PARLIAMENTARY

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIV, Issue 10703, 12 July 1895, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY

\Pib Pbsbh Association.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. THURSDAY. JULY 11. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. INSTITUTE OF SURVEYORS. The Labour Bills Committee recommended that the New Zealand Surveyors’ Institute Bill should be allowed to proceed with amendments. THE CHRISTCHURCH EXHIBITION; The Colonial Secretary, replying to the Hon J. E. Jenkinson, said that he could not say at present whether the Government would adjourn Parliament at the end of August for the purpose of visiting the Christchurch Exhibition about to be held, with a view to making _ members acquainted with colonial industries. CO-OPERATIVE SETTLEMENTS. The Hon W. M. Bolt moved a series of resolutions, of which he had given notice, their effect being that the State should establish simultaneously at least four cooperative settlements upon which to settle people who, from no fault of their own, are nm&le to obtain remunerative employment, the State to supply the land, implements, &c. He said that, looking at the fact that machinery was more or less displacing manual labour, it was the duty of the i State to see that people so deprived of their occupations were not left to starve. He was not altogether wedded to this plan, and if other members could see a better schema he would cheerfully submit to it. . ,

The Hon E. Pharazyn sympathised with the objects Mr Bolt had in view, but denied that distress in the colony was as widespread as it was at Home, nor was it due to improved machinery taking the place of manual labour. It was, in a measure, due to unfortunate legislation and to labour declining to accept anything but very high wages, which employers could not afford to give. In many instances men stuck out for 8s a day when the employers could only afford to give 5s per diem. He did not advocate low wages, but wages could only come out of profits, and if profits were diminished wages must come down. Whilst trade unionism had, he admitted, done much good, it had dono a great deal of mischief in unduly inflating wages. It was a very pretty and poetical idea to suppose that all the State had to do was to place people on the land, and they would carve out livings for themselves, but even if they achieved only so much but nothing more, they would not ho able to employ labour for themselves, and hence no good would be accomplished. The scheme as proposed by Mr Bolt would create an ever-increasing army of State pensioners at the expense of an inevitably-decreasing number of taxpayers. Believing, as he did, that the resolutions would have the effect of increasing the unemployed and would increase taxation, he would propose an amendment that the resolutions should not be agreed to, as they would lessen the self-reliance of the people. The Hon W. D. Stbwabt moved the adjournment of the debate. The Hon 8. E. Sheihski supported the amendment of Mr Pharazyn. The debate was adjourned for a week. LAW OP EVIDENCE.

The Hon J. Macgregot’s Law of Evidence Bill was read a first time. DEFAMATION.

The Hon H. Fkldwick moved the second reading of the Defamation Bill. In doing so he mentioned that the late Mr Ballanca bad asked him to take charge of the Bill, which was an amendment similar to that introduced by Sir S. Griffith in the Queensland Legislature. The definition of defamation in the Bill was simple, and included slander of any person living or dead, or whether the defamed one was at the time present in or absent from the colony. He hoped that the Bill, if read a second time, would be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. The Hon J. Macgregob strongly supported the Bill, which was not a new measure, but a simple codification of existing laws which clearly defined the difference between libel and slander. The Bill songht to protect the Press from prosecution in reporting proceedings in public meeting. The clause ho referred to was similar to one in the Imperial Act, and should commend itself to colonial Legislatures. Owing to the Criminal Code Act becoming law there was no provision now for prosecuting a newspaper for libel, and he believed that the Bill would be bailed with great satisfaction by the newspaper Press. The Bill songht to point out the distinction between libel and slander. He believed that slander was a greater offence than was libel. The proprietors of papers, if the Bill passed, would be able to see at a glance what was libel and what was slander without consulting a solicitor. He hoped that the Bill would become law.

