GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10423, 27 July 1895, Page 6

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LEGISLATIVE COUKOIL,

FRIDAY, JULY 26. The Council met at 2,30 p.m. FIRST 'BEADDJG3. The Coroners' Inquests Bill &Di 3 Dunedin Drainage and Ssweraga Bill were received froai tho Housß and road, a first time;

THE GBAitO JUBY SYSTEM,

The Hon. J;. IfiACGREGOR moved—" That in the opinion of the Council the grand jury is unnecessary and should ba abolished, andthafc the Government ba requested to bring down a bill next session giving effect to the opinion of thn Council.?' .'...' ' ' ' ■ ■'.-

The Hon. H, FELDWICK moVed ag s. a amendment—'^.That id be an instrncMon to the Statutes Revision Commifcteovtb.prepare for addition to the Juries- Aof:Amendment BUI provisions for the abolition of the grand jury; and fo t - making provision for informations by the Crown solicitor or Attorney-general instead of indictments by the grand jury." He was convinced that the consensus of opinion was that the grand jury system should be abolished. The Hon.,_C. C. BOWEN considered that any quastion affecting a change in the system of judication should be considered with the greatest deliberation, and should, he contended, be introduced by the Government. He again desired to express his opinion that the grand jury should bo abolished. ' • The Hon. K. PHARAZYN expressed the opiuion, as an old grand juryman, that; the system was an anomaly, and should be abolished without delay. Whilst on the question of juries, he thought the number should be reduced to sis. .' ':; '■ ■' ■' . ■'■■■■■■ ■•• ■ .■ . ...'■

The Hon. T. KELLY, although not wedded to the grand jury system, felt disinclined at five minutes' notice to give his vote npou such an important change as was contemplated in the motion; He thought the matter should be brought down by the Government next session in a consolidating bill. The COLONIAL SECRETARY did not think the abolition of the grand jury system could be effected without altering the whole of the Juries Act. He should like the debate to be adjourned ■ to enable him1, to confer'with'his .colleagues. At any rate he could assure';the"X)ouncU that ifc would ba impossible'to bring down .a bill this session dealing with the subject-matter';•■•of -the motion. ■ .;:■",■ '•'.'■r' ::,-^

The debate wag adjourned to Tuesday. ■ : PROPERTY LAW CONSOLrDATION. > . V The Property Law Consolidation Act Amendment Bill was committed, and progress was at ouce reported, witli leave to eit agaiur>;: '■'■:■ { . ■'A*- ' ;■'•■■■ ' :.;•, divorce ;8in,..,'>:.-.,:'.i;;;: '.:^;^,. The JDivorca .Bill was further considered in Committee.. .;■ . ■ > ' ' '. '•'-' ■

Tiae Hon. W. H. REYNOLDS moved a new fl'ubseotion in clause 3, its objecb bsing to make incurable insanity after three years a cause for divorce. '

7; The Hon. G. M'LEAN moved the. substitution of the word •' five " in place of " three," but this was lest by 18 to 8. The Hon. J. RIGG moved the substitution of the woi-d" sis ".in place of "three."' This wzs lost by 20 to 6, and the subsection wasalsorejectsd, .' ; ; ' -V'■■'■■ "'■.'■ The lion. J. RlGG.moved a new subsection ito.clanse 3, its:o}>ject being that: relief >hall be | aSorded incase of imprisonment for three years and up wards,/or. for habitual neglect/ • ;| The eubsectiou was lost;by 18 to,B. . ! •The bill \yas reported.with amendments, and ! the third reading wos fixed for Wednesday. •;--- 'homes'protection bill.' •■ The Family Homes Protsction Bill was committed. "/ . Sir. G. S. ■VVhifcmore, the Hon.'E. C. J. i Stevens, and the, Hon. J. MacGregor, speaking lon the first clause, reiterated their statements givea on the-second reading of the bill—vizi, that the bill did no more than people could accomplish for themaelves at present under ■existing acts.. • ' . - . ...■'!:■ .' v ~ i The Hon. W. MONTGOMERY explained I that the bill would enable heads of families to \ protect those: dependent upou .them'"lit sniall legal c03t... : : •■■: .' .' . > ■; ; >.'-;. ■'. .■ .''.'..■ ' . Progress was reported with the view of ' referring the bill to the :Waßte Lands Committee. ' ••■';.; ■ ■ ■■•■.■■■■■• ~. .. V- ' -• CRIMINAL CODE BILL. ! ■ The Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill was committed.. ':';'■■}■ ;. >' " The.clause raising the1 age. of consent to is years Was..lost %16to 8, and consequently the age remains at 15, as under the present -act. ' '. '. '' ' _ >;■■■ FolloTOing is the division list:— Ates (B)!—Jlesars Richardson, Scotland, Kerr. Earmcoat, Pharazyu, Williams, Buckley, Montgomery. ..;• ;■•-..•-. .; Nors (16).—Messrs Reynolds, Whitmore, Swanson, Shriinski, Kelly; 'Kigg.-AVaiker,:-peldwick btoyens, :Oriuond;\> Bowen, ft Johnston,- .M'Leaa, Pollen. Peacock, MaoGregor. ; v. >•/•. '." • Clause s—prqeecuttons to' be commencad within twomonthaHwas rejected.by 20' to 4. i The bill was reported'as oinended;'and the third reading fixed for.Tuesdayi.- >;' ..' ' The Coiinail at 5 p.m. adjourned to 7.30. -

