GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2413, 16 June 1882, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(PBESS ASSOCIATION TSLBOBAll.) Wbixikgtok. June 15. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2 p.m. to- day. QUESTION. In reply to Mr Williamson, tbe Hon. Mr Whitaker said the Government found it would be too expensive to light the Manukau harbor so that vessels could enter at night, and even if it were lighted it would still be dargeroua, especially to strangers. BILLS BEAD. The Married Women's Property Bill was read a third timi and passed. At the request of Sir George Whitmore, who was unwell, the tscond reading of the Peace Preservation Bill and the Indemnity Bill was postponed till Tuesday. The Aliens Act Amendment Bill was read • second time. The Sheriffs Act 1858 Amendment Bill was pasisd through Committee. Tho Council rose at 3 p.m. » ■ HOU3B OF REPRESENTATIVES. Th« House met at 2.30 p.m. A OOBBBCTXOX. The Speaker announced that the division the previous svening on the Protection of Telegrams Bill was, ayes 32, noes 27, and not as was announced at the time. QUB3TION3. In reply to Mr J. E. Brown, ihe Hon. Mr Bolleston said tbat if ifcwsa tbe general desire, facilities would be given to members desirous of visiting the Chrijtohurch Exhibition. Replying to Mr Holmes, the Hon. Mr Johnston said it was not intended by Government to appoint district boards to hear, investigate, and report upon complaints made »y amployees m his department m such districts, respecting their ill-treatment by heads of the department or officers. Replying to Mr Green, the Hon. Mr Dick said Government had taken the rabbit nuisance into their own bands, and arrangements had b»en made for introducing 250 poleoats from Tasmania, and each ahip leaving England would bring a supply of 50 ferrets to cope with the nuisance. Parties bringing out tbei* animali would get no subsidy, but they would find a profitable market for their disposal. Replying to Mr Sutton, the Hon. Mr Dick said it was not proposed to bring down a measure for tbe management of hospitals and charitable institutions similar to that of last lesiion, but tb» Financial Statement would indicate what was proposed to be done m tbat direction. fteplying to Mr Cadman, the Hon. Mr Dick said Government did not intend to make it compulsory that persons appointed to the Commiition of the Peace should undergo an examination m the various Acts they may b» called upon to administer, but if a Bill to that effect was introduced Government would give it consideration. rissT headings. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time :— Canterbury Bivers Act 1870 Amendment (Mi- J. Wilson) ; to Amend the Fencing Act 1881 (Mr Smith) ; Native Committees Empowering (Mr Tomoana) ; Oraki Native Beserve (Mr Tawhai) ; Mining Companies Registration Validation (Hon. Mr Dick) ; to Afford B«lief te Deferred Payment Bettlcrj 5 to Provide for the Election of the Members of Waste Land Boards (Sir G. Grey). VISIT TO THB BXHIBITIOH. Mr J. E. Brown g»v« notico that he would move to-morrow that the Houss adjourn on Thursday, the 29th, to the following Tuesday, to enable members to visit the Christchurch Exhibition. OTASO HABBOB. Mr Fish moved the second reading of tho Otago Harbor Board further Empowering Bill, stating that he only wished to advance it a stag*, and to take the discussion on the motion for going into Committee, so that members might have time to consider certain data compiled by the Harbor Board, and which be should circulate. Mr Macandrew said he wou'd not oppose the second reading, although at tbe same time be differed entirely from th« promoters of tha Bill, both as to the amount sought to be borrowed and the work towards which, as he understood, tbe loan was intended to be applied. When the Bill got into Committee he would be p-epared to move certain amendments, the object of which would be to diminish tbe amount of the propoied loan, and to ressrve its application to works most conducive to the publio interest. As the mover bad deferred debating tho question to a subsequent stags, he should rsservs anything he might have to say until then. Th» Bill was raa<( a sreond time. AUCKLAND GRAMMAR SCHOOL. The House then went into Committee on the Auckland Grammar School Bill. After being discossed on tbe preliminary clause, progress was reported. •■• " HABBABD." MrPyke moved— "That members defray the coit of printing their own speeches m Mansard, and tbat such coat shall be deducted from ths honorarium, if any, to which they may be entitled." The cost per night was very heavy, and he thought the motion, if carried, would shorten the session one month, wbich mi an important consideration, acd it would tend to forward public businets, and to the benefit of the health and convenience of members. The present wm an opportune time for making a proposal of the kind. There had as yet been no abuse of the forms of the House, and this procautioa would help to counteract an abuse of the kind. Mr Turnbnll moved as an amendment that the words read, " Members who desire to have their speeches reported defray the cost, etc." He for one would prefer not having his speeches reported. Mr J. P. Thomson characterised this as an important motion, but be thought it was brought forward by way of a joke. He had years ago opposed a motion to have speeches curtailed to twenty minutes, but he now believed he made a mistake. Their speeches were now too fully reported. At one time they were reported m the third person, whereas now they yrne reported m the first person. In the Houte of Commons speeches were not so elaborately reported, and he thought *> similar course might be pursued here. He himself was accused of being a discursive speaker, and it might m bis own case be will were his remarks condensed. Tbe reporting staff might very well be allowed to condense, and m that case Hansard might bo connderably reduced, if not abolished. He imagined tbe seat of Government would be rsmoTed m time, and if taken to Christchurch they