HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 43

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TUESDAY, JULY 30.

The Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m. NEW BILLS. The following Bills were read a first time : —Promissory Oaths Bill (Minister of Justice), Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill (the Premier), Trading Stamps Abolition and Discount Stamps Issue Act Amendment Bill (th e Premier). A number of questions were answered, and the House adjourned at 1 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m. THE WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD.

The Wellington Harbour Board Act, 1879, Amendment Bill passed through committee without material amendment.

On the question that the Bill should be read a third time a long debate ensued-

Finally the motion for th e third reading was lost on the voices in order that the Bill should be recommitted.

It was then proposed that clause 7 should be recommitted, but this v as lost by 32 votes to 27. The amendment that clause o should be reconsidered in committee was also lost by 40 votes to 19, and the House having also decided that the third read_ ing should not be taken that day, the only conclusion left was to fix the third reading as an order of the day for Thursday. BILLS PASSED. The Woodville County Bill and the Invercargill Reserves Leasing Bill were put through their final stages. _ PATEA HARBOUR BILL. Mr HASELDEN (in the absence of Mr McGuire) moved the second reading of the Patea Harbour Bill, which, h© explained, allowed the sum of £IO,OOO to be borrowed for harbour improvements. The debate was interrupted bv th© 5.30 p.m. adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The discussion of th© Patea Harbour Bill was continued at great length, th© finance of Harbour Boards generally b®ing reviewed.- Finally the Bill was read a second time on the voices. A DUNEDIN BILL . Mr MILLAR moved the second reading of the Dunedin City and Suburban Tramways Act Amendment Bill. This caused another long debate, th® Bill being strongly opposed. Th© discussion was eventually interrupted by th© 10.30 p.m. adjournment, and th® House roseWEDNESDAY, JULY 31. The Speaker took the chair at 2.80

LOCAL BILL* The Ashburton County Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill (Mr McLachlan) was read a third time, and passed. / ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr PIRANI raised a question .of privilege on account of the fact that members of the Public Accounts Committee had objected to his presence at a meeting of that committee that morning. He quoted authorities on Parliamentary procedure to show that a member was within his rights in being present at a meeting of a committee when the committee was deliberating. He gave an account of what had occurred at th e meeting of th e committee when his presence was objected to. The Premier, he said, looked at the chairman (Mr Fisher), then measured the proportions of the member for Caversham (Mr Morrison), and then said “We must do something to get this member out.” Nobody, however, seemed to be able to grasp what that something was. (Laughter.) It was then suggested by some member that the members of the committee should • leave the member for Palmerston where he was, go into an adjoining room, and lock the door (Laughter.) What h e considered the offensive part of the proceedings was that the chairman (Mr Fisher) suggested that they should send for a policeman. (“Oh,” and laughter.) He did not think that Mr Fisher meant* to send for Commissioner Tunbridge. Finally, however, he (Mr Pirani) decided to withdraw by courtesy, as he had had his way. . Mr FISHER (chairman of the committee) thought it a parody and a gross misuse of the forms of the House to ele_ vate this trumpery incident into a question of privilege. The member for Palmerston had remained in the room, not through any anxiety to study the questions before the committee, but simply from a feeling of " pure cussedness.” Mr Fisher reviewed the conduct of a person who insisted on remaining in the room when h© had been asked to withdraw, so that the committee should deliberate upon the evidence; and said that if ho (Mr Fisher) had remained in lik e nianner in a committee-room when he had been' asked to withdraw, he should have been expected to be described as “an impudent and impertinent person.” Mr Fisher went on to say that the presence of Mr Pirani in the committee-room was an unwarrantable intrusion, and an intrusion deliberately intended to be offensive. Mr JAMES ALLEN called attention to the words just uttered by Mr Fisher, and moved that these be taken down. The SPEAKER did not think the words were intended to be offensive. He would not order the words to be taken down. Mr FISHER, continuing, said that there was no business before the committee at the time in question which was of interest to any member outside the committee. The SPEAKER said that on referring to the authorities, he had come to the conclusion that a member was within his rights in staying in the committeeroom. (Sear, hear.) At the sam e time, it had always been considered customary for members to withdraw when a com mittee wished to deliberate. (Hear, hear.) It seemed, however, that in this case the member for Palmerston had not been asked courteously to withdraw, and that he had, been thus incited to re, main.

