hoped the Committee would not agree to the clause, as it was too sweeping altogether. Lost on the voices. A new clause was then moved, to the effect that all publichouaes within a radius of two miles of any polling booth shall he closed for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on the polling day at a general election, and no holder of any license shall supply any liquor to other persons on that day. The penalty for a breach of this clause shall be forfeiture of license. This clause was strongly opposed by several members. It was eventually lost by 33 to 13. Mr Thompson (Marsden) asked whether he could now move that publichouaes iu the four cities bo closed on the polling day. The Chairman ruled that it could not be put. The Bill was reported with amendments. The Hon J. Ballance moved that the Bill be recommitted for reconsideration of certain clauses. Clause 113, result of poll.

; The Hon J. Ballance moved to strike out the proviso to the clause referring to ballot boxes at small polling booths where there are not more than forty electors, being forwarded to Returning Officers, which was agreed to at a previous sitting. This was agreed to. The Hon J. Ballance moved a new clause, 113 A, to the effect that the deputy Returning Officer at every polling place where not more than forty votes are recorded at an election, shall, after the close of the poll, open the ballot boxes and. taking out the ballot papers without unfolding them, shall count the same and enclose them in a sealed packet to the Returning Officer. This was strongly opposed, and was thrown out on the voices. Tho remaining postponed clauses were agreed to. The Bill was read a third time and passed. The House rose at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL. The House went into Committee on the Legislative Council Bill. Clause 2, appointment of members. Tho Hon J. Ballance moved that the age of members who could be summoned to the Council should be 21 years, instead of 35. Agreed to. Clause 3, members to hold office for ten years only. The Hon J. Ballance moved that “ ten ”be struck out and “ seven ” substituted. Mr Eolleston objected to the amendment, and said if Councillors were appointed every seven years it would put altogether too'much power in the hands of the Government of the day.

The Hon J. Ballance replied that seven years was a long time in the history of the Colony, and a man who had been seven years in the Legislative Council would want renewing. He thought the term-of seven years was sufficient. Mr Eollbston said if that were the case the latter portion of the clause, which provides that every such person may from time to time be re-appointed, should bo struck out. Ho would test the feeling of the Committee by moving that no member of the Legislative Council be re-appointed unless during bis term he had held office as a Minister of the Crown. If a provision of this kind were hot inserted, the Council would become altogether subservient to the Ministry for the time being. Mr Fergus asked whether Mr Kolleston meant that a member of the Legislative Council was to be ineligible for ever after his term was completed. Mr Blake also opposed Mr Eollestons proposal. The longer ho remained in the House the more he was convinced that the Legislative Council was necessary. He should support the ten years term. Captain Bussell was indifferent whether the term was ten or sfiven years, but ne had long been of opinion that some limit should be put to the duration of time for which Councillors should bo appointed. He could not agree with Mr Ilolleston that there should be no reappointment, but thought, on the contrary, that if a man proved a good and efficient Councillor he should bo re-appointed.

After further discussion, Mr 0 : Conob moved that the Chairman leave the chair. His reason for doing so was that the Bill aow before the Committee did not represent the feelings of the people in the Colony. He spoke strongly against the Bill. Sir G. Grey said the character of the Legislative Council was altogether changed from what it was intended to be. That Chamber had now become an hereditary one, and a practice had grown up by which the sons of deceased persons obtained seats in the Council, which be maintained was a great abuse and a great wrong. Ho complained strongly of the rejection of measures intended for the benefit of the people by that Council, and said they were really dominated by powerful companies, some of whoso officers and managers possessed ' seats iu the Council. The present BUI was no reform whatever, but it would bo their own fault if the House did not alter that state of things. He did not scree with the proposal that the Chairman should leave the chair. That would put it out of their power to effect any reform at all, and now was their opportunity. He asked what the House .had done that its measures should be