could dispense with Hansard altogether, as there they could get papers able to report their speeches. The pipers of Wellington neither did credit to themselves or the colony. The abolition of Hansard would mean a saving of about £500 per annum. He would support the motion. Mr Kelly thought that dabites might be curtailed by an amendment m the forms of the House. Mr Levin said this question of Hansard was continually cropping up. They set about matters m a most extravagant way. He defended tha Press of the city, and asserted tbat the reports of the morning papers this year wero as creditable as the reporting of any paper m the colony. In the past that had not been the caie, still it was an earnest on the part of the newspapers of their desire to progress with the times. Mr Fi»h opposed tho motion. He could only imagine tbat tho mover had outlived bis ability to make anything like a decent ipeech, and he was envious of younger and abler members. He defended Hansard as a useful record of what had passed. He also defended tbe Press of Wellington, adding that tbe papers would cotnpire favorably with the Press of bis own city of Dunedin. Mr Dodson also opposed the motion. In years past he had been a constant reader of Hantard, and he believed, with profit to kirnself. He defended tbe reporting as being wonderfully correct. He also defended the reports given m the Wellington Times. They were exceedingly creditable to the reporter, whoever he might be. He would vote steadily agaiott any effort to interfere with Hansard. Mr Shephard denied tbat the cost was as great as had been stated, and be did not look upon tbe motion as being at all serious. So far as the removal of tha seat of Government had been alluded to, he would just as soon trust to the morning paper m Wellington as to tbo papers m Christchorcb. He hoped . they would strictly adhere to tbe present arrangement. Captain Mackenzie admitted th«t the

1 pecuniary aipeot of the question might be a matter of go m a importance to some mem* berg. Mr Bracken moved at a further amendment that members be made to pay for the corrections upon their speeches. Mr Feldwick supported Mr Bracken's . amendment. These corrections increased the I coet of Hansard one-fourth. Mr Fyke defended the reports m the Wellington Prsss, which would bear favorable comparison with the reports of any other pace. He had been urged to bring forward the motion br a number of members m the Homo. The resolution as it stood excluded Ministers, as they received no honorarium. He would also bo ready to exempt the leaders of the Opposition, whoever they might be. Mr Xurobull's amendment was negatived on the voices. The Home divided on Mr Bracken's amendment, which was lost by 45 to 21. The House divided on the original motion — Ayes, 27 ; Noes, 36 ; and the motion vras lost. BLBCTBIC LIQHTIUO. Mr Kelly moved tbat tho Homo is of opinion that Government should, during the receat, cause inquiries to be made by competent persons as to whether the Parliamentary buildings could with advantage be lighted by electricity. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. 'ihe House returned at 7.30 p.m. EIBE BRIGADES BILL. Mr Leveatam moved the second reading of the Fire Brigades Bill. He explained that a Bill with a similar title was put forward last year. That measure proposed to rats Insurance Companies specially for the purpose indicated, and he could not bring him•elf to lupport tbat Bill, believing as he did that the coit would be added >o premiums. Accordingly the provision was omitted from this Bill. An efficient system of protection produced a corresponding diminution m the rate of insurance, so that a measure of the kind was one which recomis«nded itself ns an economical ftep. It bad been said I bat Fire Brigades should be established by Corporations and other local bodies, but he contended that it was of importance the affirmed principle should be affirmed by legislation. Tbe Hon. Mr Dick admitted the prinoiple of the Bill to be good, but took exception to the manner m which it was drawn. These, however, were mere technical drawbacks. It contained a!?o one or two more substantial defects, but tbeae were capable of being rectified m Committee. A number of provisions contained m the Municipal Corporations Act had been imported into the Bill. In that case it. would be as well to repeal these clauses m the Corporations Act and leave them all to be dealt with by the one Act, Mr Fish moved that the Bill be read that day six months. Unlike the previous speaker he could see that it was most objectionable m principle. There was ample provision m the Corporations Act 1866 to deal with the subject of firo prevention. In small towns and boroughs the Bill would be inoperative. Tbeae places had enough to do to make and form their streets, without being burdened with the maintenance of a Fire Brigade. If it required legislation, that legislation ought to eman»t» from the Government. Th« Bill originated with a Fire Brigade asd not the public. Mr Peacock and Mr Feldwiek objected to the Bill, and Mr Hutchison supported it. Mr Holmes opposed the Bill on the ground that it was an unwarrantable interference with local self-government. Mr Levestam m reply said be would m Committee accept reasonable amendments, provided they .did not iaterfere with the principle. He was not the framer of the Bill, and therefore was not responsible for its phraseology. H» brought forward the measure at the instigation of tbe Atsociation of Firo Brigades of New Zealand. Tbe House divided on the amendment that the Bill be read tbat day sis montta — Ayes, 36 ; Noes, 13. Ihe amendment was carried. BBBVBNTIOX 01 T DECHASB OF VOTES BILL. Sir George Grey moved the second reading of the Prevention of Purchase of Votes Bill. He explained that the purchase of £25 worth of property m an electorate purchased also a vote m such electorate. Tbat state of things tended to political corruption, which ougbt to be diiconraged. Great land companies would be formed and these companirg could very easily