GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10421, 25 July 1895, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

EVENING SITTING. The Hou;e resuinr dat 7 30. ■■"-. PIVOHCB, AMENDMENT., i. Mr COLLINS moved the, second reading of the Divorce Act Amendment Bill .to amend ''The Divorce and Matrimonial Cauaes Act, 1867." He aaid ha had devoted a considerable amount of attention to this matter, and he regatdtd it as of great^importance." Ha knew the danger than attached to the introduction of a measure .which would affect the family life or tho sacredness ef the marriage tie. The bill did not, however, enlarge the facilities for divorce in any way;, it merely proposed to amsiid the present law of divorce by duing an aeo ot simple justice in giviug to women exactly toe same facilities as regarded divorce as were enjoyed by the male portion bf the community. .It might be urged that -the bill would be fatal to ths social aud moral life of the people, but it could m nowise strike at f.he root of the social ■?u 1"6- The only- moral effect which the _ bill would hs,ve. would be, in his opimpn, of a purifying character, and it as not too much"- to ask that women should be granted the same facilities for divorce thas men possessed. '■: He hoped - the House woulcldo this simple act of justice to women, anal that no consideration of inheritance of property wouldl influence members: in voting on this bill. He held it was a great injustice to compel fj*- ~- * llve Wlth an adulterous husband, and the efleet of this must be of a pernicious w?i rJ* ' mb only on the wife bu6 on the children. He asked the Houso to rise to the occasiou, and protect the weak against the strong by paqsinj; tbe bill.

L\ aOMPSONT said if the bill passed it would be perfectly useless for no provision whatever had been made to give it effect, ond it was to be regretted tbat Mr Co)lips had washed so much energy upon it. There was a bill in the other House dealing with tbe whole question, and bethought Mr Collins had better wait till thM; billwas bsfore tbem beiore proceeding with his present measure. He thought, further, that any bill dealing with our marriage laws should be brought in by tbe Gov-rnment As for himself, he agreed with the principle of this bill, but there was no proposal iv it for giving it effect. .'...,:,

' •' r uhe,/ loa- U' J- SEDDON entirely agreed | with Mr Thompson's concluding remarks, and thought it better to; reserve the opinion of the Government: on the question till the othfr bill was bafore the House.. .He thought the House would not dispute that the wife should be putin the same position as the husband. He should vota for the second reading of this bill, and wheu the othee bill came down they could decide whether it should co any further _ o The Hen. W. J. STEWARD said that in 1881, a similar bill w»s introduced in the House, snd also in 1885. There was a consensus of opihion then that the wife should be placed on 'an eijuality with the husbsnd as regarded divorce.- He recommended Mr Collins to take I the gtcond reading of the bill, as the othei-"bill might not pass into law. With respect to Mr Thompson.) objection, he hold that no uißchmery was uecessary to put this bill into effect. .""•'.:■'..'.

.MrT. MACKENZIE tV.pught. tho bill vas one that should be carried, and said that if the •former measures were. brought down unencumbered by other provisions chey would h<- ve passed into law. .. In that respect Mr Collins w?,s to be .congratulated for bringing dosvn his mil witli;.one provision only. Mr M-LAOHLANiupported tbe bill •Mr CROWTHKR thought if the bill passed it would have the effect of rnakiug men work their wives into appl>if g for div.jrce. At the sime time he considered the law should be cquil.

