The General Assembly.

Otago Witness, Issue 1340, 4 August 1877, Page 8

The General Assembly.

[By Telegraph.] Wellington, July 26th. In the Legislative Council, The second reading of the Friendly Societies Bill was agreed to, and The Council went into Committee on the Constabulary BilL The House afterwards adjourned. In the House this afternoon, Proceedings were commenced at 2.30. Mr Kelly asked if the Government intended to place upon the estimates a sum for distribution among the various Agricultural Societies to promote agricultural <*nd pastoral industries. It wag the practice in other Colonies to give such grants, and Victoria especially was very liberal. Mr Reid remarked it was not the intention of the Government to give any sum of money for distribution. The plan had been tried in Otago and found most prejudicial, because j those who used to give assistance in their private capacity formerly declined to do so when they found local Societies had received a grant. In reply to Mr Gibbs, The Hon. Mr M'Lean said the Government mtended to re-erect a beacon on the.Hapuka Reef, Astrolabe Island, Blind Bay, as soon as they could. One attempt had already been made and failed, because it was necessary the wf ather should be calm and the water low, but another attempt would be made as soon as circumstances permitted. In reply to Mr Buriis, The Hon. Mr Ormond promised to lay upon the table a copy of specifications under which tenders for rolling stock constructed in the Colony were called, with the kinds of timber used, &c. On the motion of Mr Murray, A. return was promised of all payments made Q Om the Colonial Tieasury since October, 1876, to those who held office as Superintendents of Provinces and members of Provincial Executives, and the nature of the services for which payments had been made. The Hon. Mr Reynolds calltd the attention of the House to the face that one paragraph was left out of the House Committee's report, namely, that members of both Houses should be at liberty to invite friends into Bellamy's on such days as neither House was sitting. Amongst the notices of motion was one by Mr Stevens, to ask the Government when the engagement of Sir Julius Vogel would terminate. w Mr Woolcock fgave notice of motion regarding the increase of taxation. The Order Paper was very light, and Ihe House adjourned early till to-morrow. July 27th. In the Legislative Council, Dr Menzies laid on the table a petition from residents in the Inch Clutha and neighbouring

districts, re Kaitangata railway, asking the Government to take such steps in the matter as might be deemed best for the good of the country. The Hon. Dr Pollen gave two notices of motion for Tuesday next, one of which was for leave to introduce a Bill, entitled an Act to encourage the planting of forest trees. Captain Fraser gave notice of his intention on Thursday next to ask the Government when I it was their intention to comply with the re1 port of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums, re the Dunedin Lunatic Asylum. In the House this afternoon. Proceedings were commenced at 2.30. Ten days' leave of absence was granted to Mr Taiaroa. In reply to Mr Sutton, The Hon. Mr Reid said the whole question [ of dealing with the Crown lands was under the consideration of the Government. In reply to Mr Stevens, The Premier sad that the engagement with Sir J. Vogel was to terminate twelve months after he arrived in England, which was in December last. The Premier told Mr Fitzroy, in regard to the defence of the Colony, that the Governnient hs>d communicated with other Colonies in , regard to securing the services of eminent professional men there, and until those gentlemen visited New Zealand the Government did not propose taking any steps in the matter. An Imprest Supply Bill for not less than | L 250.000 was passed through all its stages. The Premier announced that the Financial Statement would be made next Tuesday night. ! 1 The Hon. Mr D. Reid moved the second reading of the Mines Bill, a measure for consolidating the mining laws of the Colony. In explaining the nature of the Bill, he pointed out all thenew features in mining legislation contained in the Bill, amongst which were the ' powers to issue miners' rights forl to 25 years', ' and of issuing consolidated miners' rights' to' Companies. These provisions were taken from; the Victorian Act. They also proposed to, limit the area of leases to 320 acres, instead of 640, a3 in Victoria. The miners' rights would also enable the holder to search for any other metal as well as for gold. Mr Barff considered the Govetnment had broken faith with him in the matter, and condemned the Bill as one drawn up by someone who knew nothing about mining. It was, in