The Hon W. D. Stewart said that the Bill would prove of great value for respectable newspapers, bat thought it opened the door for second or third-rate papers reporting very damaging things of public men at public meetings without there being the slightest truth in the statements. He failed to see why special facilities should be afforded newspapers to libel persons. The Attobnet-Qenbbal supported the second reading. The second reading was carried on the voices, and the Bill referred to the Statntes Revision Committee. HIKHTAIA BLOCK BOUNDARY. The Hikntaia No. 1 Block Boundary Bill ■' was passed through committee and its final stages. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS. The Hon W. Montgomery moved the second reading of the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Bill, which came from the House, and explained its provisions. The second reading was agreed to on the voices. SALS Of GOODS. The Sale of Goods Bill was further considered in committee. Clause 6, no contract for sale of goode for £lO and upwards shall be enforced unless the goods are delivered, occasioned a discussion, when progress was reported, with leave to sit again. The Council adjourned to next day. HOUSE 0F REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, July 11. AFTERNOON SITTING. The House met at 2,30 p.m. THE BBOrOSED LOTTERY. The Statutes Revision Committee reported that the Bank of New Zealand Estates Company Assets Special Realisation Bill should be allowed to proceed. Mr Mills moved for leave to introduce the Bill. The motion was lost by 39 to 13. The following is the division list:— Ayes (13)—Messrs Buchanan, Carroll, Guinness, Larnach, Lawry, J. M’Eenzia

E. M’Kenzie, Mills, Parata, Pere, Stevens, Te Ao and Wilson.

Noes (39)—Messrs Allen, Buddo, Buiok, Oarncross, Carnell, Collins, Crowthor, Duncan, Duthie, Earnshaw, Flatman, Graham, Green, Hall, Hall-Jones, Hogg, Houston, G. HutohLon, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, W. Kelly, Lang, T. Mackenzie, Mackintosh, Maslin, Massey, M’Gowan, M’Laohlan, M’Nab, Meredith. Millar, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Morrison, Newman, O’Eegan, Pinkerton, Pirani, Beeves, G. W. Bussell, Saunders, Seddon, G. J. Smith, Steward, Tanner, Thompson, Willis and Sir E. Stout. No pairs were recorded. The Hon W. J. M. Larnach, in reply to Mr Duthie, stated that two ex-members would not be admitted to the Parliamentary Buildings as they were defaulters at Bellamy’s. One was ex-member for the city of Auckland and another an ex-member for Inangahua. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence for a fortnight was granted to Mr M’Guire, who was expected by the next San Francisco steamer. THE COLONIAL TREASURER. The Hon E. J. Seddon stated that the Government proposed to take Friday evening as the occasion on which the Colonial Treasurer would make a statement to the House when laying the prospectus issued by the Agent-General on the table. The Hon E. Mitchelson asked whether the debate on the whole question would be taken then. The Hon E. J. Seddon said that might be somewhat inconvenient, as the Treasurer had not yet had an opportunity of knowing what had been said in the House during his absence. He thought that a better plan would bo to deal to-morrow with the Agent-General’s circular alone. Mr Eussell (Eiccarton) asked whether the Government would circulate the prospectus of the Agent - General amongst members for their information. The Hon E. J. Seddon agreed to that, and said that the circular would be issued next day. patea foreshore. The Patea Foreshore Vesting Bill was committed, read a third time and passed. DUNEDIN DRAINAGE. Mr Pinkerton moved the second reading of the Dunedin Drainage and Sewerage Bill, and explained that the whole Bill was a similar one to that passed by the House last session for the city of Wellington. The Hon E. J. Seddon said that the House, in passing the Bill, would affirm the principle that local bodies would be empowered to borrow, and he hoped that the* House would express its opinion on the subject. The Bill not only affected Dunedin, but th* whole colony, as to whether local bodies should be allowed to borrow.