Mr FISHER pointed out that he had first politely intimated to Mr Pirani what the wish of th e committee was. All the “ after business ” about policemen and so on was mere joking round the table. (Laughter.) . The PREMIER said that Mr Pirani was writing in th e room when the committee met, and did not, h© believed, notice that the business was about to begin. He objected to a member remaining in a committee-room whilst the minutes of the meeting of committee were being read. The member in question would thus be given an advantage over other members of the Hous© who did not belong to the committee. If members insisted upon attending meetings of the Public Accounts Committee whilst delicate financial matters were under consideration, he would take no further part in the proceedings of the committee. Mr JAMES ALLEN, with a knowledge of what had taken place at the meeting, said that it was not until Mr Pirani’s right to remain was denied that he Refused to withdraw. It was when the minutes had been partly read that the Premier called attention to the pres ence of the member for Palmerston. Mr Allen spoke of what had occurred before the Banking Committee in 1895, when a member of the House had refused to withdraw from the room whilst the president of the bank was allowed to remain. On that occasion, said Mr Allen, the Premier had stated that he considered the member of the House was within his rights. The SPEAKER thought the matter had been sufficiently discussed. Although a member was within his rights in remaining, he hoped that the custom of Parliament would continue—namely, that when a member was reminded that the committe e wished him to withdraw, he would do so. (Hear, hear.) NEW BILLS.

The following Bills were read a first time:—Fire Brigades Bill (Mr Witheford), Rating of Unimproved Values Bill No. 2 (th© Premier), Cook Group and

Premier), Kairanga County Bill (Mr Pirani). Questions were answered, and the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.

SETTLERS FIRE INSURANCE BILL. Mr HOGG moved the second reading of the Settlers’ Fire Insurance Bill to provide for insurance against hre of buildings or any security held by the Government Advances to Settlers Office. He briefly explained the provisions of the Bill, and pointed out that the re* turns showed that under the present system of insurance, between £SOO and £6OO were made annually in clear profit out of the settlers. It would be most beneficial to the settlers if they could have the use of this money. Mr R. THOMPSON pointed out that the Bill contained certain appropriation clauses-

Messrs Herries and , McLachlan spoke in favour of the Bill.

