PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4477, 3 October 1901, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2. The Speaker took the chair at 2.>30 p.m. Petitions. The Hen. J. E. JENKINSON moved that the Petitions Committee’s recommendation uoon petitions from. David Anderson and Son and others, and G. Payling and others, concerning coupons in packets of tea, viz., ‘‘That the petitions bo referred to the favourable consideration of the Government,” should be agreed to by the Council. The Hon. W. C. WALKER said ho wa 3 sorry to find that the Act did not prevent what it was manifestly intended to prevent. lie would' refer the matter to the Government immediately. The motion was carried on the voices. Smoking by Youths. The Hon. Colonel PITT moved the third reading of the uinoking by Souths Prohibition Bill. . . This was carried on the voices, and the Bill passed. Law Amendment Bill. The Hon. W- M- Bolt moved the third reading of the Law Amendment Bill. This was carried, and the Bill lead and passed. The Shops and Shop Assistants Act Amendment Bill. Tbe / Hon. Colonel Pitt moved the committal 0 1 the Shops and Shop Assistants Act Amendment Bill. . The Hon. S. E. SHRIMSKI objected to a Bill providing for closing chemists shops on any atteruoon. For tho sake of a few employees thousands of people wore to bo made to gutter, as they would not be ablo to gob medicine when reouired. He moved as an amendment, that tno committal of the Bill should be deferred for throe months. 1 here was another measure to bo brought before tho House having a bearing on the ques. 41 Tho Hon- G. McLEAN supported tho amendment. ... . Tho Hon. G. JONES said chemists’ shops should be kept open by rotation after ordinary hours. Tho Hon. Colonel PITT said it was merely a measure bringing chemists within the Act. If all tho chemists chose to close on certain days, the law 1 could not compel them to keep open. . The Hon. W. C. WALKER said he was surprised that chemists and medical practitioners did not combine and'sot apart a day for a holiday for themselves. He favoured keeping open in rotation, but did not like closing all chemists’ shops within certain hours. • Upon a division tho amendment was lost by 24 votes to 11. Tho voting wag: Against—Pitt, Arkwright, W. 0. Smith, W. Kelly, bwan. gon, Jones, Jenkinson, A. L. Smith, Rigg. T. Kelly, Twomcy, Tomoana, Reeves, Feldwick, Pinkerton, «our. ley, Louisson, Jennings, Bowen, Johnston, Barnicoat, Bolt, ' iuont« gomery and W. C. Walker. ' ForL. Walker, Scotland, Baillie, Harris, Shrimski, Taiaroa, Kenny, Ormond, McLean, Williams and MorrisTho Bill was then committed. !