Mr Bell hoped that the Premier would not allow the question of borrowing to be a, test one in the matter of drainage. Mr Allen took a similar view, and hoped that the question of principle would not be teated in this Bill. He strongly supported the Bill, and said that it differed somewhat from the Wellington Bill. Mr Earnshaw strongly supported the Bill. After further discussion the motion was agreed to. GAMING AND LOTTERIES. Mr Lawbt moved the second reading of the Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Bill to aaxd the Gaming and Lottoiies Act. 1881. He said that he was no friend of gambling, and if any member introduced a measure to stop gambling altogether ho would support it; but: that not being practicable, it was the duty of the House to regulate it as far as possible. The Bill proposed to legalise lotteries or sweepstakes, and he claimed for it the support of all temperance members in the House, as the Bill was drawn on the principle of local option. He had already pointed out in the House that JE60.000 a year was sent from the colony to other colonies for consultations, and he contended that, in order to stop that state of things, this Bill, which would legalise sweepstakes, should be passed. He thought, that apart from prejudice the House would see that the Bill was based on equity and justice, becausb it would do good to poor people, and would prevent our money being sent out of the colony. He had received hundreds of letters, not from racing men, on this Bill, and ho bad advocated on every possible opportunity the passing of this Bill. He believed that the good sense of the country >- endorse the action of the House if it passed the Bill. Mr Eabnshaw moved that the Bill should he read that day six months. He said that the House had already that day affirmed its opinion on a question of thia kind. The amendment was carried on the voices, and the Bill thrown out. PROPERTY LAW CONSOLIDATION. The Property Law Consolidation Act 1884, Amendment Bill was committed and passed without amendment. INSTITUTE OP JOURNALISTS. The New Zealand Institute of Journalists Bill was committed. Mr Duncan moved a clause to the effect that every regulation or by-law made from time to time by the Institute may be declared invalid by the Gove'raor-in-Council. The Bill passed with the amendment. DECEASED HUSBAND’S BROTHER. The Deceased Husband’s Brother Marriage Bill was committed. On Clausa 2 being put, Mr Bell moved—“ That the .Chairman leave the chair.” He deprecated thia constant change in the marriage law, and saw no necessity for the Bill; The amendment was lost on the voices. Clause 2, making marriage with a deceased husband’s brother lawful and permissible, passed with technical alterations. On the motion for the third reading of the Bill, Mr Meredith protested against it, and moved that it be read a third time that day six months. Lost by 43 to 10. The Bill was read a third time and passed. COUNTIES ACT AMENDMENT. Mr Pirani moved the second reading of the Counties Act, 1886, Amendment Bill fro forma, and said that it was only intended to remedy technicalities in the Counties Act. . Agreed to, and the Bill referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. PAYMENT OP JURORS, Mr Collins moved the second reading of the Payment of Jurors Bill, providing that all jurors , whether grand, special or common jurors, should be paid 7a 6d per day for every day they attended a court. The Bill also provided that every juror travelling to attend a court should receive a further sum for payment of railway or other fare of five miles or upwards. He felt sure that the Bill would commend itself to the spirit of fairness of every honourable member, and said that the hardship that jurors suffered in this direction had 'been brought to his notice frequently. In many cases jurors were dragged miles and miles to 6ouit, and the present payment was miserably small. His Bill proposed to remedy thia hardship. Ho thought 7s 6d a day quite reasonable enough for an artisan or labourer to perform the work of a juror. Mr W. Hutchison supported the Bill, but would move in committee certain amendments. Ho held that they did not want any grand jurors at all. Sib It. Stout did not object to jurors being paid an extra sum to what they were paid at present, but he thought that the Crown should deal with the matter, as it would entail a great additional expenditure in conducting Court proceedings. Ho thought that the Bill, as at present drawn, was unfair to country jurors, as additional expense was cast on them, and hehoped the Bill would be amended in that direction. Mr Willis supported the Bill, hut held that if there were grand jurors they should receive payment the same as common jurors. Mr Mills supported the Bill, and would like it to go further than it did. Mr Buddo, in supporting the measure,

hoped that it would be amended on something like a sliding scale. Mr Buick thought that there was no question of the desirableness of a Bill of this kind, and he supported it very heartily. . Mr O’Eegan endorsed the principle of the Bill, but would be prepared to strike out grand jurors in committee. He should also support the amendment to prevent jurors being brought from a long distance. Mr Meredith thought the Bill a vary good one, and would support it. The Hon W. P. Beeves had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, but if the proposals of certain members were agreed to, it would entail bo much expense on the Government that he would be compelled to oppose it. Those proposals would mean a cost of about .£2OOO a year, and the Bill as it stood would entail considerable expense. He thought 7a 6d a day not sufficient compensation to a great many men for attending juries, and he agreed with Sir E. Stout that if they made the jury system too expensive, they would discourage people from using juries at all, and cases would be tried before the Judge alone. The Government would therefore offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but would reserve its right to propose certain amendments in committee.