The Hon C. H. MILLS said that the Bill contained appropriation clauses which could be introduced £>y Govern nor’s message only. . The Government could not allow the Bill to proceed in its present form, but he promised that th e Cabinet would consider the whole question. Mr HOGG accepted the Minister’s ultimatum. He was glad to hear that the Government would consider the question opened up by the Bill, and h® had achieved some useful object in bringing it forward. ■ Mr GUINNESS moved the adjournment of the debate, and this was agreed to. THE REPRESENTATION ACT. Mr ELL moved the second reading of the. Representation Act Amendment Bill, and said he believed in representation according to population. He explained the provision of the Bill, which provides that the 28 per cent, concession to the rural population in th e new; adjustment of boundaries shall not apply in the following electorates (named in the schedule of the Bill): Christchurch, -Dunedin, Wellington, Auckland, Caversham, Napier, Lyttela ton, Avon. Riccarton, Parnell, Timaru, Invercargill. Mr HERRIES supported the principle of the Bill, but suggested that it should be made more general by the removal of the schedule. Mr FISHER did not see' any reason for altering the decision of the Legislature some years ago' in regard to the 28 per cent concession. The Boundary Commissioners would shortly meet, and would settle any disparity that was sought to be met by this Bill. Mr G.. W. RUSSELL opposed the Bill, whilst he gave Mr Ell every crea -Hit for his sincerity. Th e PREMIER did not think the proposal to deprive suburban populations of the 28 per cent, concession could be sustained by any argument. He held that many of these suburban districts were as much country districts as any in the colony, and instanced Wellington suburbs elect irate, pointing out that many of the elect c-is in that district followed farming and other agricultural pursuits. He would not vote to take from the suburban populations th© concession they now enjoyed Mr J. W. Thomson opposed the Bill. The motion for the second reading was lest by 38 votes to 16. THE DIVORCE BILL. Mr WILFORD, in moving the second reading of the Divorce Act, 1898 Amendment Bill, explained that it al* lowed divorce for wilful desertion for three years. He pointed out that the Scotch law allowed this for wilful desertion for one year. He stated that the leading Judge in New Zealand was in favour of the change he now proposed in the law, and had authorised him to say so on the floor of the House. The Bill also permitted divorce if a husband had been sentenced to a term of penal servitude for five years, m» stead of seven years, as at present; and if the respondent had been for five years continuously confined in a lunatic asylum. The PREMIER held that marriage ought not to be loosely set aside, because any nation where that obtained must certainly be weakened. They ought not to follow in the footsteps of America, for the state of things which existed there was ndt desirable. He held that there was no general desire for this Bill. Even if there were a few isolated cases of wives who were deserted and were now suffering hardship, were they for the sake of giving relief in these few cases, to strike a blow at the whole social structure ? He spoke of the increase of cases since the divorce laws were extended, and said that in the other colonies, they were fast drifting into a condition of things like that of America. In New Zealand the number of divorce cases had considerably increased under the extended law. He held that there were no good grounds for the amendments now proposed. , Mr G. W. RUSSELL objected to some of the provisions of the Bill, but thought that some law should be passed for the relief of thos© who were married to lunatics.

Major STEWARD agreed with this view. Mr FLATMAN believed that the Bill would open the door too widely for divorce. Mr THOMAS MACKENZIE opposed

of legislation m New Zealand was in the direction of making divorce too easy. Mr ATKINSON was in accord with the remarks of the Premier in general as to the inadvisableness of tampering with the divorce law; but he considered that if the hardships involved upon those married to lunatics could be alleviated, this ought to be done.

Mr LAURENSON supported the second reading of the Bill, with the intention of amending it in committee. Mr WILFORD, in replying, said that the Premier had turned a complete somersault on this question. In 1887 Mr Seddon paired in favour of all the proposals new contained in this Bill. Mr Wilford, in reply to the Premier, enumerated various instances which he said showed the necessity for the measure. Mr SEDDON denied that he had supported any of th e proposals contained in this Bill.

The motion for the second reading was lost by 33 votes to 28.

SCHOOL ATTEND A.> BILL

Mr PIRANI moved the second reading of the School Attendance Bill No. 2, designed to promote regular attendance at public schools. He said the Bill contained some improvement on the measure he had introduced last I session. The Bill makes the school age begin at seven vears. The Hon. W T / HALL JONES pointed out that a Bill of a similar nature had been introduced by the Government in the Legislative Council. After debate, the second reading was agreed to on the voices. Tlie House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. THURSDAY, AUGUST 1. Tho Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m NEW BILL. The New Zealand Ensign Bill was introduced by the Premier, and read a first time. WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD. The Wellington Harbour Board Act, 1879, Amendment Bill was read a third time without debate, and passed. LOCAL BILLS. The Patea Harbour Bill passed its committee stage. The Dunedin City and Suburban Tramways Act, 1900, Amendment Bill was read a second time, Mr Thomas Mackenzie announcing that a compromise had been arrived at on the points in dispute. The Remuera Waterworks Construction Empowering Bill and the Templeton Domain Board Empowering Bill were read a second time. THE MIRAMAR BILL. Mr HUTCHESON moved the second reading of the Wellington City Recreation Ground Bill. The discussion on this question is fully reported elsewhere. Mr Hutcheson’s speech in reply was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment. Th e Houses resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr Hutcheson concluded his speech on the Miramar Bill, and the motion for the second reading was then put and carried by 37 votes to 10. ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE BILL. The adjourned debate on the Elective Executive Bill was the next order of the day. Aw amendment, “That the Bill should be read a second time that day six months/’ was proposed when the measure was last before the House* The motion that the Bill be now read a se* cond time was lost by 31 votes to* 22, and the amendment carried on the voices.