Clause 2, providing for a weekly nalf« holiday for chemists, was discussed. ' Thc iTon. Colonel PITT explained that the danse repealed section 7 of the Act of 1396 and provided that all shopholders in a citv or town district, except fishmongers. fruiterers, confectioners, coffeehouse-keepers, or railway Ocokstall. keepers should be/closed on one half day in each. week. ' ■ The clause was carried on the voices. Clause 3 provides for the opening of chemists’ shops for the supply of medicines and surgical appliances only be. tween 7 and 9 in the evening on the half-holiday, and for the supply of medicine or instruments in cases of urgency during the half-holiday. Tho Hon. G. McLEAN urged that chemists’ shops should he allowed to open in rotation. Ho thought the Council should report progress and have the clause altered. After some further discussion t he clause was carried, .with a verbal amendment, and the Bill reported. The Hon. Colonel Pitt then moved the third reading. The Hon. G. McLEAN objected, and moved an amendment that the third rending should ho deferred. Tho Hon. CqIonoTPITT consented to alter his motion, and take the third reading on Wednesday next. Countias Act Amendment Bill. The Counties Act Amendment Bill, »s passed by itho House of Representatives on September 18, was committed, on tho motion of, the Hon. C. C. Bowen. Tho measure was reported without amendment, read a. third timoj, and passed. ■ ! Statutes Compilation Bill. On the motion of tho Hon. D. Pinkerton* the Statutes Compilation Bill was committed, aa passed by the House of Representatives bn September 18th. The ,Hon. Colonol PITT thought the Bill was unnecessary.' ’ ■ . Tho Hon W. O. WALKER said to com, pile the statutes was a step in the right direction. Tnero was a similar institu, tion in other colonies, and compilations were prepared automatically. Tho Hon. G. McLEAN said ho favoured compilation and' consolidation, hut ho did not’think this Bill was tho right way. The Hon. C. 0. BOWEN s aid a Bill of this sort would delay the consolidation of the statutes. Nobody could accept this as consolidation, which could only ' he carried out by . a body of legal men. The Bill would produce combinations which would retard consolidation. The Hon. 1). PINKERTON said they had been promised a Consolidation Bill, hut none had come along. It might be that the committee of legal men would never be get up, and the country would be as far from consolidation twenty years henoo aa now. The Hon. 0. C. BOWEN said that in order to ascertain tho opinion of Ihe Chamber he would move that the Cnairmau of Committee (Hon. Captain Baillie) should leave the chair. Tho Hon. PiNKERTON said the mea Sure was one that would simplify the law, and make it not only plain to; tho legal mind, but also to the layman. The question before tho Council really meant whether or not tho Bill should ho killed, and ho strongly urged , that the Bill should be carefully discussed. The Hon. A. L. SMITH pointed »ut that the Bill had the approval of I ho House . of Representatives and of i ho Statutes Revision Committee, and therefore it was surely worthy of contfideratioii. The Hon. H. SCOTLAND supported the amendment. Ho said the discussion should have taken place on the second reading. _ t . After further discussion, the am indment was carried by 15 votes to 13. -he Bill was therefore killed. * Rabbit Nuisance. The Hon. H. .Foldwick moved J e second reading of the Rabbit Nuisance Act Amendment Bill. ;• The Hon. W. O. WALKER said the Bill provided for very serious alterations in the law, and it would he better to carry the second reading pro forma,

in order that tho measure might go be. fore tho Joint Stock Committee. Tho motion was carried on tho voices. The Council rose at 4.50 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2. Tho House mot at 2.130 p.m., Mr Guinness in tho chair. New Bills. Tho Slapping and Seamen’s Bill, to consolidate tho law relating to shipping and .seamen, was received by message from his Excellency tho Governor, and read a first time. Tho Crown Grants Act, 1883, Amendment Bill (Mr Lavvryi and the Egmont County Bill x Mr McGuire) were read a first time. Questions were answered, and the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Fin&t Readings. The Smoking by Youths Prohibition Bill and tho Law Amendment Bill, passed by tho Legislative Council, were read a first time. Money-lender's Bill. On the question that tho amendments made in committee on this Bill snouid be agreed to. Mr ATKINSON said the Bill wa s a harmless measure when hist introduced ; but it had now been made, he wag afraid, positively mischievous. Ag orig. inaily submitted, it wag practically a transcript of the Imperial Act. The Bill was a curiosity in draughtsmanship. The money-lender, in the interpretation clauses, wa 3 a very different person from tho one described in some of the new sub-clauses. Mr KERRIES said it wag net desired to harass the person who simply put out money at interest, but clauseg in this Bill did that. Everyone who lent money was subjected to annoyance. He urged a re-committal of the Bill. ■ The Hon. W. HALL-JONES. in. reply, said tlio Bill was a good mea,sure. Ho defended tho amendments, which ho considered were necessary. The Bill provided that where interest charged wa s too heavy, the money-lender could bo brought before the Court. Borrowers would not take cases to Court where rates of interest were reasonable. The motion wag carried, and the Bill read a third time and passed. Royal Visit Expenses Bill.

