FRIDAY, AUGUST 3.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 161, 10 August 1877, Page 3

FRIDAY, AUGUST 3.

In 'the House of Representatives, In reply to Mr Macandrew' s question as to whether 'the Colony was about to lo«e tho services of Sir J. Yogel, The Premier said when the vote for the Agent-General's services came on, he would be prepared to state what were the intentions of the Government in the matter. So far, Sir Julius Yogel afforded every satisfaction to the Government in discharging the duties of Agent-General. Mr Hodgkinson asked ofthe Government whether they intended to protect the public estate in Southland and other parts of the Colony against the devastation of rabbits. The Premier replied that the Government were in communication with the pastoral tenants to see what could be done in the matter. Bills introduce! and read for the first time : — Port Chalmers Water Works Bill (Mr Reynolds), Public Recreation Ground and Reserves Bill (Mr Sheehan), Invercargill. Gas Works Borrowing Bill (Mr Lumsden), New River Harbour Board Vesting Bill (Mr Lumsden). The Hon. Mr Reid moved the second reading of the Impounding Bill, which he said, was more df a declaratory nature than any alteration of the existing la Wo Sir R. Douglas and My Stafford suggested that the Bill, and all of a kindred nature, should be referred to a Select Committee. r J he Premier said it was intended to do so. Mr Rees pointed Out that 'this was Only tinkering at legislation. This question of the consolidation of the laws of the Colony should be referred to a Commission of Inquiry, ~so that the House could deal with this and other cognate Bills next session. Mr Gisborne pointed out that the most proper course under the circum-

stances would be to pass a short Empowering Bill, instead ol attempting to , deal with this voluminous and not luminous mass of legislation. Mr Wason said a Commission Would crime great inconvsuience to the country if set to inquire into tbat Bill and others like it, and next session they would come to the House and most probably take not the slightest, notice of the recommendations of the Commission. | Mr Hursthouse considered the Bill one of the best fruits of Abolition, because it was impossible, if moved about, to tell under what Impounding* or Fencing Bill they were. The Bill was really of the greatest importance to country districts. Mr Stout pointed out certain defects in the drafting' of the Bill, and certain important oversights. Mr Woolcock thought the Government were undertaking too much. These were matters which ought to be left to local bodies, who could deal with them best by bye-laws. The Hon. Mr Reid, in reply, said the necessity for the Bill was self- apparent. There were ten different fencing laws in the Colony, and great coufusion was the consequence. He thought that those « who were loudest in now condemning the Bill, would be the veiy first to cry out for a measure modifying these laws if Government had taken no steps in that direction. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to the Seleot Committee. The Hon. Mr Reid moved the second reading of the Fencing Bill, which he said was very similar in its nature to the previous Bill, being merely of a consolidating character. Mr de Lautour objected to tho principles of the Bill altogether, and moved an amendment to the effect that it is not desirable to create a fencing law for the whole Colony, the interests of the different parts not being identical, that local bodies in the different districts should have power to regulate fencing, and that where no fencing laws existed, owners of stock should keep them on their own land, at their own risk .and expense. Mr Seymour, in speaking to the Bill, said that he considered the fencing laws most important to the Colony. In travelling through America, he saw immense tracts unienced, and the few horses and cows he saw were tethered, and upon inquiring into the cause of this, he was informed it was the result of fencing laws whicb did not compel anyone to fence. It was different where fencing was enforced. Mr Swanson opposed tbe Bill. Some of the provisions were calculated to ruin many people, and the law ought to be to make people who desired to keep cattle to keep them on their own land, either by enclosing or tethering thro; Why should a man who cultivates flux have to fence his land to prevent Ids neighbour's cattle from trampling' it down ? Let those put up fences who want them. Mr Brown (Ashley) would support the Bill on account of clause 3, which repealed all fencing laws passed previously. People ought to be compelled to keep thoir stock on their own ground. One fault of the Bill was perpetrating the obnoxious regulation ofthe old Provincial laws of Canterbury, by which a Crown tenant could give notice to a freehold tenant to fence, while the freeholder could not notify the Crown tenant. Major Russell supported the second reading, though he agreed with much that had fallen from. Mr de Lautour. Sir R. Douglas said the proper thing ' to be dono would be to empower one neighbour to call upon another to fence, and that whatever fence they decided upon should be considered a sufficient fence. Tho debate on the Fencing Bill Was continued. Mr Rolleston opposed Mr de Lautdur's amendment. Though he did not consider the Bill exactly wanted, he would like to see a clause introduced that would enable the different districts to have what sort of fences they might think best suited to them. Mr Thomson pointed out that owing to the many different requirements in regard to fencing, the Government had a very difficult question before them. The best thing would be to leave the Provincial Ordinances in operation. Messrs Takamoana and Nahe objected to the Bill having anything- to do with Native lands. Mr de Lautour divided the House, and the Bill was read a second time, by 51 against 15. j The Hon. Mr Reid moved the second [reading ofthe Sheep and Cattle Bill, I which provides for the eradication of | scab in sheep, and to regulate the inspection and branding of stock. The Bill does not affect the Diseased Cattle Act. Imported stock are to be allowed to land, but not to travel without first being inspected. A small rate per sheep is to be levied throughout the colony,, in order to cover the cost of detectingdisease and prevent it spreading. An inspector of stock is to be appointed for each district. The hon. member said this Bill would also be submitted to a Select Committee. Mr Seymour said the Bill ivas a vast fining machine, the provisions of which would simply mean ruin to a great many, without accomplishing what it was intended for, The honourable member pointed out 'that while the pro-