The following is the division list: Ayes (22) —Messrs Atkinson, Buddo, Collins, Ell, Graham, Guinness, Horns* by, J. Hutcheson, Lang, Laurenson, Lethbridge, T. Mackenzie, McNab, Meredith, Monk, Pirani, G. W. Russell, G. J. Smith, Major Steward, Messrs Tanner, R. Thompson, J. W. Thomson.

Noes (31) —Messrs E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barclay, Bennet, Bollard, Carn= cross, Carroll, Duncan, Fisher, Flat, man, A. L. D. Fraser, Hall-Jones, Ha* nan, Hardy, Hogg, Houston, Lawry, McGowan, R- McKenzie, Millar, JVlills, Morrison, Napier, Palmer, Parata,, Rhodes, W. R. Russell, Stevens, Symes, Wilford, Whllis. Pairs—Ayes: Messrs Massey, McGuire. Noes: Sir J. G. Ward and Mr E. M. Smith. (The Whips state that- this list ot pairs is not complete). MR FISHER’S LIBEL BILL.

Mr FISHER moved the second reading of the Libel Bill No-. 1, which he said was intended to protect the citizens of this country. The motion for the second reading was lost. by 26 votes to 21. The following is the division list: Ayes (21)— Messrs Barclay, Duncan, Ell, Fisher, Flatman, A. L. D. Fraser, Guinness, Hall, Houston, Laurenson, Lawry, McGowan, R. McKenzie, Mila lar, Mills, Morrison, Napier, O’Meara, Parata, Seddon, Wilford. Noes (26) —Messrs Arnold, Atkinson, Bollard, Buddo, Carncross, Collins, Hanan, Hardy, Haselden, Hogg, Hornsby, J. Hutcheson, Lang, Massey, T. Mackenzie, Meredith, Monk, Palmer, Rhodes, W. R- Russell, Stevens, Major Steward, Messrs Tanner, R. Thompson, J. W. Thomson.

DRILL IN SCHOOLS.

The “State School Children Drill 4 B’! was read a third time and passed.

EIGHT HOURS BILL

This Bill was committed. Mr WILFORD asked that the em.* ployees of certain sausage-casing manusfactnrers in his constituency and the Gear Meat Company’s employees at Petone should be excluded from the operations of the Bill-

In reply to Mr McGuire, Mr G. W. Russell said he did not wish to inn elude .dairy workers or farm labourers within the scope of this Bill. Mr PALMER objected to the Bill, and moved that progress should be re» ported. After considerable debate, this was carried by 33 votes to 19. CYCLE BOARDS BILL. This Bill was committed, under the charge of Mr Napier (in the absence of f Mr Fowlds). i Clause 1 having been passed, Mr Wilford moved that progress should be reported, as the hour was late, and this was a long Bill, 1 This caused considerable debate, but finally the> motion was carried on th® voices. RABBIT NUISANCE BILL. This Bill, under the charge of Mr Hogg, was committed, but progress was reported after the first clause had been, passed The House adjourned at 11.57 p.m. till 10.30 a.m* FRIDAY, AUGUST 2. The Speaker t-ook the chair at 10.30 a.m- - FACTORIES BILL. The Factories Bill was read a second time, pro forma, on the motion of the Premier, and then referred to the Labour Bills Committee. COUNTIES BILL. The Counties Bill was next dealt with. The PREMIER asked th e House to consent to the Bill passing its second reading without discussion, with a view to the Bill being subsequently dealt with in committee. After cursorily reviewing several features in connection with tho present state of things to which he objected, Mr Seddon went G n to say that he was not at all in favour of the existing manner of allotting subsidies. Ho would prefer himself to see subsidies given on roads and bridges erected by local bodies. That would he fair enough —but h e objected to subsidies being allotted on general rates. There were altogether too many small bodies in tho colony. The small boroughs would bo much better if there was the on e governing body, the one rate and the one common purse. He spoke of the difficulty of control over the waterway in rivers owing to the number of local bodies. What was everyone’s business was no one’s business, and the result was that large tracts of land were frequently destroyed through floods. Enlarged pow» ers would be given to county councils in this matter, and he believed that such powers would he welcomed by those who were interested in local gov, eminent. He asked the assistance of all members who had a knowledge of local government, in order tha-*- Bill might be made as nerfect as possible.