The PREMIER, in moving the second reading of the Royal Visit -Expenses Bill, granting £2260 to his Excellency tne Governor for the Royal visit expenses, said tho Governor had been simply uie host for the people, and the money was due for accounts rendered to his Excellency, and necessary for the proper entertainment of the Royal guests. Under the circumstances tixe House would voicethe wish of the country if it simply passed the Bill inentirety, and did not leave it open for outside countr.es to remark on the way the colony had treated its bill of expenses. After the colony bad invited and entertained its guests, there should be no acrimonious discussion on the matter. Probably some of the members might think some of the items were a little high, but they would not question the fairness of his Excellency tho Governor. Furniture had to be provided for both the Government House at Auckland, and the one at Wellington. There was an expenditure of over £IOO to Kirkcaldie and Stains. Tho extra furnishing had to be provided, there wag no gainsaying that. The House could not, with selfrespect, question the payment of the accounts. He believed the colony would* desire the House should pass the Bill through all itg stages and signify its opinion that his Excellency haci not expended any more than was necessary. Mr HORNSBY sain he could not undo! stand the action of the Premier in this matter. They had heard about blankets and glassware for the Government . Houses, hut the whole of that mondy had been on the Estimates last year. There had been £7OO for the furnishing of Government House in Wellington. and there had also been money spent on Government House in Auckland. At the Wellington House in 1899 and 1900, for refurnishing and improvements, a sum of £1149 had been paid, and in 1901 there was £1199 for refurnishing, and there had been a grand total for both houses of £3889. He asked what the amount proposed was for. It was not for blankets, not. sheets and not glassware, but he wag afraid it was for the specially-got-up reception for a favourite few at Government House in Wellington and Auckland. In Parliament Buildings there had been a splendid reception held, at which all classes were represented, but, he would ask, what about the splendid receptions held at Auckland and Wellington by the Governor for special coteiies. The ordinary people had stood outside, and had had their faces splashed by the mud from the vehicles carrying the select to the Government House, and now they were asked to pay for that. This sort of thing had cost the colony something like £11,900 in one short year, and the colony would not stand it. How often, he asked, when a man had died in the Government service as tho result of accident, and left a widow and children, did any Minister of the Crown ask for a vote of £2OOO for the widow? 'Yet the Premier of the colony wag now asking the House to vote a sum for private or semi-private entertainments; He could speak plainly, ag he had never " stretched his legs beneath his Excellency’s mahogany.'’ He had been invited, hut hkd refused of sot purpose, as he know these questions were coming down in the House. ' There had been regular functions at Government House —Parliamentary Saturday night dinners they might bo called —at-one time, to which members were invited. There had been .no Saturday night dinners this year. (Laughter.) He would, vote against tho passing of the Bill on the Stern principle that the House should not be asked to pass such a Bill. vThe Governor had a largo salary, and he should have been able to find the money. Tho House had been told, ag an inducement to vote for an increase in the Governor’s salary, that occasions would probably arise when the Governor wonld have to spend much in entertaining. When it came to the vote _ members should not consider their private feelings in the matter, but vote according to the desire of the taxpayer. Mr WITHEFORD submitted that much of the money spent had gone back into the pockets of the taxpayers. The improvements at the Auckland Government House wore of a permanent charactor.

Mr BARCLAY said much' of the amount might ho credited Ijo tho wine bill. Tho Governor should have expected that ho would have to face a large private expenditure. Mr PIRANI said ho strongly objected to the principle adopted by tho Government of giving tho present Governor a sop of money every now and then. It had been commenced by, giving him a refund for certain Customs duties, and that was illegal. He would like to know what the Homo authorities would say regarding these matters.- In violation of the Act and agreement, money had boon spent in furnishing private apartments. Last year there had been something for which there was no precedent* Never before had there been

such an unblushing attempt at dealing with a Governor. While there were three branches of the Legislature, the Governor, Legislative Council and House of Representatives, it was ’mproper to give what could only bo called a bribe. The Ministry had no right to bring down a vote during the office of the Governor which was a directr payment to that Governor. The Government should riot bring the representative of the Crown on to tho floor of rhe House as had been done.