■ '•' ■';-':, EVENING SITTIIirG. The Council resumed at 7.:3|0. JiJ,.

: .•.:..:...;.■./-. IMPK2ST SUPELT.':.-V s; ' ■'•;•'. : An Imprest V,Supply Bill \i or • £302^00 was passed through all its stages,'and - :' The Council then adjourned. ':

HOUSi' OE iRJEPEESENTATIVES,

'•:_--i\ '!■. FRIDAY,-JULY-2J6;:" The House met at 2.30 p.m.' C IIIPJSEST SUPPLY.

On the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply . for ; passing; •an Imprest Supply Bill, . ■•■■".■' '■■-:

: Sir R;. STOUT asked for the returns under j the Public Revenueß: Act, which' the -law I required should be laid od the table within 30 dnys of the meeting of Parliament, but which j were net yet furnished to the House ' The Hon. J. G. WARD said 'there was no , desira to keep back - retarnß from the-House. Some oE -the returns asked for would, not contain the information which members wished ■them to, have to suit their particular views. |i He proposed on Tuesday next to lay all. the returns on the table that the' House asked for. As for the. customs returns for Jnne, inquired for .by Dr Newman, he had not yet'seen them, and they were riot'ready. ' f .■■.'■ The Hon. E. MITCHELSON objected to the flippant way in which the Treasurer replied to the questions of the Opposition.'respecting these; returns,: and if '■.the Im'preat Supply Bill were delayed that afternoon JVIr Ward would only have himself, to. blame for,,it. 'He (Mr Mitchelson) denied that they asked for exj pensive returns, but they did ssk that tae Treasurer should comply with the law by laying the returns on the teble-which the law abselutely required the Government to furnish ; After a lengthy debate, ■ -, ■ : : ; Sir R. STOUT moved—"'Jh&fc progress be ■reported co as to consult tha Speaker as to whether or not the debate ithould be reportixl." : The. motion was lost by.3sto 2A. ■ On. the question being, put that an Imprest Supply Bill for £302,000 be agreed to . Sir R. STOUT moved that the amount be reduced by £1, in order to ensure that the debate be reported in Hansard. He spoke at some length on Ministers deliberately breaking tha law by refusing to lay returns on the table and said no Ministry had for the last 12 or 13 years been so late in giving information to Jrarliament as the present one The Hon. J. G, WARD said it waa to be regretted that Sir R. Stout's Ministry was the first one that commenced the practice he now denounced and that-had unfortunately set this bad habit to the House. The Atkinson Government had also more'than once laid accounts on the table after\the. Knancial Statement had been made. He repeated that he should lay all available returns-.on the'table on Tuesday next, an^ he admiUed.: that the House was entitled to'th9;fullbst information.i" -

After a i further lengthy discussion Sir R. Sfcout's,amoiidment was lost on the.voices. The Imprest Supply Bill-for £302.000 passed all its stages.. ■,■ .. ,)' :.-.

The Honss rose at 5.30,

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30. MINING COMPjUJIES BILL.

