PARLIAMENTARY

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIV, Issue 10708, 18 July 1895, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY

rPxs Puses Association,! ' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, July 17. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Council met at 2 30. ANNUAL debt. The Hon C. C. Bowen moved' that a return from the Audit Office of the total annual debt -of the colony on March 31 in each year, from 1886 to 1895 inclusive, be laid .upon the table. Agreed to. SECOND READINGS. The Patea Foreshore Vesting Bill (Hon T. Kelly) was read a second time. The Hon W. D. Stewart ' moved the second reading of the Property Law Consolidation Bill, which was framed to assimilate mortgages under the old Act to the provisions of the Land Transfer Act. The motion was agreed to on the voices. JUDICIAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Judicial Practice and Procedure Bill, and an amendment that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months, was continued by the At-torney-General. He desired to assure the Council that he was the last man of the Council to engage in a tilt with the judges of the Supreme Court, Once more he desired to tell the Council that the Bill was not directed against their Honors who were seated on the Supreme Court bench. He assured the Council that he would rather hia hands were cut off than that he should interfere with the independence of the Supreme Court judges. He explained the provisions of the Bill. ■ The amendment was carried by 22 to 12. , The following is the division list: — Aiks (12); Hons Baillie, Sir P. A. Buckley, Feld wick, Jennings,. Kelly, Kerr, M’Cnllongb, Montgomery, Bigg, Wahawaha and Sir G. S. Whitmore. Nobs' (22); Hons Acland, Barnicoat, Bolt, Bonar, Bowen, 'Holme?, • Johnson, Macgregor, M’Lean, Ormond, Peacock, Pharazyn, Pollen, Reynolds, Richardson, Scotland, Shrimaki, Stevens, Stewart, Swanson, Taiaroa and Williams. Note.—A'name is omitted from the list of the ayes. DIVORCE. The Hon J. Macgregor moved the second reading of the Divorce Bill. It proposed that infidelity and cruelty should be occasion for divorce, and also that desertion for four years should be another reason for divorce. Women, by the dictum of the Legislature, had been placed upon the same footing as men, and therefore he thought that in ■ the . matter, of morality they should be placed upon the same standard as men were judged by. Desertion was, iu the opinion of Milton and of some modern .writers, a worse crime than adultery, as it was a complete rupture of the marriage tie. Clause 4 provided that divorce may be substituted for judicial separation. The schedule materially reduced court charges. . Another clause enabled judges to compel husbands to provide security for alimony. The only other provision he desired to refer to was a clause • which, under certain circumstances, empowered judges to hear divorce oases in camera or eise forbid their publication. -

Sir G. S. Whitmoee generally opposed tbe ■■ Bill, which be regarded as being calculated to upset society. Under the Bill collusion was made easy. . The Colonial Secretaet intimated his intention of opposing the Bill. The Qon J. Bigg supported tbe Bill generally, but expressad regret that Mr Macgregor had eliminated some of the clauses contained in tbe BillUast year.

The Hon B. C. J. Stevens objected to certain provisions in the Bill which enabled delinquents to take advantage of their, own misdeeds. Otherwise the Bill was not objectionable. Tbe Hon T. Kelly supported the Bill. The Eon J. A. Bonae said that the Bill, taken as a whole, was an , anomalous one, and he failed to see how it could be amended in order that it might be made workable without upsetting our social system. The Hon J. Kbeb regarded tbe. Bill as a most frivolous one, and as calculated to undermine social life. The Hon C. C. Bowen was in favour of the Bill so far as it placed the sexes on an equality with regard to adultery being sufficient ground for divorce.

The Hen J. E. Jbnkinson would support the Bill, but would be prepared to offer amendments in committee.

The Hon W. D. Stewaet was in favour of the Bill, which, however, did not go far enough.

(The Hon J. Macgbbgob replied, and the second reading was carried by 21 to 9. The following is the division list Ayes (21) —Gons Stewart, Scotland, Barnicoab, Bolt, Swanson, Fharazyn, Kelly, Bigg, Jenkinson. Peldwick, Wakawaha. Taiaroa, W, C, Walker, Macgregor, Stevens, Ormond, Bowen, M’Lean, Pollen, M’Cullongh and Montgomery. Noes (9)—Hone Baillie, Sir G. S. Whitmore, Bonar, Williams, Kerr, Acland, Johnston, Grace and Sir P. A. Buckley.