'ace motisn was agreed to on the voice!. MUNICIPAT. FRANCHISE. ,'MrW HUTCHISON moved tbe. sscon'd reading of the Municipal Franchise Enlargement Bill, to enlarge the franchise a,-, municipal elections .in boroughs. He said the bill wai a little.plainer than:that of last year, but it was o-nerwise the same. . The bill provided that every ratepayer and houeeholder in a 'borough' shall-have votes for the 'election "of' councillors, but.m no case Bhall there be mote than one vote., .-He" referred, to plural voting an being injurious to the people, aud said that ia some wards m-their cities 20 hotelkeepers held the balauce by the plurality of votes; He repelled the insinuations of some members who alle"»d tha u he had brought in this bill in the interests of gontleacu who wauid make "moonlight iHttmgs without paying their rent, and he asserted that the people whom this bill affected would p*y their rent as readily as other people. The bill proposed that in tha election ot mayor householders and persons not being Householders whose 'naaifis appeared on tbe electoral roU should be entitled to vote He y.a.% satisfied that the principle, of the bill was in accordance with justice and equity, and tbey would never have satisfactory manicipA councils till a bill of this kind were carried iu'o lav/.

aJ J-^; M- >:' 23:iTH moved an amendment that the bill bs read that day six months. He was anxious to extend the" franchise as much as possible, but whers rates aud taxes were concerned the Government: should move in the matter, and not a private member.' The Goveibment also promised tn bring down a local governmeut bill, and Mr Hutchison thould wait till that was dove.

Mr R. M'KENZIE seconded the amendment although he agreed with a good deal in the bill. The drafting of the bill was, however outrageous from the short title to the last clause. He felt sure the House .would not allow the bill to go any further. . Mc FLATMAN supported the second readi-i fi of the bill, but hoped it would be amended iv Committee.

Mr THOMPSON opposed the bill, and •■aid by it those, who contributed nothing would have the spending of all the money. He had no doubt Mr Hutchison did nofc exnect a bill of this kind to- pass for the nexo" ICO yearsbnt seeing that the Government intended bringing down a bill dealing with the whole subject of local government, he hoped the bill would be withdrawn. He should prefer that course to seem" fcbe bill get:sbr montha. If Mr Huichisou had confiued this bill to the election of mayor he should have supported it, bufc cob as inspected tha election of councillors.

The Hou. W. P. REEVES would vote forthe second reading, and the House would hava plenty of opportunity before it was committed to decide whether it should go farther. He believed in the principle of the bill as regarded municipal franchise, which ha looked on as a necssmry reform. Mr T. MACKENZIE did not believe in the principle of tne bill at all. Mr Hutchison provided that householders conld vote for the election of councillors, but in another clause ifc provided that they should not vote for raisiug a '^"f" which those councillor* would spend. He (Mr Mackenzie) held thab the House should put aowtijMving votes to people who had no responsibility in contributing rates. The bill instead of improving the position of our municipalities would damage them, because no ratePayer would vote for raising a shilling of money »o he spent by people who vronld be elected under tfc;s biU.

Mr CROWTHEIi thought the bill shonld be postponed till the local government bill came nown, aa it was not in a woikabio shape at present That bill would also deal with cnan.aUe aid, whfck was a more important question than Mr Hulchison'j bill would ever

Mr MORRISON supported the bill, bnt thought it should havo been simpler. He considered the bill might have read that every householder of the age of 21 yearn r.nd upwards should have a vote not only for councillors bub for mayors. As for the argument i against ttte bill, he asked whether the Home.would refußQ the parliamentary franchise for municipal purposes. _ Tney would surely not allow a lower franchise for electing members oi the House than they would for municipal councillors. Mr WILLIS was in accord to a certain extent with tho firat principle of the bill'which extended the same voting rights to hous?.- ; holders as to ratepayers, but he thought the ' term of three months too short. Ho objected ; altogether to the provisions respecting the election of mayor, aud snid that irresponsible men who paid no rates should not vote for the election of. mayor. If the electon of mayor were left to fche ratepayers and householders he would support it. ' Mr MACKINTOSH supported the bill. Mr J W. KELLY would - -r, for the amendment. He was willing .-.. houae- j holders vote, and if necessary ■...,.,; a tenant I' should pay a small sum to enahls him to vote for mayor and councillors. Plural voting i Q local bodies was the cause of a good deal of the agitation over this question of voting, and if the votes were equalised a deal of" those i objections would bs done awuy with ! Mr FRASER said he sbould rese've any r?- j marks he had to make till the Government bll was before the House, but he should certainly oppose this bill. '

The Hon. R. J. SEDDON thought it would be wise, m the face of the Local Government Bill coming down, to adjourn the debate on this bili. .

