PARLIAMENTARY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11049, 29 August 1896, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY.

[Per Press Associations LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, August 28. • AFTERNOON BITTING. The Legislative Council met at 2.30p.m

dehorning cattle. On the Hon S. E. Siirimski moving to commit the Police Offences Act Amenument Bill, which deals with the denornmg of cattle, , , . . The Hon J. Eigg spoke strongly against the measure, which, if passed, he contended, would make the Council ridiculous. Alter quoting at length from the Otayo Witness in support of the operation of dehorning, the Hon J. Eigg moved that the Bill should he committed six months hence. The Hons G. M’Lean and E. H. J. Reeves supported the amendment. • The Minister of Education regretted that the Stock Committee had not had time to call evidence on the subject of dehorning, and had practically made no report. The Hon T. Kelly said that the Stock Committee thought that a matter upon which so much might be said ou both sides could not bo properly gone into so late this session. After further discussion, the Hon S. E. Siirimski withdrew his motion for .me commitment of the Bill, the Hon J. K;gg also withdrawing his hostile amendment. The Bill was thus killed. SUMMARY . SEPARATION'

In committee the amendments in the Summary Separation Bill, as recommended by the Joint Statutes Revision Committee, were adopted, and a now clause, making the Bill apply equally to married persons of both sexes, was adopted. On the motion of the Hon H. Feldwick the title was altered to Married Persons Summary Separation Bill. The Bill was then reported with amendments. BILLS, In committee upon the Dunedin Garrison Hall Trustees Empowering Act Amendment Bill, the total amount of debentures allowed to bo current at any time was reduced from .£IO,OOO to .£6500. The Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill and Mount Wellington Public Domain Board and Thomas Morrin Exchange of Land Bill passed their final stages. FEMALE LAW PRACTITIONERS. The Hon W. M. Bolt moved the second reading of the Female Law Practitioners Bill, and pointed out that this measure iiad passed the Lower House, whereas the Government measure, which contained a clause allowing women to practise t e legal profession, which the Council had passed, had yet to go through the 'Lower Chamber. The Hon G. M’Lean moved the adjournment of the debate in order that Mr Bolt’s Bill might be dropped, as the Council had already agreed to the principle contained in the present Bill. This motion, however, r>«-> lost by 16 to 8, the Government voting against Mr M’Lean. After further cuauussion the second reading was carried on the voices. CRIMINAL CODE. The Hon T. Kelly moved the second reading of the Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is designed to allow Chemis to appeal to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The Hon F. Arkwright moved that the second reading of the Bill should take place six months hence. On the motion of the Hon J. Eigg the debate was adjourned, and the Council rose at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENT AT,IVES*. Thursday, August 27 EVENING SITTING. THE LOAN BILL After the Telegraph Office closed, the debate on the second reading of the Aid to Public Works and Laud Settlement Bill was continued. Mr Ceowther stated that after the speeches of Ministers, who said it mattered very little to the Government whether this Bill was passed or not, he would vote against the Bill, so that the constituencies could be consulted on the question. Mr Massey, whilst admitting that several important public works required to be carried out in the colony, thought that the public debt was now so large that it was necessary to abstain from borrowing for some time to come. Mr M’Nab said he must vote against .the Bill, in fulfilment of his election pledges. The country’ should have been consulted before this serious change in policy .was entered upon. Mr Pinkerton supported the Bill. He disapproved of borrowing money to construct fresh lines of, railway, but agreed that it was necessary to complete several of the unfinished lines. Mr Flatkak regretted that it' was necessary to bring in this Bill on the eve of a general. but if it was !not passed now, it meant the suspensionnf all public works, which would bo very severely, felt by the working classes of the colony. Mr Hekb opposed the Bill.

The Hon R. J. Seddon rose to reply at 3.30 a.m. He said that the debate had been one of the hoßowest shams .heffiad ever knowh. If was simply another device of the Opposition to- address the constituencies. ■■ 'There ‘ was' no reason for a protracted debate, and the speeches were simply repetitions of those given in the Financial Statement and no-coniidence debates. It was a question now whether they were to have a progressive policy or a period of stagnation. The Government could not go on for another year without assistance to carry on public works. He did not want the weak-kneed supporters

who had shown their true colours in this debate, and he wished they would declare themselves iu opposition and leave the Liberal party. The attitude they had taken up was not just or fair To tile Government, who were doing their duty for the country; nor was it fair to the Opposition Party.’ He pointed out that several of the members who were strongly opposing this Bill had voted for similar measures in past sessions, among the number being ■ the Lands for Settlement Bill, the Consols Bill, the Advances to Settlers Bill, and the Lands Improvement Bill. showed grave inconsistency on the part *of those members, and raised the question whether they had always been so anxious to conserve ■ their election pledges. The Government had great cause for complaint on account of the action of these members. He contended that the Government could not stop the public works that were now going on, for it meant throwing a Largo