NATIVE TO WN SHIES. The Native Township Bill was read a first time. ADUULTBEATION PREVENTION. The Adulteration Prevention Acts Amendment Bill was committed and reported without amendments. INSTITUTE OP JDUBNALISTS. The Hon W. M’Cullough moved the second reading of tbe New Zealand Institute of Journalists Bill. The motion was agreed to without die-

cuasion, and the Bill referred ;to the Labour Bills Committee. EVIDENCE. The Hon J. Macgregor formally moved the second reading of the Law of Evidence Amendment Bill. The debate was opened and adjourned to nest day, and the Council adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, July 17. AFTEBNOON' SITTING, The Housa'met at 2,30 p.m. THE COLONIAL TREASURER’S SPEECH. Captain Russell gave notice to move on going into Committee of Supply a resolution traversing the speech made by the Colonial Treasurer to the London Chamber of ■ Commerce respecting the three millions of securities.

QUESTIONS, Replying to the Hon W. J, M. Larnacb, * The Hon R. J. Seddon said that he did not think it advisable for the’colony to interfere as to the position of. Harbour Boards iu the colony, and it would not, therefore, be advisable to sot up a committee for the purpose of inquiry into their position. Replying to Mr Maslin. Tee Hon J. M’Kenzie said that there was no law compelling the Government to reclassify Crown land already disposed of, and he thought that Land Boards could deal with the matter without infringing the Land Act.

Replying to Mr Buchanan, whether the Government, is aware that replies to applications for loans under the Advances to Settlers. Act are in some cases delayed for three months, The Hon R. J, Seddon said that if Mr Buchanan furnished; him with the names of the • applicants referred,, to, ne would forward them to the Superintendent of the Board for an explanation. Replying to the Hon E. Mitchelson, The Hon R. J. Seddon said that shooting out of season 'should : be stopped’, and ho would look into Ijhe .matter very caretully, but exceptional cases ought to be treated with moderation.

Replying to Mr Wi Pere, The Hon R. J. Seddon said that it would not be advisable to lend money to Natives indiscriminately, but the Advances to Settlers Act might bo made to apply to certain case*.

Raplying to Mr Pirani, The Hon K. J. Seddon said that the police had strict instructions to enforce the licensing law, and if they did not do their duty he would not spare them. Ho had not heard any complaints from Blenheim on this head, but ha would inquire into a case referred to by Mr Pirani. Replying to Sir R. Stoat, The Hon R. J. Seddon said that the Government, had not seized or intended to use the sinking funds accumulated under the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act in any way other than provided by law. Replying to Mr Button, whether the Government will place a sum on the Estimates for a special grant 'aid of the meeting of volunteer representatives from the Australasian colonies to take part in the Federal Match at Oamaru in February, 1896, L The Hon R. J. Seddon said that he would make inquiries as to ’what had been done when New. Zealanders visited the other colonies, and he would not allow this colony to be behind in that .respect. ’ Replying to Mr Morrison, The Hon R. J. Seddon said that the Government would take steps to have the imprisonment passed on a Danish lad in Wellington on July 17 annulled, and would take further steps to deal with the case of the lad in question. .

Replying to Mr Pinkerton, Too Hon R. J. Skddon 'said that the case of a constable kicking a woman at Dunedin had been brought under his notice, and he had immediately dismissed the constable.

Mr B. M. Smith moved the adjournment of the House to refer to Taranaki iron ores, and a lengthy discussion arose on various subjects, several members taking exception to the non-enforcement of the licensing laws by the police, and stating that the law had been broken in Wellington, Christchurch . and other places with impunity. The motion for the adjournment of the House, was lost after nearly two hours’ discussion. STEANGEES’ GAELEEY.

Mr Pxbani moved that the House Committee should be requested to report on the practicability of setting apart a portion of the gallery in the House for a " strangers’ gallery” for women. Carried. RACE MEETINGS. jMr Cabnbll moved that, with a view to. reducing the number of' race meetings in this colony, it is most desirable that Clause 46 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, should he repealed. Carried by 35 to 24. The following is the division Hat:— Ates (35): Messrs Allen,' Buddo, Bnick, Button, Cadman, Carnell, Earnohaw* Flatman, Graham, Hall, H allJones, Harris, Houtson, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, W; Kelly, Mackenzie, Maslin, Massey, J. M’Kenzie, M’Nab, Meredith, Millar, Mitchelson, Morrison, Newman, Pinkerton, Pirani, Seddon, G. J, Smith, Tanner, Thompson, Willis and Sir E. Stout. Noes (24): Messrs Buchanan, Carncroso, Carroil, Collins, Crowther, Duncan, Fraser, Gre«n, Guinness. Lawry, Mackintosh, M’Gowan, E. M’K'mzie, M’Lacblan, Mills, Montgomery,- O’Eegan, Parata, G. W. Eussoil, W, E. Euasell, B. M. Smith, Stevens and Wilson. No pairs were recorded. The House rose at 5.30 p.m.

EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. admission op women to parliament. Dr Newman moved the second reading of. the Admission of Women to Parliament Bill. He said that since last year the Bid had been before the country and had met with general favour. He instanced the case of several countries where this privilege was granted, and said that in the Parliament of Colorada three women occupied seats, and the Parliament of South Australia had opened its doors to women. Mr Oabncboss seconded the motion. His opinion was that those who advocated women getting the franchise were those who wanted their votes, and he held that those who voted for that privilege but refused to vote for this Bill were actuated by eelfLh m tives.

Mr Mackenzie (Clutha) opposed the Bill. He aid not think that the floor of the House was the proper place for women. They now possessed the franchise, and could elect a representative of their choice. Mr Willis supported the Bill., He thought that women, as a rule, would not seek election, and it was extremely improbable that they would be elected. At the same time be thought that the House was only giving common justice to women when it gave them tbs same privileges as were possessed by men. The Hon W. J. Steward would support the Bill on the ground that if people chose to elect a lady there was no reason why they should not do bo. Mr Thompson regarded the Bill as introduced to gain a little popularity. He denied that the women in the colony desired this Bill.

Mr Dutbie did not regard Colorada as a good case in point, as it was not a very law-abiding place. He agreed with Mr Thompson that the Bill was a good election cry. Mr Maslin opposed the Bill, which he regarded as quite unnecessary. Mr Ball-Jones said that the reason why some members opposed this Bill was because they feared to face ladies in their constituencies at next election. He should

support the Bill, not that he thought it a wise measure. Mr M’Lachlan could not support *he Bill, and did not think that women wanted it. He was sure that there wereno wotnhn. in his electorate who had any idea of coming to Parliament. He should oppose the Bill at every stage. Mr Earnshaw and Major Harris opposed the Bill. . Mr Flatman supported the Bill. He had done so last year, and did not regret doing so. Mr Graham hoped that the Bill would not be agreed to. If he had'been in the House wnea the franchise was given to women he would have supported it. That being given to them they should not now go further. Mr G. J. Smith hopfid that the Bill would pass, and was surprised at the Ministerial Benches being silent over, a question which would change the constitution of the House. He held that so long as some women claimed the tiglA to sit in the House they had no right to deny them that privilege. Mr Hogg thought that the Bill was rather premature. The time might come when ladies would sit in the House.

Mr Tanner protested against the jocularity, of .the eneeches uttered on this Bill. He held that all the, objections urged against the Bill were flippant ones, and were not worth the consideration of members. It was said that if the Bill were,carried the best specimens of womankind would not take advantage of it. Ha asked whether the best specimens of mankind were in the present House.- - Mr Collins held that the time of the House was wasted in bringing in Bills of this kind. Ha opposed the Bill -and thought that the day was very far distant when 1 women would occupy seats in Parliament. : Mr E. M. Smith was surprised to hear members opposing this Bill, many of whom owed their election to the women of the colony. V. Mr M’Kknzie (Buller) regarded the debate as a tide show brought forward for the amusement of members. - Ho opposed the Bid. The motion was lost by 35 to 26.

The following is the division list : Ayes (2d) :• Messrs Buick, Oarncrosa, Oarnell, Carroll, Duncan, Flatmaif v HalIJouea, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, W. Kelly, Lang, Lawry, M’Nab, Millar, Morrison, Newman, Pirani, Beeves, G. W. Bussell, E. M. Smith, G. Smith, Steward, Tanner,Te Ao, Willis and Sir E. Stout.