Mr M'Lachlan thought that the poorer a man was the more necessity there was for paying jiim sufficient expenses. He supported the Bill. Mr Hall supported the Bill, bub did not agree with Mr Beeves as to the mode of payment, and thought that all jurors should receive the same rate of pay. Mr E. M’Kunzie (Buller) thought that the Bill should .be placed in .the Statute Book. He was speaking at, the dinner adjournment.

’ ■ ’ EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr M’Kbnzie resumed speaking on the Payment of Jurors Bill, and hoped that the'Government; would take it up as a Ministerial measure.

Mr T.. Mackenzie (Clutha) thought the time had arrived when jurors, like some members, of Parliament, might be swept away. If they were to extend the principle of payment of jurors where was it to end ? He should support the second reading of the Bill, and hoped to see some modification in committee.

Mr Tanner would support the Bill, but thought that the whole system needed reform, and grand jurors might possibly be dispensed with.

Mr Guinness held that so long as the law provi ded for the payment of one class of jtaora it should pay for all classes. When the time came for proposing the abolition of grand-jafa&s ha should support that abolition. Mr' Flatman . supported the Bill, and thought that iurors should be paid for their services.

Mr Hogg said that if they were to retain the jury system it was capable of much Improvement, and he would vote for the Bill. He was afraid that the amount proposed Xfy be paid to jurors was too small. The motion lor the second reading was agreed to. ELECTIVE executive. The Hon W. J. Steward moved the second reading of the Elective Executive Bill, to provide for the election of the Executive Council. He said that the Bill wu,b no mere measure of a private member, but it waa an expression c£ opinion of thousands of thinking men in the colony. He traced the history of the Bill, and said that it was the largest measure of Liberal reform they could accomplish. He hoped that the House would consider the Bill carefully, and give its assent to it. After quoting several authorities in support of the Bin, be said that if it were urged that the measure was designed to break jthe Liberal Party, he could point to a record of twenty-five years in proof of the fact that he had never deserted the Liberal Party, and he felt, aura that more members of the Liberal Party would vote for his Bill than would voto against it. The Bill last year was lost by only a narrow majority, so small indeed that one newspaper declared that the defeat last session was oqtii valent to a victory, Ha ventured to aaj .■■ hat when thia matter came before th?s eleossks (as it would do at the general election) those who now opposed the Bill would be surprised to find jSbe people eo strongly in favour of an SlecEive Executive, as opposed to party government, lb might be urged against the Bill that gentleman might be elected wba *ould not work together. There was no compulsion in the matter, and if one genth»man ;ould nob agree with his colleagues he could retire, and a fresh electior would take place. They could then have si. executive chosen by the House instead of by one man, and this, he contend. 1, was a much better principle. Whatever might ba said against the Bill, he was af opinion that it was one of the most Liberal measures ever brought before the House, and tfc© Government would eventually be compelled to take up this great question. The motion was lost by 35 to 27. The following is the division list:— AxSlfi (27) : Messrs Bel), Buddo, Buick, Cpow'tlier, Duthie, Earnshaw, Graham, Green, Hall-Jones, Htke, Joyce, J, W. Larnach, Maaaoy, M’Nab, Meredith, Mitchelson, Newman, O’Regan, Pirani, G. W. Russell, Saunders, G. J. Smith, Steward, Tanner, Wilson and Sir E. Stout.

Nobs (35) ; Messrs Allan, Buchanan, Cadman, Oarncross, Carnell, Carroll, Collins, Flatman, Eraser, Guinness, Hall, Harris. Hogg, Houston, W. Hutchison, W. Kelly, Lawry, T. Mackenzie, Mackintosh, Maslin, M’Gowan, J. M’Kenzie, R. M’Eenzie, M’Lachlan, Millar, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, Parata, Pinkerton, Reeves, Seddon, Stevens, Ward and Willis. Pairs— AyesMessrs Button, Laing and Te Ao, Noes: Messrs Thompson, W, R. Russell and Wi Pere. f BEE LAND. Mr O’Ekgan moved the second reading of the Free Land Bill to provide better facilities for land settlement. Ho said that the Bill embodied the great principle that the unearned increment of the land belonged to the State, and if a Bill of this kind had been in force in the past many of the evils that now existed would never have occurred. Ha spoke at considerable length on the land question, urging that everyone who was born into the world had a right to the land, and the fact of their being born gave them a title to it. He did not condemn the landowners who had been fortunate enough to obtain land under a very pernicious system, but what he did condemn was the system which allowed them to do so; and he assured the Minister of Labour that the labour problem would not be solved by the Factories Act, Truck Act, Wages Attachment Act, or any other of those measures, ao much as by doing an act of simple justice to the people in giving them land to which they were entitled. Ho believed that the Minister of Lands Had done his best to break down land monopoly, but his efforts were utterly futile to settle this great question. He did not expect to sea his Bill carried, but a debate on the principle would do a large amount of good. Mr M’Lachlan did not think the remedy provided by Mr O’Regan would have the effect he anticipated, but he thought that the House should accept the Bill.