fact, a thing of scissors and paste, chiefly made up out of the' rejected measures of the last ten years. It vas also a most revolutionary measure, and he wanted it postponed for a time until he and other members might have greater opportunity, of considering the Bill and laying their objec-: tions before the Goldfields Committee. He. wanted to know whether the Bill was an outcome of the Conference of Wardens lately heldj at Wellington. At any rate, the Bill should, have been printed three months ago, and distributed amongst the mining districts. He moved that the Bill be read & second time that' day week. MrManders thought there was really very! little to object to in the Bill, and the Government deserved credit for the way in which they faced the question of gold-mining legislation. - i Mr Button explained that the majority of the members of the Goldfields Committee thought it best not to oppose the second read-] ing of the Bill, provided it would be referred to the Goldfields Committee for consideration of its details. ■ • • ■ \ Mr Curtis thought the Bill more than a consolidation measure, and more than one of detail. There were several important innovations, such as taking away the powers of the Waste Lands Boards and placing an unusual power in the hands of the Governor. These were most . important changes in the existing laws. The j very important power of granting miners' I leases was placed entirely in the hands of the Governor. These questions affected the whole Colony seriously, noA were arguments why- it Bhould not be forced on. ' Mr Rowe thought there was no particular occasion for such a Bill. All that was in it' of any use might well be contained in half the [ number of clauses He wanted the people on the various goldfields to have an opportunity of considering the measure before it was forced to a second reading. Mr Woolcock considered the measure one directed toward simplifying our mining laws, but he wished it to be referred to a 'Select Committee. He supported the second reading. The Hon. Mr Reid said the Gold Mining ! Districts Bill would not be affected by the measure, which therefore wotild not ' interfere with the mining legislation of Auckland. After some remarks from Mr Reid," who said that after the second reading the Bill would be at once referred to the Goldfields Committee A division was called for by Mr Barff. The result was tiiat the Bill was ordered to be read a second time by 45 against 18. The Hon. Mr Reid moved the second reading of the Charilabb Institutions Bill, the provisions of which he explained. It was absolutely necessary that some provision should be made for charitable aid now that the Provincial arrangements for that purpose had ceased' The question they had to decide was, whether it was advisable to make the charge a burden on the consolidated revenue, or merely to contribute towards private aid in this direction. After considering the question, they thought that it would be best to aid local efforts in providing for charitable objects. It appeared to him that that would be the best plan to effect the object in view. They would, therefore, under the Bill, pay to each institution out of the Consolidated Fund each financial year a sip equal to the sum raised by the managers' of such institutions by subscriptions, receipts or donations. There should, however be a limit beyond which they should not contribute out of the revenues oi the country. The control of all these institutions would be placed in the haadsof persons on the spot, who would be best calculated to administer their affairs and distinguish between deserving and unworthy objects of chanty. • y Mr Rolleston thought the House generally would consider the Bill utterly unworthy of the subject with which it proposed to deal. The tii]] [left it purely optional whether there should be any charitable institutions, and if there were no charitable people in a district, SS 0/™0 /™ t. tl >c.'x system of charitable tV* T i • member tad said paupers ought to look upon any assistance they received as charity, but he denied the justice of this. There were many deserving persons who became paupers through no fault o f their own, and they should not be compelled to feel ignominy.. The mistake in the BUI was that the provision for charity depended on voluntary I efforts. These institutions should be dealt with nationally, and brought under the general taxation of the Colony. The Bill was a mfeerable rechauffe of a Victorian measure, which had worked anything but welL He hoped ££8 would be rejected by the House at once, and th The'K^ ♦wn^^i re T sume(i at 7.30 last erSn?upon th « Ohantabk Institutions BilL «Jsf WaDl ? cons ] d f r ed the measure vague in BidZ^ eC >^ d A fe^ iveinotllera - J& considered the destitute had an inalienable right to