Captain RUSSELL agreed with the Premier that it was time to place the positions of local bodies on a better footing. He therefore "intended to move that the debate be adjourned. It was all very well to say that the Bill was only an amending one, but it bristled with important alterations. It was possible under the Bill for the electors of districts constituted under it to consist wholly of people who did not own a penny piece worth of property in the district. He ventured to say there were not a, dozen members in the House who had studied thoroughly the Bill. He would ask the Government to postpone the consideration of the Bill for a week or a fortnight. To do so would not in any way jeopardise the Bill. He moved that th© debate he adjourned. The SPEAKER pointed out that Captain Russell was not in order in moving the adjournment of the House as he had spoken to the main question. Mr ATKINSON then moved the adjournment of the debate, and Mr .Meredith seconded the motion.

The PREMIER objected to the adjournment, pointing out that the Bill had been introduced early ini the session, and had been before a conference of county delegates, and that members ought therefore to he familiar with the provisions of the measure.

After considerable discussion, Mr Atkinson withdrew his motion for the adjournment of the debate. The PREMIER then withdrew his motion for the second reading of the Bill, and moved the second reading pro forma. This agreed to, and the Bill was sent to the Local Government Commitee. The debate which usually takes place on the motion for the second reading will be taken when the Bill is reported from this committee. ___ ADVANCES TO SETTLERS. The Hon. C H. MILLS moved the second reading of the Government Advances to Settlers Act Amendment Bill, tn empower the Governor-m-Council to raise an. additional loan of £2,000,000 for the purposes of the Government Advances to Settlers Act, 1894. He said that up till July 22nd, advances had. been accepted

and it was necessary that Parliament should authorise the raising of a large' stun of money to enable th© Department i® con © to the assistance of the settlers. He praised the work of the Department. He explained the provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 repealed certain parts of the Act now in force, with a view to making simpler the methods of raising money. Mr JAMES ALLEN said the proposal of the Bill, to empower the Government to borrow a sum of two millions, was liable to be stretched in order to allow the Government to extend the raising of the money over a long period of years. The necessity for raising the loan had not been made plain to the House. Of the loan of £4,380,000 formerly authorised, there was yet to be raised a sum of £620,000 according to a calculation which he had made. According to the Minister in charge of the Bill, there remained a i sum of £760,000 to be raised. Which- j ever estimate might be right, the fact' remained that the Advances to Settlers Act was being used for raising money to be used in the purposes of general government. % If loans were required for ' works of urgent public importance, let [ the Government bring down proposals for straight out borrowing for those mir- j poses, and not shelter itself behind the Advances to Settlers Office. It was not the right time now to ask for a fresh loan unless it was urgently required. The London market was not favourable for a cheap issue. For the successful conduct of the Advances t 0 Settlers Act it was necessary that the money should he raised at 3 per cent. —unless that was done the whole scheme broke down.

