EVENING SITTING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4413, 16 June 1882, Page 3

EVENING SITTING.

* The House resumed at 7,30 p.m. FIBB BBIOADBS BILL. Mr Levhstam 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 rate Insurance Companies specially for the purpose indicated. He could not bring himself to support that Bill, believing as he did that the cost would be added to premiums. Accordingly the provision was omitted from this Bill. An efficient system of firo protection produced a corresponding diminution in the rates of insurance, bo that a measure of the kind was one whioh recommended itself as an economical stop. It had been said that Fire Brigades should be established by Corporations and other local bodies, but he contended that it was of importance the principle should be affirmed by legislation. The Hon X.Dlorc admitted the principle of tho Bill to be good, but took exception to the manner in which it was drawn. This was a mere technical drawback, but it contained also one or two more substantial defeots which, however, were capable of being rectified in Committee. A number of provisions contained in " The Municipal Corporations Act " had been imported into the Bill. In that case it would be as well to repeal theae clausos in the Corporations Act, and leave thorn all to he dealt with by the one Aot. Mr Fish moved that the Bill be read that day six months. Unlike the previous speaker he could sco that it was most objectionable in principle. There was ample provision in tho " Municipal Corporations Act, 1866," to doal with the subjeot of fire prevention. In small towns and Boroughs the Bill would be inoperative. These 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 emanate. from the Government. The Bill originated with a Fire Brigade and not the publio. Messrs Peacock and Fbldwick objected to the Bill, and Mr Hutchison supported it. Mr Holmes opposod on the ground that it was an unwarrantable interference with local self-government. Mb LbvbBTAM, in reply, 6aid ho would in Committee accept reasonable amendments, provided they did not interfere with the principle. Bo was not the framcr of the bill, and therefore was not responsible for its phraseology. He brought forward the measure at the instigation of the Associated Fire Brigades of Now Zealand. The House divided on the amendment that the Bill be read that day six months. Atbs — 36 ; Nobs, 13. The amendment was carried. pbkvbntion op pubohasb of votes bill. Sir G. Ghby moved the second reading of tho Prevention of Purchase of Votes Bill. He explained that the purchase of £25 worth of property in an electorate, purohased also a vote in such electorate. That state of things tended to political corruption, which ought to bo discouraged. Groat land companies would bo formed, and these companies could very easily purchase votes, and in that way promote their own purposes. Ho denied that this provision was designed to give legitimate power to proporty. Fifty thousand pounds worth of property in one electorate only had one vote ; whereas that sum distributed throughout tho different districts would tocure a perfeot wealth of political power. Mr Lbvbstak seconded, and spote in favour of the Bill. The Hon W. Bollkston Baid that in 1878, Sir G. Grey disclaimed the idea that he wntagainst a dual vote, and in 1880 he was in favour of the leasehold franchise. It appeared to him that they had arrived at principles with respect to tho franchise which should not bo disturbed. He did not think the opinion of the country was that evory man should have an equal voice in the Government. Tho property qualification was a fair gauge of tbo intelligoncs and thrift of tho country. There might be some plea in favour of the leasehold franchise, but ho contended that there was ho such call for taking away the franchiee already existing. If there had been any real call for a change ho would have been preparod to consider the question, but he did not believe that any euch call existed, and he would opposo it. MrTuBNBULL supported tho Bill, stating that despite tho arrangement made for holding the elections on tho ono day, special trains wero run on the Christohurch line, and men got out and voted in all tho districts at which they had qualifications. To give anyone an excessive voto in making the laws was simply an aot of oppression. It was a nreat tompta- > tion to tho dormant clasß to mako laws to suit thoir own purposes. Again, it was calculated to induce them to lay the burden of taxation on the shoulders of others. Mr Hubstiiousb moved that the Bill bo road that day six months. So long as tho franchise j * existed freehold and residential, they must ■

allow the electors to exercise their electoral '• rights without hindrance. He deplored tho ! political apathy of the day. They found ot the lato elections that not more than half the electors exercised the franchise. Under these circumstances, the more they could interest the masees in the government of the country the better. He regretted the extension of the franchise. He did not thiuk that the property vote as it stood could be to any j great extent abused, since the elections were held on tho one day. In a country like this property should have its fair proportion of power. Mr Ptkb supported the amendment. Proporty must be represented. It was a fallacy to say that men only wero to be represented. It would bo a bad timo for the Colony when property, either leuEehold or freehold, was not fairly represented. The mover of the Bill web a man born before his time, and he reduced Parliament to a debating class when he brought up a Eill like this. He objected to be governed by popular opinion, unlesß in so far as that opinion was in accord with jußtico ' and equity. He had never heard of the purchase of votes. What was called the purchase of votes he called the free exercise of the public mind. Why not bring in a Bill to make it criminal for a man to hold property ; that was the natural outcome of this Bill. Sir G. Grey was pledged to bring in a Bill providing for the leasehold qualification, and now he said he would do nothing of the kind. Nevor was a more faithful representation of the fallacy of the residential qualification given than at tho late election. A supplementary roll waß issued after the writ, and consequently could not be objected to. Ho knew of six men on one of tho?e rolls who had not been in the Colony six hours. Property they knew was there, but residence, what was it — a mt»n with a swag on his back by the roadside ! All their legislation for the last few yearß had beon detrimental to the poor man. Mr Moss supported the Bill. It was rot the poor man, but the man of property, who could realise his property, and was in a position to leavo the country. Under these ciroumstances, ho contended that the reflections cast upon tho residential qualifications were wholly unwarranted. He thought the debate this evening had beon instrumental iv arming at a clear division of parties. It was the want of a policy on tho part of the Government that rendered the Opposition disorganised. Mr Hr/BST opposed the Bill, contending that it had not been part of the political programme of the late elections, and that consequently there was no evidence of a demand for the proposed change. • Mr Joyce spoke in favour of the Bill, considering that in municipal matters the plural voting system had been retrograde. Property must always exercise a preponderance, and in that way tho propertied classes need not fear the proposal of the Bill. Captain Mackenzie contended that the late elections being silent on the subject, showed that there was no demand for the Bill. He objected to the title of the Bill. The Bill was evidently intended to oentre all political power in tho hands of men working for wageß, who were here to-day and gone tomorrow. He strongly objeoted to thiß. Mr Dodson supported tho Bill. The district he represented had for two sessions been disfranchised by imported votes. He oould not understand why one class of property i-hould have a vote and not another. It was only land that oould secure a vote, and that to his mind was class legislation. Mr Beddoh spoke in favour of the Bill. Mr Weston said he would be in favour of a limited power being given to property. He meant by that that he would allow the residential qualification, and, say, one more qualification for property. As the Bill stood ho would oppose it. Mr Smith contended that, apart from this qualification, property had its preponderance. Employers of labour, if they treated their workmen, or landlords, if they treated their tenants right, were bound to influence them. Mr Fish opposed the Bill. Messrs M. W. Gbebn, Fbhdwiok, Munbo, and Holmes supported it ; the latter stating that in Committee he would move that the number of votes be limited to two. Sir G. Gbby replied. He denied that the title of tho Bill was a jest ; it was an actual fact. [Left sitting at 1.45 a.m.]