be assisted by society, and it was evident ,to him that the Colony was rapii?ly apprdacftirig the poor law system, though taxation 1 " v was already so depressing that 'he feared there would be nothing left to tax when the call to do so for the poor came upon the Colony. ("'Ambitious and comprehensive as ■ the 'Billfwas, it passed over two- moat .important, classes of institutions, viz., for reclaiming drunkards, and fallen women. - As to the supporting 'of institutions for the poor, the burden, he thought, of these ought to be thrown upon-the waste lands of the Colony, No more righteous burden could be- conceived. . >'■•;•. -;~,f Mr Stevens said there could be no measure pf more social importance than this, but he disapproved of handing over existing institutions to the* first fifty men who. chose to putitheir hands in their pockets and subscribe a miserable sum. Ha thought "the Bill generally lk> inadequate to the work it proposed to deal with', that he would move it be read that day/six months, .and that too without any hostility, to Government. " ' <->•—■<- The Premier thought the views 'of the last speaker had been much narrowed" through living in a community where, they, had .always been able to support their destitute ■without asking the settlers to put their 1 hands in' their pockets. When Provinces were 'taken" over, the arnual cost of these • institutions p-w.as L 58,000, and Canterbury alone was spending L 29.000 .' What thehon. gentleman" $6poa4d as a'means, of! dealing with charitable instatetiohswas simply 'a Board of Guardians,' : and let no one know where the money came from, only let it come from the consolidatedrevenue. But he forgot Government. • was.- proposing nothing new. The system .worked well- iv Otago, and none of the evil-effects "dreaded had arrived. The real point at j issue was,' would they levy a poor rate ? But, J he', thought) thia't would not.be acceptable, nor, indeed," was "it required. '~ He had every* confidence in, the measure, as it worked in other countries. ' ;'?; ' ? Mr Gisbome' supported the second 1 reading because the Bill supplied machineryfor dealing locally with institutions. _ Though there were many imperfections •in 'the- Bill which might be removed in Committee, the principle of the Bill, however, was sound. Any central system of management must lead, to extravagance and mismanagement. ' '„ ' • Mr Kelly said the system proposed had been tried in Taranaki, and was not a' success,' but the explanations given by the Premier had'induced him to support the second reading, though he originally meant to oppose' it Mrßees opposed the Bill at first -because there was no compulsion and no 'responsibility cast upon any one. There was no restraint or compulsion upon the managers, nothing^ £o prevent them refusing charitable ( aid, 'to, any one against whom they conceived a .dislike, whether justly or not, and it was known' that' 'these things were "done, for" managers were but human. The State Was. obliged to provide for the criminal poor, and yet they wanted to throw off the burden of providing for the respectable poor. According to .John Stuart Mill, that was paying's premium on crime. .Mr Travers considered the' Bill was utterly nnsuited to carry out the objects'- inuview. However well voluntary contributions .worked at Home, this^ Colony was too, young for such a system. It was well to invite voluntery contributions, but the'real burden should' be' made ro' fall upon the State. * • : " : - - - ,- - - Mr Wakefield said he was 'glad to learh;from the Premier that the ■ Bill did :not mean what it said ; but. that they were to pass a Bill that neither said what it meant, nor meant' what it said. The hon. member commented upon the language used last session by the present mover of, the Bill during the Separation: debate, in referring to the sweeping away of -those- institutions which' flourished; under .the,, old. system. . Mr Ballance held that it .was the. dujy of the Legislature <to legislate in this matter :in7the direction -■ of evoking private, charito. ', ' The question was well.put when.it\?as said "that it was either, a Poor Law or- some system of this sort; but all' the modern.authors agreed. that the effects of the Poor 'Laws .at. Home lwere most mischievous.' He agreed ,witlj theinover ■ of < the Bill that a centralistic system ob granting aid was likely* ta.be; abused, >and be indiscriminating. - While, looking, upon;, the ; ' v ßill as having imperfections, he held itsprinciple.was in the right direction. - Jt appeared; to him that.the aim of allsthe legislation! of (las V.year( las V.year was to throw off the burden of institutions'of the kind under