visions of tho Bill would be good in Otago, where little ov no scab existed, in Marlborough, where more or less scab constantly existed, the Bill would prove ». very great hardship. The inspector, too, had too much power. He feared there was too much paste and scissors about the Bill. The Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed to a Select Committee. The hon. Mr Reid moved the second reading of the Slaughter-houses Bill, the chief object of which, he said, was to place the control of slaughter-houses in the hands of the people of the localities. This Bill he proposed to be referred to a Select Committee. Mr Stout protested against the Government sending all their Bills to a Select Committee. They appeared to have no confidenco in their own drafting, and inflicted double trouble upon the House. They did the work in Committee first, and then had to go all through it again in the House. The Bill was read, a second time. The hon. Mr Bowen moved the second reading of the Education Bill without remark. Mr Bastings moved that the debate be adjourned till that clay week, as be had ascertained that the Bill hnd not. reached parts of Otago yet. He did this out of no hostility to the Bill, which he would heartily support. Considerable discussion ensued upon the question of adjourning the debate. Sir George Grey and Messrs Macandrew, Reader Wood, Montgomery, Reynolds, Rees, supported Mr Bastings' motion for delay on the ground they would like to have opinions from different ports of the Colony. The Premier, and Messrs Sharp, Mason, and Murray -Aynsloy opposed. The Hon. Mr Bowon offered to take the voices on the matter. Mr Wakefield supported the adjournment on the ground that the Bill should not be gone on with while a resolution was on the paper, which amounted practically to a vote of want of confidence. The debate was adjourned on the voices till that day week at 7.80. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir George Grey called upon the Government to postpone the orders of the day, and go on with Mr Rees's motion regarding the Waka Maori, Mr Rees also followed with a similar request. Mr Woolcock here rose and proceeded to move the motion relating to altering the incidence of taxation which he had previously given notice of; he would do so upon the motion for the House going- into Committee of Supply. The hon. member gave tho Premier credit for ingenuity in making out a good easo for himself in his financial arrangements, though he disagreed with much that was there sot out. lie deprecated tho practice of too implicitly following the teachings of political economists, who could know nothing of the different circumstances which were found in new and growing communities. He. had no fear of the Colony ever becoming unable to bear its burdens. All lie argued for was a fairer adjustment of taxation than existed at present. There were 112 landowners who owned not much less than about ten millions worth of land. It was only fiiir they should, pay more towards the revenue than 112 mechanics, yet these landowners were not called upon to pay more than labourers. The practical result of reduc-, ing the Customs duties would be to cheapen the necessaries of life. Poor, men were now taxed 20 per cent, on their sugar, and 30 on their tea. The hon. gentleman then quoted statistics to show that a very large revenue could be derived by taxing the land, and that trade and commerce would be greatly stimulated thereby. On the House resuming after a halfhour's adjournment, and Mr Woolcook's amendment having been put, The Premier said tho Government was placed in a false position by Mr Rees's motion. Though he (Mr Rees) had disclaimed any intention of making it a no confidence motion, yet, that' evening, upon moving to jro into Supply, the hon. gentleman said thatit was practically a motion ot no confidence, and the leader of the Opposition said. "Hear, hear." The Government 'had no objection, and assuming 'that it was a 'no confidence motion, they we're pre-' pared to accept the challenge thrown out, and were anxious the matter should' be sottled there and then. He wished the leader of the Opposition, then, to say what the intention of the motion really was. Mr Stout protested against the Opposition being called upon to define what a want of confidence motion was. The Hon. Mr Whitaker pointed out that the Government were placed in a peculiar position. At first the mover of the motion said it waß not intended as a want of confidence motion, and yet that evening leading members of the Opposition said that all other business should be postponed until the resolution was disposed of. Sir George Grey not -spehkihg, Mr Sheehan said the question was one that should not be discussed at all just 'then. It was "sub judrce, and Was! therefore impi oper to be discussed. The Hon, Mr Reid said that although the moVer protested, when moving his motion, that it was ajsimplequestio'n of justice between man and man, yet that evening the express-ions of the leader of

i the Opposition nnd others of that party, 1 in saying it was a disgrace for the Goj vernment to -proceed with business while that motion remained undisposed of, was a broad challenge to the Go--1 vernment, which they felt bound to accept. Mr Gisborne said he was going to vote against both Mr Rees's resolutions, yet. he wanted to know why the Government asked the mover of the motion whether it was intended as a vote of confidence or not. Why, the terms ot the resolutions spoke for themselves. They were plain and specific, and not to'be mistaken. They were a motion of want of confidence. Mr Thomson followed, referring to the speech of Mr Woolcock on incidence of taxation, but entirely avoided the main question of want of confidence. Mr Bastings continued, and advocated a land tax, and reduction of duties On necessaries. Mr Button advocated a tax on unimproved lands, and repeated the arguments he. used in the same connection during last session. The hon. member would also support an income tax. Mr Fitzroy thought tbe Mouse was wandering from the main question, which he understood to have reference to a vote of want of confidence motion, and was surprised that the leader of the Opposition had'" had slunk out of the House" as if afraid to face the question raised by the Premier. Mr Reader Wood threw the blame upon the Government for raising this discussion; The Hon. Mr M'Lean pointed out that tbe Government had not desired to go out of the ordinary routine of business, but it was perfectly impossible to go on ufter the extraordinary language and allegations of several members of the Opposition. Mr Roes, who followed, in a longspeech, took; occasion to remark that false statements were sent Home by the Government for publication in the London Times. Last year, they said they had a credit balance of L 72,000, and tbis year they said thoy had a balance of L 142,000 to their credit. Both statements were false, and were only made to influence the London money market. The whole thing was a sham, nnd he wondered how members could support such a crooked statement. On the motion ot Mr Brown, of Tua- ; peka, The debate was adjourned till 7.30 on Tuesday.