Mr GUINNESS pointed out that money raised under the Bill was covered amply by the security of the land upon which it was to be advanced. He would like the Government to propose in committee an amendment to the Act of 1899 so as to allow lessees who held ample security to obtain a loan by applying to the office. Mr BARCLAY thought the time had arrived when the Act should be so extended that it would include city and su burban properties within its scope. The debate was interrupted bv the one o’clock adjournment. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m. Mr HERRIES resumed the debate on the second reading of the Government Advances tQ Settlers Extension Bill, and -urged that no good reason had been shown why this fresh sum should be granted. Of the original loan it was admitted by the Government that £740.000 still remained, and he considered that th© amount would bo ample when repayments on loans were taken into consideration. He was in accord with the general principle of advances to settlers, and admitted that the system had been advantageous, but he saw no necessity for this additional vote.

Mr Monk said he oijposod the system ©f advances to settlers on principle, because it was an undue interference with pivate enterprise.

The PREMIER said this Bill had nothing to do with the administration of the Advances to Settlers Office, but wa s simply a borrowing Bill. Th© amount remaining of the loan on the 31st March last was £760,000, but the amount available was only £560,000, and as six months had elapsed since that time, this would account for £250,000 more. Therefore, by th© next 31st of March the money now available wotrid be exhausted. This explained the necessity f®r tk® Bill. He urged that the Govern* ment ought to be given discretionary power t 0 approach the market at the most favourable time, instead of a limited time being fixed, as was the case under the present Act. In answer to one of the members of the Opposition, he denied that the money borrow* ed under this Act was to be used as a means of improving the Government finance in respect of public works. Tbe Advances to Settlers Department was well conducted, land its investments wer© perfectly safe. The Bill, he said, gave th© Government power to raise a million a year for two years. Mr G. W. RUSSELL wanted to know what should he done with the money whilst it was awaiting investment? The PREMIER: If it is not raised, how can it be awaiting investment?:

Mr G. W. RUSSELL said that when members came back next year they might find that the whole of the two millions had been raised. There would be power to raise one million before the end of the present financial year, and the other million before the House met next year. Whilst there were available cash balances to be operated ©n during the present financial year, he did not see thb reason for this Bill.

Mr LATJRENSON urged that power should be given to advance larger sums than at present to those who were settled in village settlements. He spoke of the very able manner in which the Advances to Settlers’ Department was conducted.

Mr ELL protested against the heap* ing np of the interest charges on the shoulders of the taxpayers. He dealt at some length with th© . currency question, and advocated the establishment of a State bank, arguing that the State should have the power to manufacture credit in the same way as th© banks did at the present time. He agreed that the Government should be given the power sought in this Bill, as there were many complaints that the Government •was too careful in tnis matter, and he had never heard of a case in which the

fic© the Government had done more to help the country than by anything else in past times. At the meeting of the Wellington Land Board on the previous day, there were no fewer than sixty applications to mortgage, and of those sixty, about fifty were applications to mortgage to the Advances to Settles Oiffice. This meant more than double the business, and he was proud to see it. This office had kept down the rate of interest, and had built up the country to a high position. He asked the Government to consider whether the funds at the disposal of the Public Trus* tee and the Government Life Insurance Department could not he distri* buted cvr advanced through the medium of one office. Mr MASSEY was as anxious as the Premier or anybody else that the benefits of cheap money should be extend* ed to the settlers, who had to compete in the markets of the world; hut this Bill had not been shown to be necessary and he would vote against it. Mr J. W. THOMSON said he would vote against th© Bill for a like reason. Captain RUSSELL contended that this money was not wanted by the Advances to Settlers’ Department this year. He quoted clause 32 of the Act of 1894 to show that the Government had ample power to borrow the money at any rate of interest it thought fit, and he could not help believing that the money was Pet wanted for the de* nartment, hut for some ulterior . object Such a power to borrow two millions at any rate of interest ought not to be given t© the Government even if the money were actually wanted by the department. The English market showed no signs of improvement, and the money would probably be rai c ed on shortadated debentures from local financial institutions at any rate of niterest the Colonial Treasurer liked to.give. Thus he considered the dangerous part of this Bill. His view was that the department had sufficient money available to obviate the necessity of Government borrowing on its behalf uutil next year. Mr MEREDITH agreed with the ads vances to settlers system, and believed the department had been admirably managed, hut he thought the amount should b© i educed to one million. Mr FLATMAN supported the Bili, and considered that if the Government were entrusted with three millions when the Act was established, it could be entrusted with tw r o millions. Mr WITHEFORD considered that the Government should go in for nuartzmining, and establish a New Zealand mint.