;i umbei’ of men out of employment in a bad season, and he was suro tliat tlio country -would not countenance this. No doubt such a proceeding would suit the Opposition members, for the unemployed would thfcn be available to do their bushfalling and other works at a cheap rate of wages. The position of the colony warranted the Government in asking for this' money, for the assets were very largely in excess of the liabilities. Mr George Hutchison had asked why the Liberal Party and the Premier had been allowed to reign so long in New Zealand, but in reply he would ask why the Creator allowed snakes, toads and centipedes to encumber the earth ? He defended the late Mr Ballance from the aspersions cast ou his policy and administration, and in conclusion said that the people would recognise the services of the Liberal Government and return them to power at the general election. On a division the second reading was carried by 33 to 19, and the committal of the Bill set down for the next sitting. The following is the division list: — A yes, 32—Messrs Buddo, Buick, Cadman, Camell, Collins, Carroll, F!atman,_ Graham, Guinness, Hall, Hail-Tones, Harris, Hog’g, .Joyce, Lawry, M’Gowan, J. Id M’Kenzie, M’Laohlan, Millar, Mills, Morrison. O’Kogan, Pere, Pinkerton, G. W. Bussell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Steward, T. •Thompson, "Ward and Willis. Noes, 19 —Messrs Allen, 8011, Button, Crowther, Earnshaw, Eraser, Green, Hoke, Lang, Maslin, Massey, M’Guire, M’Nab, Mitchelsoit, Montgomery, W. E. Russell, G. J. Smith, Tanner and Wilson. Pairs - Ayc-s: Messrs Parata, Houston, Mackintosh, Duncan, Laruach, R. Thompson, Stevens, Carncross, W. Hutchison and W. Kelly. Noes: Messsrs Te Ao,_ Meredith, Lewis, Buchanan, Saunders, Pirani, J. W. Kelly, Duthie, George Hutchison and Sir Robert Stout. On the motion of the Premier, all committees were excused from sitting on Friday. The House rose at 4.5 a.m. i’BiDAT, August 28 , AFTERNOON SITTING The House met at 2.30 p.m. THE LOAN BILL. The Aid to Public Works and Lana Settlement Bill was committed. Clause 1, short title — The Hon E. Mitchelson moved that the title be altered to New Zealand Loan Act, 1896. He thought that the present title. Aid to Public Works and Land Settlement Bill, was a misnomer. The Hon R. J. Seddon opposed the amendment, and asked,, “ What’s in a name?” (An hon member: “Why oppose it then ?”) Mr Bell suggested that the title should bo altered to “ The Seddon Government Departure Bill.” The Hon E. J. Seddon pointed out that a large majority of the House had decided in favour of the Bill, which was meant to provide for land settlement and the construction of public works. Several members stated that previous Loan Bills were styled Loan Acts pure and simple, and a large number of instances were quoted. Captain Russell supported the amendment, which he considered was perfectly reasonable. The Bill was altogether wrongly named. The Hon B. Mitchelson. said that it was time the House,put an end to the sham of calling borrowing proposals raising money. The Bill was a Loan Bill arid nothing else. ‘ The Hon J. G. Ward contended that there was no concealment whatever as to the nature of the Bill. It was entitled “An Act to Authorise Raising Money in Aid of Public Works,” and that was surely sufficient without altering the title. A lengthy debate ensued, which was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjourn.ment. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at Y. 30 p.m. in committee on the Aid to Public Works and Land Settlement Bill. Clause 1 was carried without alteration by 28 to 2d. The following is the divisionlist-For the amendment (3d)—Messrs Allen, Camcross, Crowther, Duthie, Earnshaw, Fraser, Green, Heke, G. Hutchison,' J. W. Kqlly; Lang, Lewis, Maslin, Massey, M’Gture, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Newman, Pirani, W. R. Russell, Saunders, G. J. Smith, Wilson, Sir R. Stout. , Against the amendment (28) —Messrs Buddo, Collins, Platman, Graham, HallJones, Harris, Hogg, W. Hutchison, Joyce, W. Kelly, Lawry, M’Gowan, J. M’Ken?ie, E. M’Kenzie, M’Lachlan, M’Nab, Millar, Morrison, O’Eegan, Pinkerton, • G.. W. Russell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Stevens, E. Thompson, T. Thompson, WaM J and, Willis. . .

Paxes— For.-the amendment — Messrs To Ao, Buchanan, Tanner, T. Mackenzie. Bell and Button ;• against the amendment —Messrs Parata, Duncan, Carnell, Cadman, Buick and Carroll. Clause 2.—Colonial Treasurer may raise ,£1,000, 000. ■■ , ; ; Captain Russell moved that “ Colonial Treasurer ” be struck out and “ Governor-in-Council” inserted. He said that it was the usual formula in Bills of this kind. They had already had the late Colonial Treasurer going to England to negotiate a loan, and they would probably see Mr Seddon doing the same thing after the session.