consideration.'and which should fall upon the - localities. > . He . did . not > un'd^rstand why the system failed at Taranaki; while it succeeded at-Wanganui,- unless it.v;was/because that Taranaki was spoiled .py. .being accustomed ito lean upon the General Go,v«fnment. The Benevolent Institution, at, Wanganui was entirely-supported .by private subscription, and they not only, fulfilled ; aU,. their obligations towards <,their poor, but actually found money to sendone patient to be 'treated at Home. The natural inference, fi;om this was that their ability to fulfil their functions would be increased by the subsidy- proposed under the BilL : The principle of- the,.Bill-.was too valuable to be thrown away, and. he would vote for the -second reading. \ :- ■.-,.. „, t ■Mr Lurasden supported the. 'second! .reading, and instanced, the • excellent way >in which the hospital at Invercargill was managed under the system. -of 'private' assistance and control. There was much in the Bill he did,not: approve of, but its principle was good, and: it would,^fc a great mistake if not gone on with. ,_ , , Jp Mr Lusk thought there was no s principle in the Bill at aIL It evidenced' a want .of "power to grapple" with the 'subject.- ■ , - Mr Murray-Aynßley. was opposed to postponing the second reading; of .the BilL The question must be grappled with ■ Mr Shnmski opposed the -second reading on the ground that too great a burden was i proposed to be thrown upon the Committees of the Colony, especially the small ones in the interior. Mr Woolcock was struck by the fact that the greatest opponents of the Bill were, those who came from large centres, where their charitable institutions had been supported' by Provincial Governments. It appeared to him most desirable they should fester self-reliance among the Eeople, and the Bill tended in that direction, [c cordially supportedthe spirit of the BUL, ■ It being after 12, cries of " adjourn, were made. • . . > > . -,;,•', Mr Montgomery formally moved the adjournment, but . .',,.,.. The Premier objecting, \: i • • A division was taken, -the result being— 2s for adjournment ; 31 against. :■ ■.*.,. Mr Burns remarked that two parties opposed the Bill. One was represented by. the member for Christchurch, the other by the member for Franklyn. Both now began to feel the effects of ' Abolition, and each was anxious to have these services contributed to by other. .parts of the Colony. They wanted to dip their .hands in the public purse ; but there was a third party, that to force them to put nands into their pockets. ' ■ He- considered the Bill a good one, as it would be a, bad day for the Colony if they had resort to poor laws, which always had a demoralising effect. . Mr Fisher opposed the second reading. Mr Rowe supported the second ' reading of the Bill. He had seven years' experience of an institution managed on the principles embodied in the BilL ■ ' , : • -The House adjourned at 12. 55, the Government not opposing.'' ." , . i

July 31st. In the Legislative Council, Sir F. Dillon Bell was sworn in, and took his Mat A motion was agreed to for laying on the table all correspondence between the Govern«a*ct and the Bank of New Zealand and the Bank of New South Wales, relating to the loan of half-million each obtained from these Banks. A Bill was introduced to encourage the planting of trees. The Constabulary Bill was passed. Other Bills were considered in Committee. Th* House met this afternoon at 2.30. A number of petitions were received. Amongst the notices of motion given, was cne by Mr Macandrew, askiiig the House to order that several railways be constructed forthwith, for opening up the outlying districts of Otago. - Mr Burns gave notice to move for a Committee to enquire into the system of weather reporting, and storm signalling. Sir G. Grey gave notice to move for triennial Parliaments, and the granting of suffrages to every male 21 years of age. Mr Stout is to ask what steps Government hay* taken with the view of the establishment of Fenny Savings Banks in schools. On the Crossed Cheques Bill, Mr Swanson moved an amendment to clause 2, to the effect that no cheque under L2O should be treated as .a crossed cheque, on the ground ' that giving crossed cheques was frequently pro- , ductiye of very great inconvenience to poor working men. Several speakers pointed out that these evils were more imaginary than real; that the drawer of the cheque was not the proper person to crois it, but the one who received it, if he chose. . Mr Wason pointed out that he knew of farm labourers being paid with crossed cheques, and for six er eight weeks unable to obtain their money. Cheques were frequently crossed, knowing they would not be cashed. Mr Murray moved that LlO be substituted instead of L2O. Mr Montgomery moved that the drawer of a cheque for wages should not cross it under a penalty of LlO. A division was taken on Mr Swanson's amendment, which was lost by 40 against 25. Mr Murray's amendment was lost on the voices. Mr Stout moved the insertion of the word ."fifteen," but the proposal was negatived on the voices. - ■ Mr Montgomery's amendment was also negatired. The Bill then passed without amendment. 