Air G. J. SMITH supported the BU, and thought the department had nothing to he ashamed of in its administration. It would be for the Minister to show when the Bill was in committee that the second million was necessary; other* wis© he (Air Smith) would vote for the reduction of the amount to one million. Air T. PARATA said that the Alaoris ought to b e allowed to participate in the benefits of this Act.

Mr CARNCROSS held that this sys. tern had done for the settlers than any other Government measure ; and be would not have tbo slightest hesitation in supporting the Government in tbe proposal to obtain another two million for this purnose.

The debate was further interrupted by th© 5.30 p.m. adjournment. "The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Mr HASELDEN continued this debate, and objected to the difficulties ex* perienced by some settlers in getting loans from tbe Board. He suggested that a reason for a certain failure to obtain such a lean was that the applicant was not of “the right colour.” (No, no!) Well, perhaps there was another interpretation; there were two sides to every question. He did not think tbe Act "was working satisfactorily. He would oppose a two million loan, but he would vot© for a loan for half the amount.

Mr LANG thought that t© expend two million pounds in opening up roads to the back blocks would do much more good to the country. Mr PIRANI said he had always sup* ported the principle of advances to settlers, but he did not think the Govern* ment really meant now to raise the loan if authorised. If it did so, it would with other necessities for borrowing, have to raise a total of six millions in ©ne year. Th© charges made by soli* eitors under the Advances to Settlors Act had 'been objected to during the debate. He would say that it was highly improper anyone who was a member of Parliament should be employed as a solicitor under the Act. In committee he would move to have the disabilities of Parliamentary members made to ex* tend to such cases.

The Hon. C. H. MILLS, in replying said the contention that the business of the department was decreasing was er* roneous. Of sixty-nine mortgages pass* ed through th© office of the Wellington Land Board recently over sixty were issued in favour of the Advances to Seta tiers Act. The business was increasing. Was a Board to be tied down to a paltry £60,000 when such a large business as that of the Advances to Settlers Department was concerned ? As to the complaint which had been made con* cerning the charges for solicitors’ services under the Act, he ventured to say that if those fees were not charged would be deluged with

the money asked for in order to apply it to purposes other than advances to settlers was without foundation. The past history of the department would bear that out. He was glad to find that the House generally was in favour of the principle of the Bill; members were only in disagreement as to methods. The Bill was then read a second time on the voices, and set down for com* mittal on next sitting day.