treated with scorn by the Council. should take some steps to relieve p"®®' selves from this incubus, and it was in power of the House to say that, alter a certain time, the Legislative Council shoui cease to exist. . - Mr Buceland said Sir George Grey naa just delivered one of his annual speecne against the Legislative Council. It was n use beating around it in that direction, a the Legislative Council was there am* they could not remove it. The only tning that could possibly induce him t. r Buokland) to support the present Premier was if that hon gentleman called s>ir George Grey to the Upper House, where, no doubt, he would in time become a gooa Conservative. He supported the Bin, ana was in favour of an elective Upper House, but he should nob, on that account, abuse the present Councillors. Why, Sir George Grey himself was as much responsible tor those Councillors being there as anybody else. He was very glad that the Council existed, as it was one of the bulwarks or thoir liberty, and had proved its usefulness on many occasions. Mr O’Conob after further debate withdrew his motion that the Chairman leave the Chair. Mr Fergus agreed with Mr Buckland that many Liberal members in the House supported measures with the certain hope that; the Legislative Council would reject them. His opinion waa that the Legislative Council conducted its business as well and probably better than_ the House. The Hon J. Ballance’s motion to strike out the word “ten” was carried on the voices. . Sir G. Grey moved that memoers or the Council should only hold office for throe years. He said he did so in order that Legislative Councillors should have the same term of office as members of tne House of Representatives. Mr Fish was surprised at Sir G. Grey moving such an amendment, as it was perfectly certain the Council would reject it, and they would then have no reform at all. Mr Bees supported Sir G. Grey’s amendment. He thought the Council waa not entitled to a longer term of office than the House, He admitted that the Legislative Council had behaved honourably in passing this Bill for its own reform, but he thought the Council should have made it apply to themselves as well as to those to bo appointed in future. Mr Fish : Would you do it if you were in the Council ? Mr Rees said he believed he would. He never remembered asking anybody to do that which he was not prepared to do himself. He supported Sir G. Grey’s amendment, because he thought it logical and constitutional. Mr Thompson (Auckland) thought a second Chamber was necessary, but he would prefer to see it elective, and he considered that Sir G. Grey should have tested it on that score.. Sir G. Gbbt said at this late stage of the session it would have been quite impossible for him to get an elective Upper House Bill passed. If they reduced the term of office to three years, however, they could clearly bring about an elective Chamber by putting in men pledged to carry it. Sir G. Grey’s amendment was lost by 30 to 11. Sir G. Grey then moved to insert “ five years” instead of seven, as proposed by Mr Ballance. . Lost by 33 to 16, and “ seven ” carried on the voices. / Sir G. Grey moved that the Council should be elective. Mr Perceval ruled the amendment out of order in that Bill. Mr O’Conob moved an amendment that no members should be appointed to the Council unless after resolution of the whole House.

Mr Hamlin raised a point of order as to whether that amendment could be received, on the ground that it traversed other portions of the Bill. ’ Mr Pekceval ruled the amendment out of order. Mr Thompson (Marsden) moved an amendment to the effect that no member be reappointed to the Council until after the expiry of twelve months. The Hon J. Ballance could not accept the amendment. There was absolutely no reason that he could see for an interregnum of this kind, and if a member did his duty there could bo no objection to his reappointment. Lost on the voices. Mr Thompson (Auckland) moved an amendment to the efiect that this Act should apply to the, last seven appointments made to the Council, namely, to those appointed before the first day of January, 1891. Agreed to on the voices. Captain Eusbell thought the amendment just passed by the Committee under the Act was retrospective, and would, jeopardise the Bill. As he was anxious that the Bill should pass, he thought the Committee should reconsider its action before finally passing the clause. The Hon J. Ballance said Mr Thompson had stated that he had been informed by a member of the late Ministry that the gentlemen recently appointed to. the Council had given a pledge to make this Act apply to their own appointments. If it were found that those gentlemen did not give such pledge, this amendment should nob have effect ; but it would be a matter for the conference to consider, Mr Eees considered this a most serious question. His opinion was that Captain Eussell, as a member of the late Cabinet, should inform the Committee whether or nob such a pledge had been given by the gentlemen lately appointed to the Council. It could be no Cabinet secret now, as the late Ministers were nob now in o fflce. He thought Captain Eussell laid himself open to a vote of censure by the House if he refused to give this information. Hr Mackenzie (Clutha) asked whether Mr Eees wanted to drive a few more members out of the House.