Noes (35) : Meisrs Allen, Buchanan,, Buddo, Button, Cadman, Collins, Crowther, Dnthie, Earnshaw, Graham, ... Green, Guinness, Hall, Harris, Hogg, W 5 Hutchison, Mackintosh, Mssiin, Massey, M’Gowan, J. M’Keazie, R, ! M’K>nzie, M’Lacblan, Meredith, Mills, Mitcbelson, O’Regan, Parata, Pinkerton.W. R. Russell, Saunders, Stevens, Tnompson, Ward and Wilson. Pair. —Aye, Mr Hone Heke; No, Mr Eraser. THE -REFERENDUM. Mr O’Reoan moved the second reading of the Referendum Bill to refer to the electors of the colony certain, motions or Bills for their decision. Since last introducing it the Bill had received great support, and it was no tv in the forefront of the Conservative programme in England. That was an argument with some members to oppose the Bill, but it proved to him that the measure must be a popular one when the Tory Party adopted it. , He held that the source of all political power must be the people, and therefore there could be no objection to referring great political questions to the people, which was’ the object of the Bill. 1 Mr Saunders said that the Bill was one of the most important measures brought up this session, and ho regretted that Ministers did not lead the House on questions of this kind. The Bill appeared to him desirable on several grounds. He said that the way in which questions between the two Houses were now settled only . gaye Ministers an opportunity of appointing several additional members to the Legislative Council, which was not a i very desirable way. They were told they should not copy Switzerland, but he held; that that country was well worthy of copying, as her Constitution had been framed 1 by three of the mosE eminent men in the world. This Bill merely provided for the settlement by the , people of disputes between the two Houses, and ha hoped to see it pass. Mr M’Gowan opposed the Bill. He held that when the people took the law into their hands it became lynch law. They now had the voices of the people, aa Parliament itself was a reflex of the people of the colony.

Mr Mbkedith supported the measure, and that Mr O’Eegan was to be complimented" for the earnestness he "displayed over it. If this Bill were in the hands of a-Minister it would pass its second reading with flying colours. He believed tnat its principle was endorsed by the majority of the people of the colony. It was in hia opinion, a most democratic measure. The Hon R. J. SedijON said that he had no strong feeling on this measure, but the other day, at a deputation, he was publicly informed that the" passage of this Bill meant the /abolition of the Legislative Council, and Mr o’Eegm admitted it. He held, therefore, that if the Bill would have that eSect the country should know it. It would, in his opinion, be very unwise to refer such a question to the people as the elect ve Governor proposal when, probably, the decision of the people might be detrimental to the best interests of the country.. They bad the bes-t saioguaids- now and the electoral laws should be made as liberal as possible. He thought that the country was not ripe for such a great change as would be involved in the passing of this Bill. Ha had every confidence in the people, but he had seen on the goldfields, in time of great excitement, that men would sweep everything before theta, and" a few days afterwards would greatly regret their action. In this case, however, the decision of the people would be placed on the Statute Book, which was a different thing. He thought •he might let members know that a deputation represented to him that the passing of the BUI meant the abolition of the Legislative Council.

Mr G. W. Russell thought that the Premier should not allow a deputation of that kind to influence him on such a great question. At the same time he complimented the Premier upon the calm manner in which he had approached the subject. He would like to ask those who opposed the referehdum whether they thought that the present form of government was so perfect as to say we had approached finality. He did not think so, and he regarded the Bill as an effort to ascertain the will of the people. He did not think it advisable to abolish the Upper House, because however good the Lower House mighii be, it was absolutely necessary to have a revising chamber, whioh, however, needed some reform. He thought it a great mistake for the Government to have interfered as it had done in the Auckland election. > The Hon W. J. Stewabd thought that the Bill simply proposed a way out of a difficulty wbich had occurred in all constitutional countries for years past. Mr Buddo said that the Bill only gave them power they already possessed. As it would require about <£20,000 to take the referendum it would be an expensive process, especially as it would be an annual affair.

Mr MasiilN believed that the measure was in tbe interests of the people. Captain. Bussell thought that the great objection to the Bill was that they would refer to the inhabitants of the colony, many of whom paid no taxation, all sorts of questions, whereas every man in Switzerland, whether he held property or not, was liable to taxation. .If there was a sense of national responsibility in New Zealand the Bill might be worthy of

consideration. ' To destroy the Constitution under which we had lived for manv years past was not a light thing to undertake. Ho was anxious to see a check on hasty legislation, but the referendum would not impose a check"of that kind. Mr Pirani said that if the Bill only counteracted the influence of the Upper House it would do a great deal of good to the country. Mr Collins supported the Bill, although he had previously opposed it. He thought that the Bill was more reasonable now than it was last session. Mr M?Nab also supported the Bill. Messrs Alien, Mills, Carncross, Flatman, E. M. Smith and Button opposed the Bill and Messrs Millar and Hall-Jones supported it. The motion for the second reading was carried by 28 to 14. The House rose at 12.35 a.m.