The Hon E. J. Seddon said that Captain Russell, true to his Conservative instincts, wished to cling to old traditions. He pointed out that the Goveimor-iu-Conncil was simply the mouthpiece of the Ministry, and there was no occasion to alter the clause as suggested by Captain Russell. Mr .G. V/. Russell thought that Mr Seddon would bo wise in accepting Captain Russell’s amendment. The Colonial Treasurer represented only one member of the Government, whilst the Governor-iu-Coun-cil represented the whole Cabinet. ■ Sir R. Stout could not understand the Treasurer objecting to the amendment, which, to him, was most reasonable. The Hon R. J. Seddon said that he had no objection to inserting that the Colonial Treasurer might be authorised by the Gpvernor-in-Council, but he objected to the Colonial Treasurer being struck out. , Captain Russell said in that case he should withdraw his amendment. The Hon R. J. Seddon moved to insert, after “ Colonial Treasurer,” the words, “upon being authorised by the Governor-in-Counoil.”

Captain Russell moyed to insert the word “ borrow,” as well as “raise” in the clause.

The Hon R. J. Seddon said that the word “ borrow ” was not up to date, and he hoped that the amendment would not pass. Mr Pieani said that the man who borrowed had some intention of paying it back, but the man who raised the wind had no such intention.

Sir E. Stout saw no earthly reason why “borrow” should not be inserted. It would not interfere with the Bill in the least, and he hoped that the Premier would accept it, and get on with the more important part of the Bill. ' Amendment lost by 32 to 25. Mr G. J. Smith moved to reduce the loan to half a million, instead of one mil-

lion. He thought that half a million was sufficient for one year, especially on , the eve ’of the general election. If a million were raised, there would be a most unjust tax levied on some parts of the colony, such as Canterbury, which would not benefit at all by this expenditure. : The Hon E. J. Seddon said that it was gratifying to find Mr Smith in a more reasonable frame of mind than last night, when he voted to throw out the Bill. As for Canterbury, she had a perfect net of railways, many of which were made with loan money, and the whole of the colony was taxed for these branch lines, which were the worst paying in the colony. The amount the Government was asking for was necessary if they were to do justice to the colony and its people, and every shilling of this money must be passed by the House.

A lengthy discussion ensued, lasting several hours.

Finally Mr Smith’s amendment to reduce the loan to half a million .was lost by 31 to 23.

The following is the division- list - ‘ For the amendment (23); Messrs Allen, Bell, Buddo, Duthie, Earnshaw, Fraser, Keku, W. Hutchison, J. W. Kelly, Lang, Lewis, Maslin, Massey, M*Nab, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Newman, Pirani, W. R. Russell, G. J. Smith, Tanner, Wilson and Sir R. Stout. ,

Against the amendment (31): Messrs Buick, Cadman, Carncross, C smell, Carroll. Collins, Crowther, Flatman, Hall, HallJoncs, Harris, Hogg, Joyce, W. Kelly, Lawry, M’Gowan, J. M’Keuzie, R. M’Kenjfio, M’Lacidau, Millar, Mills, Morrison, O’Regan, Pero, Pinkerton, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Stevens, Steward, T. Thompson and Ward.

Pairs.— For the amendment —Messrs Te Ao, Buchanan, M’Guire, Button, T. Mackenzie, Green and G. Hutchison. Against the amendment—Messrs Parata, Duncan, G. W. Russell, Larnaoh, Houston, Graham and Willis.

Mr M’Laciilan moved that .£750,000 should ha inserted instead of a million. ’ Lost by 30 to 21. Mr Montgomery moved a proviso to Clause 2; that the repayment of the loan shall not exceed twenty-five years from the date of issue of debentures or stock.

The Hon R. J. Seddon opposed the proviso, and asked the Committee to leave it to the Government. If this amendment were agreed to, it might prejudice the raising of the loan and affect the rate of interest. If anything happened to prevent the loan being raised the Government would get all the blame. Mr Bell said that he had prepared similar amendment, but thought it better to have the debentures redeemable in ten years. After considerable' discussion, the Hon R. J. Seddon said that he was prepared to accept forty years, as was the case in West Australia. Ho held that the Government should not be hampered in raising the loan in this way. Mi - Montgomery’s amendment was carried by 30 to 26. The following.is the division list: — For the amendment (30): Messrs Allen, )Bell, Buddo, Buick, Carncross, Collins, I Crowther, Duthie, Earnshaw, Fraser, Heke, ( J. W. Kelly, Lang, Lewis, T. Mackenzie, Maslin, Massey) M’Nab, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Newman, Pirani, G. W. Russell, W. R Russell,, G. 'J. , Smith, Steward, Tanner, E. Thompson, Wilson and Sir R. ■ Stout.

Against the amendment (26) —Messrs Cadman, Carnell, Carroll, Platman, Hall, Hall-Jones,‘Harris, Hogg, Joyce, W. Kelly, Lawry, M’Gowan, J. M’Kenzie, E. M’Kenzie, M’Lachlan, Millar, Mills, Morrison, O’Eegan, Wi Pere, Pinkerton, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Stevens, T. Thompson and Ward. Pairs. — For the amendment Messrs Te Ao, Buchanan, M’Guire, Button, Green and G. Hutchison;, against the amendment —Messrs Parata, Duncan, Houston, Larnach, Graham and Willis. Mr Bell moved that debentures may he redeemed by the Government any time after fifteen years. The Hon E. J. Seddon protested against fifteen years being inserted, and said that the result would he to prejudice raising the loan.

[Left sitting at 2 a.m.]