Mr HUTCHISON refused an adjournment, as the Government, hill might not pass.Mr Smith's stmendmentwas carried by 33 ta 28, and the bill w*s thrown out.

UNCLAIMED'MONFA'S BILL. Mr JOYCE moved t-ie second leading of the Unclaimed Moneys Bill, to provide for giving publicity to information rolatinc to unclaimed furids and for oj;her puruoses. , He detal-d the provisions of the bill, and said Mr Gladstone at one time had tbe use of 4-0 millions of money, and had built the new law courts in London out of them,- besides other large buildings. .

- The Hon. J. G. WARD complimented Mr Joyce in producing ouch a valuable bill, ns any cne who could devise a system of paying^uonsy into the Tressurywas conferring a great benefit on the colony. It seemed to him tnat moneys of this kind, not being claimed,by the orijjinul owners, ought to revert to the State. If it ever fell to his lot to have 4-0 millions, such as were referred, to by Mr Joycsi he should take care that whit he said would not lay him open ta the aspersions that the Opposition had cast on him. . - The motion was agreed to. ' ■ SLANDER OP WOMEN. '•■ Dr NEWMAN* moved the Second reading of the Slander of " Women Bill, to amend the law relatiug to the subject. He ■ thought' the bill would commend itself to all right-thinking* persons of'the'community... Tho bill made it legal for any woman to obtain d.smages for slander even, if special. damage shall not bo - shown. • :•" ..' '. ' ."".'■ _ Mr BUTTON.suggestedthat the bill should include men as well as women, which was just as necessary. • ' . ■ . -.-.;■■ The motion was agreed to/I ■•;;.- ' ". ' lUVEK BOARDS' ACT. , Mr ALLEN moved the V-eaond reading or the River Boards' Act Amendmeut Bill, to provide for the representation of the Borough of Kaitangata on the Ciu'Ju River Board.— ; Agreed to. .'-,-.'; j : _ DSriMATIpN-Bili,. "" '. ' I Sir R..STOUT nioyedthe second re iding. of the Defamation Bill, to declare aud amend the law/relating" to defamation. He explained the provisions of the .bill, and pointed out that protection,was granted to members of either Houie and to persons reporting matters of public interest, and it w'»s road ■•. lawful to publish a fair'co'uiment. Respecting the publication of a, fair report'- for the information of the public, the .-bill practically put in plain form what the law^pf libel.should bi and what waa fair comment on public'mattera. ■';.'.- Tbe uiotibn was sgreed to. 7- PERIboICAI. REVALUATION OP: EAND3. Mr G. W. .;UUSSELL mcivad. the second reading of the Periodical Revaluation of .Lands Leased .in, Perpetuity Bill. lie said the bill embraced.the: very important principle of the revAluation of lands leased in perpetuity under proper safeguards. The bill applied to all lauds leasedin perpetuity from snd after iho passing of the ace. It^rvas not intended to be retrospective, and he would.be willing to make it apnly to all lands that may in future be leased. "'The only principle he contended-ior was that these leases should : be from time to time subject tb revaluation. If this principle were given effect to ifc would entirely-remove all speculation in connection with . the lauded estate of -the colony..^ Numerous • safeguards had been provided; by the Ministry, but it could not be said that speculation had ceased, and it had come to his knowledge, thst petsons had beeu paying considerable premiums for taking over leases in perpetuity. The bill would provide for an assessment every 10 or 20 years of the value of If-nd,, and the tenant would be required,- in terms of ; the Land Act, to pay 4 pe.- cent, .of the •c&r.h, price of the land. It might -he agk«d whether a. fair rent bill would meet' lhe 'case, but if that bill came down-it; would have to apply to public and private lando, and it might be years before a fair rqnt bill could be given effect to. : They were undertaking a big task'in a bili of. that kind, andit wouldtake a long aud bitter 'fight before a fair rent biil Wfre nassed. He claimed that the 'Liberal (-entiment of this colony barred, the revaluation, of the^e ie'ises, apd the bill was not brought in out ot any hostility to.the Government.