Mr FISHER said the Bill was one which challenged an expression of opinion. Ho objected to the title of the Bill. It should not bo the Royal Visit Expenses Bill, but the Grant to the Governor Bill. The position had not been changed, and tho Bill would have to bo reserved for the Royal consent. The money had been spent on a select few. It had been said by the member for Wairarapa that the very wheels of the carriages conveying the select few to tho receptions had splashed mud cn the faces of those who were now to pay. This meant that those who were splashed wi„h mud were now called upon to produce tho “ dust.” (Laughter.) ,He would vote against the Bill. Sir J. G. WARD said some members had given the impression that there vyas a prejudice against the representative of tho Crown in this colony. (Cries of “No, no.”) had been the ca.uge of tho expense, because it had invited the Royal guests to the colony. Tho Governor had not invited them. If tho whole £70,000 were taken into consideration it would bo found that uiat much had been gained by the country in the added revenue through railways and Customs as the result of tho Royal visit. In regard to tho invitations' to Government House, it ought-to bo remembered that Government House would hold only a restricted number of people. Mr HORNSBY: Tho creme do la creme was there-

Sir J. G. WARD retorted that if they looked at tho history of tho present representative of the King in this country they would, see that ho had not made these distinctions, but had treated all classes of the community alike. Tho Minister went on to say that £BOOO had been voted to Lord Hopetoun for tho reception of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall in‘Australia.

Mr PIRANI; That was in all the States.

Sir J. G. WARD pointed out that the Government of Queensland and other Governments had borne the cost of the Royal reception in their coloniqg. The country was not prepared to call upon the Governor to pay the expenses. He regretted that there had been a tendency to reflect upon the representative of the King. (Cries of “ No, no.”) Well, there had been such an impression. Mr G. W. RUSSELL intended voting for the Bill as a question of public character. They had been assured that the money had been expended, and they could not jn dignity turn round and re ■ fuse to pay. What his Excellency had done had been with the tacit consent of his responsible advisers, the Ministers, so that the country could not turn round and tell the Governor to pay the bill himself. The matter should never have been brought befoi’e the House. Instead of expensive Commissioners like Mr John Holmes and Mr Donne, one of the Ministers should have arranged everything, and all 'accounts should have been made out to him.

Mr HONE HEKE pointed out that their Royal Highnesses having been invited to visit New Zealand, it devolved upon someone to perform the duties of host. Some latitude, he held, should be allowed to the host of their distinguished visitors. Discussions of this character must detract from the success of the Royal reception. Mr HOGG regretted the debate which had occurred on this question. The vote was a large one. but we had invited Royalty, and had to spend' l (money. What, he asked, was to be gained by crying over spilt milk? He had been sorry to hear some of the sentiments expressed that evening. It did not tend to elevate the Governor or the Parliament that they should rake up the ashes of the past in regard to his Excellency’s wines. As for his Excellency the Governor, they had not found a man in his position who had‘been more willing to mingle with all classes of the community. The people of the colony would not begrudge the refunding of the money which had been spent by his Excellency in the Royal reception. Having gained a name for hospitality, they were by this discussion endeavouring to besmirch that reputation. > Mir MONK believed that members ought to bo just, and remember their lesponsibility to the taxpayers. ‘ One disfiguring feature in the reception of the Royal visitors was that the invitations had been used for party purposes. He contended that .. his Excellency’s name should not have been brought forward on the floor of the House in tho manner in which it had been brought there. There was no business method in the accounts of this expenditure, and tho dignity of Parliament had been ignored. He would vote against this Bill on principle.

Mr MEREDITH had no fault to find with his Excellency the Governor, but thought his position in the colony was largely a sinecure, hue colony had treated tho Governor handsomely since he had been here, and this year he would cost the colony £11,900. The PREMIER said that his Excellency would not get the £2250,

