PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2672, 9 September 1871, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

baker’s and millers bill. On the second reading of the Bill, of which this is the short title, in the Legislative Council, the Minister of Justice explained that the object of the Bill, based upon an Imperial Act, was to provide for the sale of bread by weight, and to prevent the adulteration of bread and flour. A measure of the same kind had been introduced on a former occasion, but it contained some provisions which were not acceptable, and it was dropped. The Hon. -Mr Waterhouse found three objections to the Bill. The first was that, although it was a measure supposed to bo of general application, it was to bo locajly applied. The second objectionable feature was the provision that no bread should be sold in a slipp unless it was first weighted. This provision was a dop,d letter i elsewhere, and would Vie a dead letter here. ' In the tenth and eleventh clauses there was also an interference with trade by limiting j the manufacture of bread to wheaten Hour, I whereas it was w.oll known that in general j or domestic baking, potatoes were a frequent ingredient of broad. The Hj?n, Mr Holies thought that, if thpjrc yripi tp he strict supervision, it should bo extended wheat as well as to Hour, The question was apt sp much as to the particular kind of grain used ns to the quality of the grain. Last season hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat had been kiln-dried and shipped from one part of the colony to another—wheat which never could be manufactured into good flour. The subject was altogether a difficult one to legislate upon, and he feared any Bill would interfere with the free action of trade, and with that in regard to which the public might pride itself. The Hon, Mr Paterson said a similar measure, passed by the Otago Council, had remained a dead letter, and he believed this, if passed, would only encumber the statute book. The Hon. Colonel Brett supported the measure as one which was wise and necessary, as a check upon urn

fair trading and adulteration. The Hon.JMr Sowell replied to several of the points raised by hon, members, but reserved discussion of clauses until the House went into committee, and the Bill was then read a second time. THE CONTRACTORS DEBT BILL. On the moving the second reading of this bill in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr Sewell explained that, substantially, it was taken from the measures iu force in Tasmania and Victoria. Any persons getting judgment against a contractor for his wages’ and, upon a certificate from the Court, giving notice to any person due money to the contractor would have the effect of retaining the money in the hands of the person by whom it was due. With regard to sub-contractors, they would deal with that question when in committee. r Jhe Hon. Mr Waterhouse questioned whether the Bill attained for the workman all it intended. If it did, it did so at the cost of injustice to other parties. The bill asked power to attach moneys in the hands of the contractor iu behalf of the workman, and it would be the natural expectation of the workman that the money so owing to him would eventually be paid. But the bill scarcely expressed whether all the moneys due were to be so held, or only the balance of the moneys. There might be other lie ns on the wogk besides the wages of workmen. Were wages to take precedence of all these liens, or were they to follow the liens ? They should be also very careful as to how ilny indue id workmen to neglect due precautions to protect thdr own interest, Workmen should not be allowed to give unlimited credit to their employers, and then to have an unduo preference. His preference should, at most, not extend over three months. Tho Hon. Mr Holmes said that in other colonies the time was limited to two months, but he thought that, in the case of ordinary workmen, the time should not extend beyond a month. As to the Act generally, he feared that numerous complications would arise under it, both as to subcontractors and as to liens, especially when they lo jked forward to the great number of contracts which they might expect to see carried out under the Public Works Act. The Hon. Mr Sewell, iu rep'y, said it was light that there should be some limitation of time. In case of bankruptcy, the time for preferential claims was limited to two mouths, and it might be well to adopt that limit. There was no doubt that the whole subject was one of considerable delicacy, and one upon which Ja good deal might be said from different points of |view. He thought the bill would have the effect of protecting assignments. Against any such transactions this equitable lien of the workman would not |take effect. Ho entirely agreed with the principle that no lien of a workman should have any operation against any security which might exist between a contractor and another. When in committee he would probably introduce some alteration as to sub contractors. The bill was the read a second time.