PARLIAMENTARY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3181, 8 September 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday. The Hcmse re-assembled afc 2.30. QUESTIONS.

Replying to questions it was stated that a revised scale of fees for Resident Magistrates' Courts was under consideration, and would shortly be produced ; the Government had private, but not official, information of the misconduct of a person in Otago appointed to the mastership of a Government school, who had on account of intemperance and gros9 neglect of duty been removed from one school and appointed to another —the case was one for tho Education 1 Board to deal with ; Ministers would inquire into tho case of a medical man in the Wairarapa, against whom a verdict of manslaughter was returned by a coroner's jury, but who was afterwards acquitted by the Resident Magistrate, and if grounds were shown a fresh trial would be ordered ; Ministers had not yet decided the form in which the sum of £10,000 on the estimates for Volunteering purposes should be distributed— whether by capitation grant or allowance for clothing. BILLS. A bill for further extending and securing the liberty of the Press was introduced by Mr Sheehan, and read a second time ; the Crown Suits and Parliamentary Privileges Bills passed through committee, the former being read a third time and passed. TIRED OP WELLINGTON , . Mr Moss desired to know the order _of business for the rest of the session, adding that in view of the unsatisfactory relations existing between the Chair and a number of members they wished the estimates to be passed at once, and leave important bills to be dealt with by another Parliament. Mr Hall said that the business would be arranged in order to push it through with all despatch, consistent with the duty they owed the country. He reprobated the imputation cast upon the conduct of the Speaker. POST-OPFIOE BILL. The Post-office Bill passed through committee and was reported. The House adjourned at 5.30, and resumed at 7.30. THIBB READINGS. The Post Office Bill and the Timaru Harbor Board. Act Amendment Bill were read a third time and passed. TARAKAKI HARBOR WORKS. On the order for the second reading of the New Plymouth Harbor Works Commission Bill. Mr Kelly raised several points of order with the view of getting rid of the bill, but was over-ruled. Mr Hall moved the second reading, saying the bill was drawn in terms o£ the compromise arrived at when the report of the committee was before the House. Two of the Commissioners would be Mr Stevens, the member for Christchutch, and Captain Russell, the member for Napier. The third would be a professional man not yet decided on. Personally he would have liked to have given the Commi&ion power to decide finally on the works. Mr Wakefield thought the endowment of 25 per cent, of the land fund was the only possible justification the House had for interfering as proposed with a local body. Mr Hurst pointed out that, in taking charge of these works, the colony was really guaranteeing the bondholders, and establishing a most dangerous precedent in regard to other local loans.

Mr Stewart pointed out, if the works were stopped, that no rates could ever be levied. Major Atkinson, as Colonial Treasurer, said if the colony took the matter over, it was bound to lose from £ 17,000 to £22,000. As a Taranaki member he contended that the proposal was unjust and improper. The people there were willing to rate themselves. The area was large and valuable enough to guarantee all interest, and those who would derive benefit from the works were even willing that those parts of the district not so immediately benefited should be exempt from the rating. Mr Blackett's leport showed that the works could bo completed for the sum of £36,000 more than the board had in hand, tut the committee had suppressed this fact.

Mr Kelly spoke strongly in support of the works, and so did Sir George Grey. Mr Wright defended the committee's report, and said he attached very little weight to Mr Blackett's calculations.

Mr Kichardson expressed full faith in Mr Blackett. Messrs Ballance and Moss expressed disapproval of the bill altogether. Mr Saunders also opposed it, because ho was sure the Government were not in earnest, that the whole tiling was a sham, and that the wasteful expenditure was to go on. Messrs Pitt, Tawhai, Hursthouse, Fulton, Weston, McCaughan, Montgomery, and others, also spoke. With the exception of Mr Pitt and Mr McCaughan nearly all the epeakers expressed opinions in favour of giving the Commission power to decide finally on stopping or carrying on the works without further reference to Parliament. The bill was read a second time. The House rose at 1.5. Thursday. The House met at 11 a.m. PEOTECTION OF DEBTOBS BUI/. Sir George Grey moved the second reading of the Protection of Debtors Bill. It was intended to render property to the extent of £50 exempt from seizure for debt, rent, or any other cause, and to allow bankrupts to retain property to the same amount. Mr Hall said it was too late in the session to properly consider so important a subject. He objected to the first clause, as it would prevent seizure of goods even for a penalty unless the person had upwards of £50 worth. Sir W. Fox objected to the third clause, which would render landlords a prey to unscrupulous tenants. He suggested the postponement of the bill until next session, promising to give the subject full consideration during the recess. Mr Weston contended that clause 4 was absolutely prohibitory, and would prevent any one from effecting a mortgage. He took exception to the clause, which he contended wae unworkable. He concurred in the opinion that the bill should remain over, as it was most unlikely they could do the • subject substantial justice this session.

Mr Shepherd held that there was another principle in the bill. Its .eflect would be to put an end to credit among the humble classes, and in case of • rents they would either have to pay in advance, or else the tenant would be bound to give good and substantial security. In contradistinction to many adverse opinions expressed on the subject, he conceived that this would involve eorisiderable hardships* Hβ acquiesced in the second reading, but advocated the pi*oprioty of allowing the bill to stand over at that stage at least for the present. Mr Andrews spoke in favor of the bill, contending that the existing usuage was to bring the poor into a hopeless state of poverty. The step was in a right direction, although he was not quifce sure the amount £50 was a correct one. He suggested it would be better to reduce the amount to £20. Mr Shrimski spoke on behalf of the poor and unfortunate landlords. The bill as it stood opened the door to dishonesty, and its tender mercies were to make the landlord harsh and uncompromising. As the law stood they did not hear of so much abuse practised by the landlord to warrant this extreme step. Mr Swanson thought the bill a far reaching one. So far as he could judge the bill was one that would prevent poor enterprising people from raising money sufficient to give them perhaps a start in life. Mr Seddon supported the bill as a step in the direction af abolishing legal recourse for recovery of debt altogether, a consummation he considered devoutly to be desired. Mr Pitt spoke of the distress for rent as a remnant of the dark ages, and as suoh he desired to see it swept away. Sir George Grey replied that rich persons were enabled to make settlements upon their wives and children, and that scoured the effects from debt. This bill proposed to make a similar settlement for the wives and families of the poor. The House divided: Ayes, 23 ; Noes, 35. LEGAL ADVOCATE BIEL. Sir George Grey moved the second reading of-the Legal Advocate Bill. Mr Weston opposed the motion. The Bench ought by rights to be supplied from the Bar, although he was sorry to say that in New Zealand that course had not been followed in certain courts. He hoped it would never be extended to the Supreme Courts. In that case it was necessary to protect the Bai\ both as regards legal and general knowledge. Sir W. Fox insisted that the bill was simply a reproduction of the bill which had been already rejected, if anything in a more objectionable form. He moved that it be read that day six months. The divided on the question that the words "be now read " stand as printed : Ayes, 19 ; Noes, 18. On the question that the bill be read a seoond time the House again divided i Ayes, 19 j Noes, 18.

Tbe House adjourned at 11.20.