'In the adjourned debate on the Charitable Institution* Bill, - Mr Hodgkinson said the Bill ought to have been summarily rejected. It threw the r/hole burden of .supporting charitable institutions upon very few. The system was tried in England some centuries ago, and with most unsatisfactory results. He also objected to putting ' the burden proposed upon the Consolidated Fund. The whole thing was merely of a piece with that, system of deception which marked .the regime of the present Government. The lion, member quoted several noted economists who were opposed to the destitute being pro- . Tided for by voluntary contributions. The State ought to provide. Sir B. Douglas objected to saddling the cost , ; of keeping poor on particular districts, instead ' of distributing the burden upon the whole . Colony. ' He wanted to know whether the Government wenld assist country districts in obtaining cottaga hospitals. Mr Fox regretted the morer of the Bill did T not afford the House more information than he did on tbe question of racial relief, of its working in America and in the various British Colonies The question had never been faced before in this Colony, but it imperatively desunded immediate attention. Ha had no objection to Voting for the second reading, provided the Government agreed to the insertion ef » clause bringing the Act into operation for only a year, aaa that in the meantime a Coin...mission should be appointed to collect data and information upon the subject, so that they might have more information to guide them in framing the measure' than at present. He appro-red of the idea of compelling the localities to deal with the exigencies of the case face to face. Sir G. Gray moved the adjournment of the debate at 5.30, which was agreed to; August Ist. In the Legislative Council, . The Hon. Dr Follan said in reply to the Hon. Colonel Whitmore, that the Government would be prepared this session to introduce a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1873. Dr Pollen introduced a Bill to alter the law relating to the apprehension and arrest of persons for misdemeanour and other offences. The Friendly Societies and Industrial and '.Provident Societies Bills were passed through Committee, and the Council adjourned. In the House this afternoon, Several petitions were presented, including enefrom a Canterbury settler for compensation for a field of wheat fired and destroyed by a* spark from a railway engine; and from Rangitikei settlers, praying that the Education Bill may provide for daily Bible-reading in schools. Sir George Grey raised the question of privilege on a point of order, inasmuch as the At-torney-General had made a repLy regarding which no question had been put, and a remark which was calculated to influence a Jury. The Speaker said it would have been better had the remark not been made. In reply to Mr Macandrew, ■ ■ The Government were understood to say they - were about getting a more suitable office for the Dunedin Registrar of Births, &c. Mr Fox',l Bill to amend the licensing law was read a first time. The second reading was fixed - for Wednesday-next. . Mr Curtis moved that the Standing Orders lie amended, so as to provide that no member * shall address tbe House for more -than twenty minutes consecutively, unless by leave of tbe 'House. The exact scope of the motion was this : Not that any member who exceeded the •time mentioned should be stopped at the moment, but merely that it should be in the power of the House to prevent the continuance of a speaker after the Speaker's attention had had been called to the fact. He would prefer such a remedy for tedious prolixity instead of the lystem of clamour by which obnoxious speakers were silenced in the House of Commons. He was not wedded to 20 minutes, and would be willing to accept amendments as to time ; but something like a reasonable limit should be fixed. Mr Stout moved that the words "unless by leave of the House "be left out. He did this to prevent the majority controlling the power of talking of the minority. MrGiaborne considered the motion should be rejected in any shape, as being quite unconstitutional. Mr Wallis, while disapproving of longwinded oratory, doubted whether such a motion could be carried into effect in any Legislators of the world. One bad effect of it