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES The PREMIER moved the second reading of th® Rating of Unimproved Values Bill, and began by informing the Chamber that the Bill was simplicity itself. It was intended to repeal see* tion 6 of the Rating on Unimproved Values Act of 1896. Public opinion, he said, had proved there was now no necessity for taking polls as to whether the principle of the Bill should he em* ployed. Of all the many polls which had been taken under the Bill only half a dozen had resulted against the adoption of the principle. He could not see how anyone could argue that the principle should not’ be applied to local bodies if it was conceded to be good for general taxation. He instanced Moles worth street, Wellington, as a place w 7 hicli was a speaking testimony to the benefits to be derived by an application of the system. There were many hovels —hof&ls comparatively speaking—in that street, and yet the owners of these derived as much benefit from the conveniences of the street as did the property-owners who, by the erection of good buildings, were now liable to very much larger yearly taxes. So«, too, owners of vacant sections were benefited. He would have no objection to the inclusion in the Bill of a proviso that any district which, after trial, wished to go back to the old style of rating might do so. He also thought that when a local body carried a resolution favouring the adoption of rating on unimproved values it should eras power that body to apply the principle to rates other than th© general one. Here, however, h© knew he was treading on dangerous ground; and in de-» ference to the opinions of those, who differed from him he would not press that matter. The Hon. Captain RUSSELL was thoroughly convinced that the principle was a veritable wilUo’ the wisp. It was difficult to ascertain what it really meant. (A voice : The valuer will as* certain that for you.) The Premier had wailed about the existence in Wellington of a number of hovels and of vacant allotments. The speaker thought there should be encouragement offered to peo* pie to maintain breathing spaces in th© .city. The principle of taxation proposed in the Bill would press very heavily upon the new selector, who would be equally taxed with the settled man of years standing. The Premier, Captain Russell said, was erroneously of opinion that the Bili was going to ameliorate the condition of the struggling selector. The values which had been put upon lands in some districts with which h© was associated were atso= lutely incongruous. It might be asked what had that to do with the principle of taxation' proposed by the Bill before them. He would tell them that if it was so impossible now to arrive at satisfactory estimates it would be ten times more so under the conditions "which the Bill would produce. The valuers in some cases, he was afraid, trusted to intuition. He would ask what would be the unimproved vain© of land which had cost more to bring to a condition favourable for agriculture than it would in its improved state bring in open mars ketp. As to the Premier’s instances cf the inferior tenements in Molesworth street paying small taxes, he did not agree with the Premier’s deductions. Was it to be said that a shop which had on the road twenty or thirty carts should be taxed the same as the property of a poor artisan ? The theory of that might be perfect, but the practice of it would be perfectly monstrous. The Premier proposed in tb e Bill to make the law turn a somersault—that was, if the speaker understood the Prea mier aright. He spoke of the proposal to allow a district to reverse the principle if after trial it was deemed objec* tionable. (The Premier: I only told the member for Franklin that I had no objection to the provision being introduced). The Bill, Captain Russell con* eluded 1 , was altogether objectionable, and he would oppose it to the best of liis ability.

Mr STEVENS spoke at length in support of the measure. A big company such as that quoted by Captain Russell would pay far more to> the revenue of the land (under the principles of the Bill) than the artisan. That was an evident fact to anyone who reflected on the big expenditure in prosecuting its business which the company must mak».

Mr G. W. RUSSELL said be was on e of those who had always regarded the system of rating on unimproved values j as tending to the exemption "of the j wealthy and the crushing of the poor. All land was not of equal value. The ! man who had only a single story building had not the same use from his land as the man who had a four or five story j edifice. H© would ask, wher© was to- ! be got the money for canning on goa ! vernment? His opinion was that the j Government was in this direction swinging in the direction of the j

for on the second reading he would r©» cord his rote against the Bill, Mr HAN AN intended to support the Bill. In Invercargill the principle had been adopted, and found to work out favourably to the small holder. The Town Clerk of Brisbane had, after eight years’ experience of the system, ex* pressed himself highly favourable to it. Mr PIRANI thought the speech of th© member for Riccarton must have come as a surprise to th© members of the House. (Hear, heafr). The argument that he used—that those who had leases in perpetuity escaped taxation under the system—was fallacious. They would just the same as others. The members who were opposed to the system were trotting out the old stock Tory arguments w. ich were brought out 'n 1891, when the late Mr Ballance chang* ei the taxation incidence. He (Mr Pirani) thought, though, that local bodies should be allowed to have their valuations made by local valuers. As to large buildings, it should be remembered that vast buildings were only erected on valuable land —and strange as the anomaly might seem the erection of such buildings added to the unimproved value of the laud on which they stood by attracting population. Mr ELL said he had ascertained the loss on certain big properties in tha suburbs of Sydenham, which had been quoted by Mr G. W. Russell. He had also gr-t Uie incre ise on a number of other big properties in the same suburb, and as a result found there had been a net gain cf £220. Mr JAMES ALLEN objected that no instances of the actual operation cf the Act had been adduced. He objected to the compulsory nature of the Bill. The debate was interrupted at 10.u0 p.m., and the House rose.