The Hon J. M’Kenzib said that the mover of the Bill had never referred to the Bill at all, but he no doubt desired to make hia annual speech on the single tax. He agreed with much of what Mr O'Segan had said, but he also agreed with Mr M’Lachlan, that Mr O’Regan should have been in the House twenty or forty years ago. They must, however, deal with the land question as they found it at present, and in tho best interests of the colony. If they were to agree to what Mr O’Eegan asked them by this Bill, they would have to resume possession of all the land in New Zealand, and instead of borrowing one million and a half, they would have to borrow fifty or sixty millions of money. He agreed that they should be careful in legislating, eo aa to avoid as far ns possible the accumulation of large estates, and ho thought it would be conceded that they had lately done a good deal towards pre-

venting that. Ha gave it as hie opinion that it would be impossible to give effect to this Bill, which did nob provide any return at all for three years. He would like to know who was to pay for the survey of this free land. Was it the general taxpayers of the colony? The Bill could not apply at all in the North Island, where they had no Crown land, except what they purchased from the Natives. If this Bill became law it would require another Bill of about one hundred and fifty clauses to give effect to it. Mr T. Mackenzie thought that the Minister of Lands was to be congratulated on the clear manner in which he bad replied to the mover of the Bill. He quite agreed with the Minister that the Bill was simply brought in. to enable Mr O’Eegan to make his annual single tax speech, although the House was not the place for those speeches. Then Mr O’Eegan denounced labour legislation, but he caief ully assisted by his vote to pass that legislation.

Mr Pirani thought that the Bill was moat crudely designed. It proposed to give people free land, provided they paid a survey fee of 2s 6d per acre, which would swamp the rent for three years. He thought that it would not ba wise or expedient on the part of the Government to give free land in the manner proposed by the Bill. The Hoa W. P, Beeves could not compliment Mr O’Eegan on the wisdom of the remedy he proposed for dealing with the labour problems, or the way in which he condemned those who were doing their beat to solve that problem. He did not think that Mr O’Eegan had found a remedy by his Bill, as he proposed to settle land in larger areas than those in which if was settled now. He regretted that Mr O’Eegan had .referred' to the labour legislation. If it helped to solve the labour problem it would do the most that he could expect of it. Although the labour legislation might be imperfect, he (Mr Beeves) Tield that it was a noble and'honest attempt to deal with the evils that afflicted the working classes of this and other countries.

Mr M’Gowan opposed the Bill, and said that Mr O’Eegan wanted to go back instead of forward.

Captain Russell thought it a peculiar thing that remedies for land settlement came frequently from persona who had no practical experience of land settlement. If the principle advocated by Mr O’Eegan in this Bill had been carried out in the past, he believed that the colony would not contain more than 09,000 people at the present time. He (Captain Euaaell) held that there was no such thing as unearned increment, and this Bill would assess a man on the value of his own labour and improvements put on his land, which be held was very unfair. He supposed they did not really intend to pass this Bill, although they had seen the whole of the Ministerial majority voting for the Eiverton Harbour Bill. He did not agree at all with the Bill, and hoped it would go no further. Mr Eaknbhaw said that he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, in the hope of getting some amendments in it. The motion for the second reading was lost by 39 to 13. CREMATION. Mr Bell moved the second reading of the Cemeteries Act, 1882, Amendment (Cremation) Bill. He explained that the Bill was merely permissive, and gave power to the trustees of a cemetery, if they chose to do so, to make provision for cremation. Mr Allen saw no reason to object to the Bill, as it was of a permissive nature. The motion for the second reading was agreed to. 1 The House rose at midnight.