would be to throw the power into the hands of any party which wielded a majority. He originally thought the proposal merely a joke. Mr Header Wood expressed his astonishment that Government did not lead the House in a matter like this, which affected the privileges of the House ; indeed, it seemed to him that the Government was favourable to the motion. Last night it took the Premier an hour and a half to deliver his Financial Statement, and yet they were to be limited to 20 minutes to criticise. In that case, the criticism would not be very exhaustive. They had better reject the motion altogether. Mr Curtis objected to the amendment and announced he would divide the House upon it. Mr Montgomery deprecated the silence of the Government upon the occasion. He would oppose the amendment and resolution. Mr Rees was in favour of accepting the resolution, if amended so as to make the limit imperative and irrevocable, and apply to all alike. The Premier said the Government declined to treat the matter as a party question, and if it came to a vote chey would be found going into both lobbies. They also took no stand on the matter, because they thought the Houso ought to be allowed to regulate its own privileges. Mr Svranson remarked that if the House accepted the motion they ought to allow mem. bers to prepare written speeches and read them._ A division was taken on Mr Stout's amendment, which was carried by 52 against 16. The Hon. Mr Whitaker then moved the following words be added: — "And that the Standing Orders Committee be instructed to frame a Standing Order to give effect to this resolution." Negatived on the voices. The amended resolution was then negatived. Mr Macfarlane moved that the House affirm the desirability of encouraging the establishment of beet sugar factories, and give an assurance that no excise or other duty would be levied on beet sugar manufactured in the Colony for a period of ten years. The Premier replied that while they desired to encourage enterprise all they could, they I were aware that it was highly necessary they should be cautious in what they did in giving assurance of the kind asked, so as not to make themselves liable for claims of compensation, as had happened sometimes in cases of this kind. He hoped the mover would give .them more information on the point, and explain tbe nature of the assurance ha sought. Mr Macandrew suggested that the motion be amended, so that the Government be a«ked to place a sum on the estimates, byway of a bonus, for encouraging beet sugar manufacture. Major Russell asked what was the use of placing a sum upon the estimates, when the vote would lapse next year, and beet sugar could not be produced in any quantity for four years. Mr Gisborne said the motion asked Government to do what was unconstitutional, and he hoped it would be withdrawn. Mr Travers referred the House to an elaborate paper on the manufacture of beet sugar by Sir J. Vogel in 1876, and quoted from that paper to show that beet sugar could not be produced in the Colony under L 7 or L 8 more per ton than the imported article cost. A perusal of that paper would convince anyone it would not be wise to interfere in the direction of the motion. They should recollect their experience in distilleries. Mr Jcyce was in favour of the resolution. He did not believe in bonuses. Protection, it should be remembered, gave the world beet sugar. He looked upon the stoppage of the distilleries as a great mistake. Mr Murray took a similar view. MrSwanson moved an amendment that the question of encouraging the manufacture of beet-root sugar be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of seven members. This amendment was agreed to, Mr Macfarlane accepting it. Mr Macandrew's amendment was negatived on the voices. The House rose at 5.30. In the House this evening, The following is the division list on the Charitable Institutions Bill, taken at 12.30 this (Thursday) morning. Aye 3, 42 — Atkinson, Baigent, Ballance, Beetham, Bowen, Brown J. C. (Tuapeka), Bryce, Burns, Cox, Douglas, Fitzroy, Gibbs, Gisborne,. Harper, Henry, Hunter (teller), Johnston, Joyce, Kelly,' Kennedy, Kenny, Lumsden, Macfarlane, Manders, M'Lean, Murray, Murray - Aynsley, Ormond, Eeid, Rowe, Seaton, Seymour, Stafford, Stout, Sutton, Swanson, Teschemaker, Wason (teller), Whitaker, Williams, Wood W., Woolcock. Noes, 11— de Latour, Fisher, Lusk, Montgomery, Eolleston (teller), Sheehan, Stevens (teller), Thomson, Tole, Wakefield, Wallis. Pauls— Carrington paired for, with Curtis against, Richardson with Bastings, Reynolds with O'Rorke, Button with Rees, Russell with Grey, Brown with Travers, Tawiti with Karaitiana, Morris with Hodgkinson, Fox with Reader Wood.