" The, Mining Companies Act 1894 " Amendmant Bill was committed. .'<

In clause 3, providing that directors may con-. tracr, to Bell,.subject to certain provisions, the condition was added "by a majority in number and value, of .shareholders." •" •' The remaining clauses were agreed' to, and the bill was read a third time and passed. WILSON LAND 11ILL. The Hon. J. M'KENZIE moved the second reading of the Wilson, Land Bill, which had been three times bafore the House aud passed the House la<jt cession.- It was simply to coafer a title to 100 acres of land on James George Wilson, whose parents were killed in the Poverty Bay massacre, 30 years ago Mr Wilson now wished to3ell the land to pay off a mortgage on it, and he thought there could be uo objection to tha bill. Sir R. STOUT opposed the bill, and said ib w*s directly opposed to the' Family Homes Bill, as the land was given to this man for his life. He moved that the bill be read thab day six months. After some discussion, Sir R. Stout's amendment was lost, and the bill was read a second time. •■,.■- ' ADULTERATION PREVENTION DIET. The Hou. R. J. SEDDON moved that the amendments Eaade by the Legislative Council in the Adulteration Prevention Act Amendment Bill ba disagreed with, and that Messrs Saddon, Keeyeß, and Button be appointed a committee to draw up r«?.sona. Sir R. STOUT moved that tbe debute be adjourned.—Agread to. PERIODICAL REVALUATION OP LANDS. FJr PI RANI resumed the debate on the Peri- | cdicc.l Revaluation of Lands Lessed in Per- ■ petuity Bill, Ho said kg &ml<k noli see how

anyoaa could vote for tha bill, which took away from a man the improvements be had made in n?s land. The bill would r.lao do great injustice to a raan who wished to take up land in future. ITej (houjiht the bill wns nriulft and unworkable.

Mr HALL hold that tha- lease in perpetuity (jho'ul'J not. be interfered, with, and .he, Hoped Mr M.'Konzie .^crald never sjiva way on this question. If he did ifc would strike a serious blow, at land saKtenient..'- .. . . ... ;, ■. .Mr E. THOMPSON'sdid ;Btr Russell rep-e-SEnted a body of peoplo ia Canterbary called

" Progressive Liberals," who

were always

anxious to divide fcha property of othet paople He thought wb«t-Vfchey'■■'■wanted was wholesale confiscation. Ha waa-surprised at the member forj.RiccarJion introducing such a measure as this, which wouid sei'ionsly injure a lot of simjggling settlers and do great injustice all

over the colony. Mr HOGG oppoaed the b:i(, and said it did Eot give land to the psople, but, on the contrary, its whole sim was to exact an amount of undue taxation from country setblera. . ■ ■ Mr G. J. SMITH supported the bill, and said it simply meaui th&ti at csrtain periods iand would: be revalned and tho rout reduced accordingly. He held there waa a cry in the country for this system of revalnation of land, and those who supportsd it were not asking for any injustice. + wr.P R? WTHER 8si(1 ifc h~d b^n stated that the lease in perpetuity was better than ireehold, but he would stick to freehold. Ifc wgs absolutely, unfair iv one -present; state of m^ebtednesa to ask one cla?s of settlers to pay tor another. Ho couldjiict sapporfcthis bill ; . KrMlliliS said that so long a<f this bill dealt wuh only one class of atttlera ho should oppose it mosl; strongly. If the House wanted to bieak dewu .he present liberal land laws of the

colony it ■ should pasis this .bill, which he regarded as'an iniquitous measure Mr MEREDITH said the bill was a crnda abortion, and was nob very creditable to those who warned it. He opposed the bill because it would destroy the lease in perpetuity It also discourage small settler*; and'leadi to an aggregation of large estates;ijUhe,e6Wriy' He thought the bill should ba called :the taxation of unearned increment. ■: :: ;<-: :':'. Mr COLLINS supported thebill^ud said it md, not increase taxation, bui',wdiild readjust it. He could nob understand >ho_w hon. members opposed the bill, which simply readjustee! the taxation on land. He 'thought tho bill would work out baneflcially, and he said that

when farmers understood it as,well as they understood the graduated land tax they would find it greatly to their bsueßti. \ Mv WILLIS strongly advocated the country gswang the unearned increment on .land, but thought i(i should be in an all-round way, and he therefore opposed this bill. . ;It would be a great drawback to the Bettlenient:: of ; the

"^i?**?: ! I ; Vi;v.-. .. r HALL--TONBS ,6upp6ttM;itha; bill,:, ancl ? xPressed the opinion tHat it would not p'reveafc mtendiDg settlers-ifrom,:\taliing:;up land under