purchase votes, and m that way promote their own purposes. He denied that this provision was designed to give illegitimate power to property. Fifty thousand pounds' worth of property m 009 electorate only bad one vot.i, whereat that sum distributed throughout the different districts would secure a perfect wealth of political power. Mr Levejtam teconded the motion and spoke m favor of the Bill. The Hon. Mr Roll es ton said that m 1878 Sir G. Grey disclaimed the idea that he was againet a dual vote, while m 1880 he was m favor of the leasehold franchise. It appeared to him that they had arrived at principles with respect to the franchise which should not be disturbed. He did not tbink the opinion of the country was that every man should have an equal voice m the government. Tbe property qualification was a fair gauge of the intelligence and thrift of the country. There might be s?mo pleas m favor of the leasehold franchise, but he contended that there was no such call for taking away tho franchise already existing. If there had been any real call for a change he would have been prepared to consider the question, but he did not believe that any such call existed, and wou'd oppose tbe Bill. Mr Tnrnbull supported the Bill, stating tbat despite the arrangement made for holding the election on the one day, special trains were run on the Christ church line and men got out and voted m all the districts m which they had qualifications. To give anyone an exceative vote m making the laws was simply an net of oppression. It'was a great temptation to tbe dormant claes to make laws to suit their own purposes. Again.it was calculated to induce them to lay the burden of taxation on the shoulders of others. Mr Hursthouje moved tbat tbe Bill be read that day six months. 80 long as the franchise existed, freehold and residential, they must allow tbe electors to exerciie their electoral rights without hindrance. He deplored the political apathy of tbe day. They found at the late elections that not more than half the electors exercised tbo franchise. Under these circumstances the more they could interest the masres m tbe government of the country the better. Ho regretted tbo extension of the franchise on the liberal principle on which it had been placed. He did sot tbink tbat the property qualification as it stood could be to any great extent abused since the elections were held on the one day. In a country like this property should have its fair proportion of power. Mr Pyke supported the amendment. Property mutt be represented. It was a fallacy to say tbat men only were to be represented. It would be ft bad time for the colony when property, either leasehold or freehold, was not fairly represented. The mover of the Bill was a man born bof ore his time, and he reduced Parliament to a debating class when he brought up a Bill like this. He objected to be governed by popular opinion, unless m co far as thnt opinion was m accord with jmtice and equity. He had never heard of tha purchase of votes. What was called the purchase of votes, he called the free exercise of the public mind. Why not bring m a Bill to make it criminal for a man to hold property. Tbat was the natural outcome of this Bill. Sir George Grey was pledged to bring m a Bill providing for the leasehold qualification, and now he said he would do nothing of the kind. Never was there a more faithful representation of tho fallacy of the residential qualification than at the late election. A supplementary roll was issued after the writ, and consequently could not be objected to. He knew of six names of persons on one of these rolls who had not been m tbe colony six hours. Property they knew was there, but was a man with a swag on his baok by the- roadside always there? Legislation for the last few years bad beon detrimental to the poor man. Mr Moss supported tbe Bill. It was not the poor man, but the man of property who could realise on bis property and was m a position to leave tbe country. Under these circumstances ha contended that tbe reflections cast upon the residents! qualifications were wholly misstated. He thought tbe debate tbat evening had been instrumental m arriving at a clear division of parties. It was a want of policy on the part of the Government that made tbe Opposition disunited.

Mr Hurst opposed tbe Bill, contending that it had not been part of the political programme of the lato elections, and thnt consequently there, was no evidence of a demand for the proposed change. Mr Jojce spoke m favor of the Bill, considering tbat m municipal matters tbe plural voting system had been retrograde. Proptrty must always exeroise a preponderance, and m that way tbe propertied classes need not fear the proposal of the Bill. Captain McXenzie contendad that the late elections being client on the subject, showed no demand for the Bill. He objected to the title of the Bill. It was evidently intended to centre all political power m the hands of men working for wages who were here to-day and gone to-morrow. He strongly objected to this. Mr Dodson supported the Bill. The district he represented had for two sessions been disfranchised by imported votes. It was only land that could eeoure a vote. That to his mind was clear legislation. Mr Seddon spoke m favor of the Bill. Mr Weiton said be would be m favor of a limited power being given to property. He meant hy tbat ho would allow tbe residential qualifications, and say one more qualification for property. A* the Bill stood ho would oppose it. Mr Smith contended that, apart from this qualification, property had a preponderance of pjwer. Employers of labor, if they treated their workmen, or landlords, if they treated their tenants rightly, were bound to influence them. Mr Fieh opposed the Bill. Mr W. M. Green, Mr Feldwick, Mr Munro and Mr Holmes supported tbe Bill, he latter slating that m Committee he would move that the number of votes be limited to two. Bir G. Grey then replied. He denied that the title of the Bill was a jest. It was an actual fact. [Left sitting at 1.45 a.m.]