PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2686, 26 September 1871, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

(t'KOil OU£ o\Vi« COr t KESjVOSJpK«T.) Wellington, .Sept. 26. In the House to-day Mr Stafford stated that the Opposition formed would closely watch the expenditure and Public Works Admiuistx-atiou. Mr Macandrew has given notice to move that all salaries above L4QO per annum bo reduped 25 per cent. Numerously signed petitions from Auckland have been presented against secular education. Mr Filzherbert has given notice to move for leive to bring in a Bill authorising’a loan f PF 1400,000 to the Province of Wellington. Mr Bradshaw gave notice that ho would move on the GoldhehVs Estimates, the pioposed amount for salaries be reduced one half. It is expected that Mr Stafford will violently attack the Government to-day upon

motion of going into Committee of Supply. A semi-political dinner was given last night to Sir D. Munro, when fourteen members attended.

FOREST CULTURE. Mr Hall has introduced into the Legislative . 4 ssembly a bill (which has passed its second reading) for the purpose of subsidising or encouraging the planting of forest trees in the province of Canterbury by the granting of two acres of land for every acre so laid down. Members on all sides of the House spoke in favor of the measure, at the same time suggesting that it should be made a general one. In speaking on the subject, Mr O’Neill advanced some instructive and interesting observations on the conservation of the forest trees of New Zealand and the , means adopted in many countries for the preservation of what tliey justly consider a source of wealth—their timber growth. Some of these countries impose the condition that for every tree cut down another shall be planted, while othe s insist that two shall be substituted for every one felled. He attributed the Hooding of rivers to the destruction of forests, stating that the recent tioods in the Butt river were clearly attributable to this cause. Mr Peacock and Mr Brown, Canterbury members, thought two acres not sufficient return for the expense of planting, the former gentleman proposing that the amount of land given should be four acres instead of two for every one planted. Sir David Monro corroborated the general view as to the value of forest culture, mentioning the fact that there was plenty of country in the Nelson Province absolutely valueless for want of timber. Mr Reeves, in common with others who had spoken, agreed that the adoption of such a measure would be the introduction into the country of a useful institution, though he did not agree with Mr Peacock that the amount of land to be given should be four acres. The Bill itself was a move in the right direction, but the amendment went in the wrong direction. It was the duty of the State to be careful in disposing of free grants; their object should be to give encouragement, not compensation. It would be wrong to compensate what would very likely become a means of private investment. He was strengthened in Ins opinions on the matter by the experience of the neighboring Province of Otago, where they proposed to give the land plmted, and nothing more ; and if that was sufficient inducement in Otago, two for one should be enough in Canterbury. They should also be careful to limit the amount taken up ; it would be desirable, as a safeguard, to limit the amount to two hundred acres. Mr Swanson threw the huniorous even into this matter, by pointing out that the Bill should be amended, because he understood from the reading of the clause as it stood that the planted acre was to be handed over to the Government in exchange for the two improved ones. In that case the gain would be a loss. However, if the Government were to give over the two acres, they ought to Lave something to say as to the kind of trees to he planted. The Hon D. MvLean observed that, according to the way the timber of the Colony was being destroyed, it would leave muph of the fine land of the Colony institute. MARRIED women’s PROPERTY BILL, Mr Pox, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it provided that the rights of a woman, as existing before ber marriage, in reference to certain property, should ho recognised, and also gave her a title to any properly she might acquire in her own right after marriage. The Bill would impose certain obligations of a stringent character on the wife in return for the independent rights which it conferred upon her. It would compel her to supjiort her husband, should he be unable to f upport himself through sickness or any other cause, if she had private estate. It provided that the earnings of marlied women employed in any trade or calling should be their own property, as also deposits in savings banks, which they might have had at the time of their marriage, shares in joint ,stock companies, mutual benefit societies and other institutions of that kind. Of course, if she likes, the wife could hand her property over to her husband at the time of marriage. She was not, however, 1 1 invest money belon. iug to her hus band in the banks or other investments without her lipsbqnd’s permission, bqt qpy money belonging to herself she might invest, and it woufd remain her independent property. There was a provision giving the woman power to maintain ; n action in her own name, and tie next provision was in favor of the husband—that he should not be liable for any debt or contract entered into by his wife before the marriage. Under the existing law, if a man married a woman who was in debt, lie was liable to he arrested for that debt, even in the church, and, instead of spending a happy honeymoon, he nrght be e Tried off fcc prison. The preavnt Bill would relievo him of that liability. That was a considerable privilege in favor of the husband —a quid pro quo for the rights conferred on the wife. There was next a stringent provision that the wife might get rid of liability in respect of her husband ; but under the present Bill she could not, Of course, if a wife was protected in the possession of her own personal pioperty, it was an excellent provision to require her to bear her part in the necessary support of the domestic establishment. If the husband was unable to maintain the children the wife would be obliged to do so if she had the means. Mr Swanson said ;—Under the present law, the husband was liable to all the expenses incurred by his wife for domestic purposes, and for dress, jewellery, ami other personal adornments which she might like to indulge in suited to the station in life her husband occupied ; but he failed to sec that the wife was obliged to keep the husband. The power which now existed had been greatly abused. He knew, for instance, of a case whore the wife was the owner of the land, cattle, and houses, and thq husband carried on the business), rendered the accounts, and leaspd the property in his own name, and obtained credit to any amount; but w.hen payment was sought to be enforced, everything 1 elonged to his wife. He hoped, if the bill was to pass, that they would insist upon the words “limited liability” being stuck upon the door-plates of all those loving couples who carried on business in this way.