revaluation conditions.■. ■■■-■ Mi- _ .PLATMAN-: opposfed the measure,'- and thongnt the land laws shouidJbave a short upt-ll from legislation. Tiiis-was- a; tinkering bill of the lowest description, but he'would not say that the man who draw it up ha'dgot no sense Abe bill would not be so fair to tenants as a fair.reut bill would be.' .-•' ■ .• ■- •Mr DUNCAN opposed the bill. : . .Mr T. MACKENZIE said he had no sympathy with such tinkering legislation as the member tor Riccarton. delighted in. His constitufints wanted ■ practical legislation,' iiot fads of this bind, which would rob people of their improvaments. The men who supported this bill wers representatives of cities, who had no practical esperierica of .'-land at all. He was very strongly opposed to the bill, and said that if it was carried, into effect it would be pernicious If a bill of this kind were to be, carried ifc should apply to aU and not'to the poorest settlers. ; It was a. atraoge specimen of the LiberaHsm professed by, Mr G. W. KusseU and those who supported him. %. ' _ ; Mr 13. H. SMITH characterised-the bill as a town fad, and said it was wrong in principle ; Mr, G.:W. RUSSELLTRiccarton) replied'at some length. r, F He; : contended , that . tho«e members, who : supported a Pair, R^nt ' Bill should also support; this bill, which' recognised tae lease in perpetuity'as an accotnpliehed fact

and also recoguioed the desirability of revaluation from time to time. ' '■:••- ■ The;:motion for the second' reading was' lost ■??:' 3fl>.tp;2l'»,»nd/thß-billthrown:pjat.; i--; '■:■■■■; ./■Followingis'tlie aivißi6iiiisi/£-%; *(£?, ,./;.'!-.. snaw, Ureen, Guinness,'Hall-Jor.es, Joyce Maslin Pinkerton, G. \V. Russell, Keeves, Smith, Stout, n NO^? (35)- ■-, Buchanan, Cadman, Carncroas, Carnell, Carroll, Urowther, Duncan, Flatinari Eraser, Graham Hall, Harris, Hog ff , Houston, W' Kelly, Lang, Larnach, La wry, X. Mackenzie, Macluntosh Massey, M'Gowan,. M'Guire, J M.Kenzi^.^Meredifch.^MiUs., Parata, ■ vpi rani> \Vi)liT'Hvii.?d; S™>th '; S.H>re^'':Tl?( Hnpson, .^atd! __PA«is.—For : Morrison, Buddo;-Jhvi Eeily G Hutchison. Against: Montgomery, Saundera.V Hutchison, Captain Russell. .7, , -..,...... CREMATION BILL. / The r Cemeteries./ Act , 1882,; Amendment (Cremation) 'Bill was committed^ reported' without alteration, read a third time, and passed. ■■* ;■'•-; • . . ■,-••, • EMPLOYERS' PfiIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETY BILL j The Employers'; Private;-.Banefit Society Bill was committed.;,-8 ■■.;■ &£ >\-\ ; Jin clause; 3, providiDgf Jor the registration of every society now ; 'Mr BUTTON;moved'aiiamendment to insect the words "unless already registered in Australia, Tasmania, or Great Britain." Mr MILLAR refused to accept the amendment, which was lost by 28 to 19 Mr MEREDITH said the whole effect of the clause would, in his opinion, bs. to kill; privets .benefit societies, and tbat, he thought, should not be encouraged; .Mr ;DUTHIE. thought; the whole-scope of these private benefit .societies was simp'y to enableemployeH'to get a hold of the working men, and ha had no sympathy with that ' The Hon. R. J. SBDDON said Mr Dutbie'n .spessh.was an agreeable revelatiph-tohim. ■ He' bad watched carefully the action of employers, ■and Ab was frequently exercised to:: coerce men into their wills or they would either forfeit their employment. or lose money.they bad !.subscribed. •. Ha held that the House should do | not'ning to injure out friendly societies, and the I biit nov? before the House would stiengtheh ' their position. ~ .

In clause 4—penalty for neglect to register,— Mr HOGG moved to strike out tb.o words " every mfimber of a society should ba liable to a penalty for r.oi registwing." The Hod. R. J. SBDDON. thought1 if ifc wero Ic-lt to the employers alone registration woiiM not tike place, and he hoped Elr Hogg would noS press his amendment.

Atter ; further discussion tlie amendment was •withdrawn.:; ■. :- '■-. ■■'■'.■. ■- -.■'..■';>.-:■•:■■■■£. .■■>■'■■■-.

_ Mr MILLAR proposed to insert :•< officer" instead ofl".member" of toci6ty.--Agreea to. "■ 2Sr BUDDO moved, to make the penalty for non-rfgi»tration "not exeseding £1 per day" instead of "not less than £2 or more than £5 " The.Hon. R. J., SBODON moved that the penalty should be per day. •■ •■. ■ Mr Biiddo's amendment was. lost on the voices. ." :, •,. ,• . . ■ . , ■ ... .

. It.was eventually decided that-the ponaltv tnould be not lees than 10s nor more than £2 pec day of coa-registratiou, and the clause passed as amended.

The remaining clauses . passed with slight alteration, and the bill was read a third time and passed.

The House rose at 12.25,