Mr MEREDITH said that the extra vote granted last year had been given on the understanding that it wag to meet the expenses of the Royal visit, and 'he would vote against this Bill. Mr A. L. D. FRASER denied that last year’s vote was intended to meet the Royal visit expenses. The increase of salary was to go, not to this Governor, hut to future Governors also. It was regrettable that the matter should have been debated as it'had been debated that evening, it was not highly creditable bo the House to criticise this vote in such a manner. Mr COLLINS said a, mistake had been made in the manner in which this subject had come before 7 the House. The whole amount involved in the Royal reception should have been stated at once; and ha believed that in that case Parliament would not have hesitated to foot the bill. Ho could not agree with those who opposed' this Bill. He might object to the expenditure of public money by the Governor on his own initiative; but the colony bad invited the Royal visitors, and he objected as a democrat to the Governor’s bearing the burden of expense which properly belonged to-the colony. Mr McNAB supported the Bill, pointing out that the Governor should bo reimbursed for moneys which ho had spent. Mr ATKINSON said it had been suggested by the member for Masterton that big 'Excellency had been unsparing —unsparing in his expenditure. (Laughter.) There wag no doubt that his Excellency had token great pains in this matter—far more, he believed, than it was necessary he should have taken. Ho held that the increases of salary to the Governor wore a violation of the spirit' Of the Governor’s instructions. The maxim “Noblesse oblige” should apply to his Excellency no less than to any other person. It was the normal duty of the Governor to extend hospitality to the Royal visitors ; but the House had already given him an increase of

salary with that object, and the course they, were now asked to take was constitutionally improper. If legislation of this kind were to go on, a prejudice would bo raised against the office of Governor. He opposed the Bill. The PKi-.-j.rAt, in replying, said that Mr Atkinson, with' Mr Pirani and others, had suggested’that this matter should be brought forward in a Bill instead of by a vote in the Estimates, in order to prevent an acrimoniou s discussion. (Mr Pirani: “ What nonsense.’’) Speaking of tho debate on this Bill, Mr Sodden said that there were some members in that House - and he regretted to s „y it—whoso views were inimical to or ganised society. (Laughter. Horn the Opposition.) - Mr MONK moved that tffese words should be taken down. The DEPUTY-SPEAKER said he could not see that tho words were unparliamentary. Mr PIRANI; By Jove, that’s rough! The PREMIER, continuing, pointed out that the increase of salary granted last year was to be permanent, and, therefore, bad not been granted in anticipation of the Royal visit. He' had seen in the newspapers articles regard ing “ the decadence 6f Parliament,” and if proof were wanted of that decadence, it could have been witnessed that night, in the debate on this Bill. The voice of the people was not in accordance with certain speeches they had heard that evening- The taxpayers degirod that the digriity of the House should be consulted. If the expense to which the Governor had been put was not to be reimbursed, where, he ashed, was the commercial honour of this colony ?> He condemned statements made by Mr Atkinson as a reflection upon the Governor. In reference to the views expressed by Mr Hornsby, the Premier said that the democracy of this country were loyal, and would lie willing to pay this bill if their opinions could be heard there, instead of being heard through—should he say a polluted source? Mr HORNSBY moved that these words should be taken down. The DEPUTY-SPEAKER said that these words were highly unparliamentary. Mr SEDDON said that he withdrew the words with pleasure, and would say that the statements of tho member for Wairarapa did not represent the views of the people of Wairarapa. Mr HORNSBY: You come up, and say so.

Mr SEDDON: I will take an early opportunity of testing that in the Wairarapa. (Laughter from Mr Hornsby.) The Premier went on to say that ho hoped that there would be no division on this Bill, but that the House would carry it with credit. The motion for the second reading was carried by 38 votes to 22. The following ig the division list: Ayes, 38—E. G. Allen, Bonnet, Buddo, Carroll, Collins, Colvin, Duncan, Field, Flatman, Fowlds, A. L. D. Frager, Hall, Hall-Jones, Heke, Herrieg, Hogg, Kaihau, Lawry, Lethbridge, McGowan, Me. Guire, McNab, Mills, Napier, O’Meara, Palmer, Parata, Rhodes, G. W. Russell, Seddon, G. J. Smith, Stevens, Steward, R. Thompson, J. W. Thomson, Ward, Willis, Witheford-

Noes, 22-Arnold, Atkinson, Barclay, Bollard. Ell, Fisher, Gilfedder, Graham, Hanan, Hardy, Hornsby, J. Hutcheson, Lang, Laurenson; Massey, R. McKenzie, Meredith, Millar, Monk, Pirani, Symes,' Tanner. The House adjourned at 12.20 a.m.