The Hon. J. M'KENZIE regretted he could not support the bill. and. he should bave taken action earlier/were ifc: not that the Premier had promised.:Mr.Rus?ell : and others who favoured revaluation tbat a division sbould ba taken on .th.c.subject- H« found now. for the fir,<t tipie, thafc he wa? not a Liberal l-.icwieelha did not sopjort,this principle. Mr Russell could not effect his pbjecV by this bill, and he ■asked, -whether, .any.-.: m*n would purchase land which would „be revalued in 10 y?ars. If Mr' Russell wished to carry out what he desired he would hive to go much further, and bring: down a bill that- ih* colony should neyer pint, with a .finale acre of laud. He (Mr,, M'Kenzie). asserted that the leise iii perpetuity did prevent speculation, and there was very little speculation going on under it If one-.men wished to sell his land to another he had a perfect right to dp so as loug as improvements were carried out. . This bill would be quite uselefs and would require an immense number of clauses that Mr Russell had forgotten all about. .-';

Sir li: STOUT said this bill wa* the first instalment of, a biil promised in the Governor's Speech —'namely,, a fair runt bill. —i(Mr M'Keszie :" " A Fair Rent Bill would apply to the 'whole colony.") Well, theu this wa* au instilment, and the Minister should net o'ojicb to it. .The reiisr.n fr.r his opposition fco the biil was that Mr M;Kenaie thought that'by his 599 years' lease he would settle tbe land for ever and it was not settled. .If the Government believed in a. fair rent hill they should nofc object to-this bill. . He woul.d not pledge himself fco every detail of tha bili, bufc he should vote for it to affirm the principle.

The Hon; R. J. SEDDON said he bad never heard a more illogical or inconsistent speech than Sir R. Stout's. That hon. gentleman had said repeatedly th^t he was a land nationaliser,and would not if he had hi?, way part with another acra of land, and yet he supported the Revaluation Bill. He (Mr Sidrion) said there was .no reason why tho Government fhould not oppose .this- bill and yet favour a fair rent bili, because the latter dealt with private property as well as land leased from the Crown. If the Houso .passed this bill they would force, lessees to borrow mocey : .to buy, fer cash, and would thus put them into the hands of. money-lenders. Mr Russell, by this bill, was trying to forca the hands cf the Government in tbe clireotion of handing over the people of tbe country into the liaud3 of capitalist--. A fair rent bill would not only deal with leases in perpetuity, but perpetual leases aud freeholds, whereas the preesufc bill was aimto at leaseholders in perpetuity only. If, they were going to haye a periodical revaluation it should come down aa a measure of policy, aud not be dealt with by a private member. It would destroy confidence at tbe present time, and would do great injury to the country,-

Blr MACKINTOSH, thought the bill most pernicious, and said no one would touch land with a 10 years' revaluation. Mr MAfiLIN deprecated the remarks by tho two Ministers with respect to Mr Russell's biil. Ke preferred a fair rent bill, bathe failed to see why Mr Russell's bill should be o.'vpcted to, and he did not &ire what it was called so long as a person only n»sd a Wt rent for his land. Mi- MONTGOMERY moved ttie adjournment "of the debate.

Mr HALL-JONES said if they adjourned the debate tbey would have no chance of debating it again this [session.

Several other members took ?. similar view, and the motion for adjournment was lest by 35 to 15. Messrs O'Regan, Buddo, M'Nab, aud M'Lachlan mpported the bill. Mr MORRISON at 1.5 a.m. moved the adjournment of the debate, snd this wan carried by 25 to 15; and the House rose at 1.15 a.m.