Mr Thompson said he bad taken strong objection to those appointments, and at a canons of supporters of the late Government he had referred to the matter. The explanation given then was that the gentlemen recently appointed to the Council had gone into it pledged to make reform of the Council apply to themselves. Sir John Hall said he was present at the caucus referred to, and he had no recollection of any statement being made that a pledge had been given that the proposed reform of the Council should apply to the gentlemen recently appointed. Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) had been a consistent supporter of the late Government party; and he thought his word was as good as that of a gentleman who was on one side of the House one day and another side another day. He wished to say also that he had no recollection of a statement being made at the caucus such as that referred to by Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson said if Mr Mackenzie exercised a little more independence in the House it would perhaps be better for him. He then appealed to Mr Thompson (Marsden), who was present at the same caucus to state his recollections of what had occurred.

Mr Thompson (Marsden) always made it a point not to disclose the proceedings of a cauctia, but his impression was that the late Premier stated positively that the gentlemen recently appointed to tno Council had given a pledge that they would support the reform of the Council applying to themselves.

Mr G. F. Eichaedson as a member of the late Ministry said there was no obligation on tho part of the late Ministers to make any such disclosures as were advocated by Mr Eees. He considered that one of tho best acts of the late Government was when it made the recent appointments to the Council, The Clause as amended was then passed. Clause 7, appointment of Speaker. The Hon J.Ballanch thought that the right of appointing the Speaker should He vested in tho Crown instead of _in the Council itself as provided by the Bill. Ho moved therefore that Clause 7 be struck out.

Sir John Halt, said r.o good reason had been shown why the Legislative Coaaoi. should he deprived of tho right; of appointing its Speaker. No inducement whatever would now bo held to members - Or that body to prove by their usefulness that they might aspire to an-office of this kind; He

hoped tho Committee would pass the lause as it stood. The Hon J. Ballance said the Crown had exercised this power for many years, and he saw no reason why it should be altered now. After further discussion the clause was struck out. Mr Fish moved a new clause to the effect that any Legislative Councillor who voluntarily resigns his seat in that Chamber shall be entitled to retain the title of “ honorable,” snd also to a free railway pass, and to have access to the Parliamentary Litirary. Considerable discussion ensued, several members objecting to the title “honorable ” being retained. Mr Fish consented to strike out this portion of the clause. The amended clause was then carried by 22 to 20, The Bill was reported with amendments, which weroagreed to. The Bill was read a third time by 40 to 12, On-the motion that the Bill do pass, Mr Beeves (Inangahua) read from a copy of the New Zealand Herald of January last a report of the vacancies held by the late Government party, in which it was stated that the six gentlemen recently appointed to the Legislative Council had given a pledge to the Government that they would consent to the Legislative Council Reform Bill having application to their own appointments. Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) said that was no proof whatever. The report of that meeting might have been supplied to tbe newspaper by Mr Beeves himself, or by the member for Auckland. The Bill was then passed on the voices. DENTISTS. The Dentists Act Amendment Bill was committed. Mr Joyce moved a new clause, providing for the repeal of the sixth section of the Dentists Act, 1880, and enacting, instead, that any person holding a certificate showing that ho is entitled to practise dentistry shall, on proof that he is of good character, and on payment of the registration fee, be entitled to be registered under the Dentists Act, 1860, without further examination. Agreed to. Mr Lawry moved a new clause providing that the Board of Examiners shall hold examinations at Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Agreed to. ' OTAGO UNIVERSITY The University of Otago Council Election Bill was committed. [Left sitting at 2 a.m.]