EVENING SITTING.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4406, 12 July 1901, Page 7

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Drill in Schools. Mr WITHEFORD supported the Bill, but suggested that some provision should be made by which the youths of the colony should be given an opportunity for naval training. Mr HALL thought the schools had enough to do without undertaking compulsory drill. Mr McLACHLAN supported the Bill. Mr PIRANI thought the penalty clause to compel Education Boards to. carry out the provisions of the Bill should bo again included, as it was when the Bill was first brought in last y ear by Mr Guinness. The Hon J. McGOWAN said that physical drill was necessary, and no one could object to it. As to the question of military drill, -they p,ught to respect the views ■of those who conscientiously objected to such a thing. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, Mr GUINNESS having replied, the motion for second reading was put and carried by 35 votes to 18. Eight Hours Bill.

Mr G. W. RUSSELL moved the s£<c ond reading of the Eight Hours' Bill, and said that he had no desire to forestall any legislation which the Government proposed to inaugurate, the Premier having promised a deputation from the Canterbury Trades Council that he intended to bring down an Eight Hours Bill this session. He would, therefore, be willing to have his Bill referred to the Labour Bills Committee to make way for the Government measure. He explained the provisions of his Bill. Mr McGUIRE strongly objected to the inclusion of the dairy industry. The PREMIER said that the Government supported the measure. It would be inconsistent with all that the Gov eminent had said and done if it did not do so. There-were certain industries to which the-Bill could not be applied, but that was not a valid reason why it should not be applied to other industries. The second reading would be carried ; and in ‘ committee the industries to which it could, be applied could be specifically stated. He promised that if Mr Russell failed with the Bill the Government would take it up. He would- be the last to assist any legislation which would injure such an important industry as that of dairying, and in that respect th© Bill could be amended. He pointed out that there was no antagonism between town and country, for th e interests of the two were inseparable. He would see that there was nothing left in the Bill which would injure the country districts, and’ ho hoped the country members would help the town members, so that the Bill might be satisfactory to both parties. Mr HOUSTON: Make the Bill apply to ‘the towns alone. ■

The PREMIER thought this a not unreasonable suggestion. A schedule might be included in the Bill stating the districts t° which it should refer. Mr Seddon. declared that the industries of th© colony were in a good position, and that th© feeling between employers and employed was* never better than at present.

, Mr GUINNESS suggested that an amendment was necessary so that the day’s work of the underground miner should be calculated from bank to bank.

Mr WITHEFORD held that th© Bill could not apply to country settlers, who were often compelled to work sixteen hours a> day. Mr JOHN HUTCHESON s aid that the Premier’s speech was well timed and conciliatory. He agreed that; the restriction of th© country worker to an eight hours’ day was practically impossible ; but such a Bill was necessary to deal with child labour. If the Bill were limited to the wage-earners in the towns, there would be no difficulty in getting it through. It ought to apply to the Government service. Mr WILFORD would vote for the second reading of the Bill. He pointed out that the clause permitting a worker to tend horses outside his legal day was neither conclusive nor comprehensive. .Mr SYME opposed the Bill, as it would kill one of the greatest industries in the colony. In addition to dairying, there were such industries as the shearing of sheep, and bushfelling, and other occupations of the country settlers which could not' possibly be brought within the provisions of the Bill.

Mr OARNCBOSS opposed the Bill, and said ho was not anxious to see any mor© Labour measures put upon the statute book until a better feeling existed between employers and employed.' Mr MILLAR stated that if the Bill -became law, it would take away the power of the Arbitration OourtMr O’MEARA objected" to the Bill on the ground of its interference with the daily industry. Mr WILLIS did not oppose the principle of the Bill, hut hoped that the measure would be mad© workable in committee.

Mr NAPIER suggested that in order to overcome the objections of the country members, those engaged in pastoral pursuits should be exempted. There Were many in the cities, however, to whom the Act would be a boon. Mr FLATMAN opposed the Bill in its present form, and said it should be recast and brought down by the Government. Mr HORNSBY did not think the Bill ought to apply to the dairy industry; but he recognised that ther© were thousands of people who would be benefited by it, and he would vote for it, with the hope that it would be amended in committee.

Mr MEREDITH said that the Bill would cripple certain industriesMr COIAJNS would vote for the second reading of the Bill, but hoped that it would be amended in committee. Mr COLVIN supported Mr Guinness in his contention that the day’s work of the underground miner should be calculated from bank to bank. Messrs Houston and B. Thompson spoke against the Bill. Mr STEVENS said that Labour legis-

lation had always had his support, but he warned the House that the interests of the small farmers ought not to be interfered with. The Bill should be recast, since the principle of eight hours could not be applied to agricultural pursuits. Mr MASSEY' did not 'object to the eight' hours principle wherever it was practicable, but it could nob be applied to agricultural industries. Major STEWARD suggested that the Bill should apply only to the residents in the cities. Mr E. G. ALLEN held that the Bill ought not to apply to agricultural pursuits. Mr GRAHAM advised Mr Russell to withdraw the Bill, especially as the Government was about to take ap the que&Mr ELL supported the Bill, and said that tramway employees and others were still in need of the eight-hours day. Mr THOMAS MACKENZIE objected to any proposal to have this Bill, which affected agricultural interests, dealt with by the Labour Bills Committee, as now constituted. On the motion of Mr Hall, the debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 12.5 a.m.