GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 653, 22 July 1876, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(Per Press Agency .)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Thursday, July 20. The House met at 2.30. , notices.

Mr Kennedy gave notice that he would move for a subsidy of not more than £BOO per year to a tug-boat to take vessels in and out of Greymoutb, the Local Board contributing one-third of the subsidy.

Rees 2»ve notice that he would move for a Select Committee to enquire into complaints of Mr Farnell, late immigration agent in Ireland. The Premier* proposed that the House on its rising at 5.30 should adjourn till next day. Government had been given to understand that such would be agreeable to the House. Mr Stout opposed the adjournment. The motion was agreed to on the voices. QUESTIONS.

Mr Eolleston asked whether he could have a return prepared showing, approximately, the extent of borrowing powers authorised by Acts of the General Assembly to be exercised by Municipalities, Harbor Boards, River Boards, Drainage Boards, or other public bodies, and the extent to which such power has been exercised. The Premier said the return could be prepared, but whether it could be this session was another matter, inasmuch as it would involve a reference probably to most of the local bodies, but if the hon member would give notice of motion for the return he would instruct the Treasury officers to prepare it as rapidly as was consistent with due attention to their ordinary official duties.

Mr Stout asked—(l) If all correspondence between the Government and persons in Otago in reference to applications of Messrs Neill, Sherman, and others for land had been laid before the House. (2) If not, is the correspondence not before the House of unofficial character ?

Hon Major Atkinson said the whole of the official correspondence had been laid upon the table. Government had communications from many persons down there ; but as their telegrams were of an unofficial nature they were not produced. Mr Murray moved that there be laid before the House a return showing the expenditure out of loan and revenue from 30th June, 1872, for native defence purposes, in continuation of return prepared to that date.”

The motion was agreed to. Mr Murray moved—" That there be laid before the House a return showing what salaried officers of the General Government arc permitted to receive remuneration for services outside of their service to the General Government, the amount of such remuneration, and nature of such services.”

Tha Premier deprecated making such motions without a word of explanation. To carry out the object of the resolution as set forth, would be quite impossible without an Act of Parliament to enable them to investigate private affairs of those entitled to accept employment outside of the Government service. The bon gentleman proceeded to enumerate the different classes of General Government officers to whom the resolution applied, such as registrars of births, deaths, and marriages all over the colony, revising officers, country postmasters, vaccinators, clerks who rendered outside assistance to friendly societies, the Solicitor-General (though he was quite certain on that point), clerks of petty sessions engaged in business,

signalmen stationed on the coast, and harbor masters. Such a return would be enormously bulky, and impossible to supply. So far as it was obtainable within reasonable limits they would do so. Sir G. Grey said if the system of government were conducted upon the ordinary plan adopted in civilized countries, there ought to be no difficulty in supplying the desired inormation. On the motion of Mr Macandrew the motion was amended, so as to include only officers receiving salaries above £260 per annum.

Mr Thomson moved that the following words be struck out, “amount of such remuneration and nature of such services,” and said the Premier ought to have known what was really intended by the motion without dragging in country postmasters and registrars. Mr Murray also made similar observations, and said there were high officers in the Government service, who by outside work made as much as their ordinary salary, and often neglected their departments in attending to outside work. On the motion of Mr Hodgkinbon it was agreed to appoint a Select Committee to enquire into the rabbit nuisance. Mr Stevens moved for a return showing the contributions to the consolidated revenue by each province during the financial year ending 30th June, 1876. Agreed to. Mr Wakefield moved that the Speaker be invited to communicate the desire of the House to Sir David Monro and Sir Francis Dillon Bell, former Speakers of the House, that portraits of those gentlemen shall be placed in the precincts of the House side by side with that of Sir Charles Clifford, first Speaker of the House. Mr J. 0. Brown had no objection, provided the House was not asked to pay the expenses. [Laughter. 1 Hon C. C. Bowen doubted whether it would be a compliment to ask those gentlemen to go to the expense of procuring their portraits to adorn the Chamber of the House, because that would probably involve a journey to England. Mr Wakefield said he was grieved that the House should have received his motion in that way. He confessed he felt somewhat humiliated—[laughter]—by the manner in which the proposal was received, and he did not exempt the Government, I Laughter.] He certainly would never have brought the motion forward had he thought it would been received in such a manner. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON LOCAL OPTION LICENSING BILL. Mr Joyce said his experience had impressed him with the belief that prohibition had been a failure. It had been said that if out people did not drink they could pay ofl half the debt, but it appeared to hiM that much more than half the interest on our debt had been paid by means of duty upon intoxicating liquors, and as far as he could see that had to be looked forward to for all time as a means from which the colonywas, in a great measure, to drawjthe sinews of war for carrying on the public service. Great objection was taken to what was called the vested interest of publicans. Well, he would recommend one mode of getting rid of that, let them adopt the system of painless extinction, by gradually reducing the duties on spirits. They who opposed this had been told of the dreadful evils resulting from free trade in liquor, and Liverpool was instanced as a dreadful example, but perhaps the principle had not been tried long enough. Free trade in liquor was practised in France, without any evil result, and even English navvies who were sent over there drank with moderation after their first “ burst.” Mr ROWE supported the Bill. It was a mistake to call it prohibition. It was merely placing in the hands of the people a power that they had in many directions, and ought to have in this. He knew the benefits of such a measure, as he had lived for seven years in a place where no liquor was; no justice of the peace ; and they never needed one. [ln reply to a question, the hon member stated the place was Kawau, where between 300 and 400 men lived.] Mr HARPER opposed the second reading of the Bill, which would only introduce an expensive piece of machinery that would be productive of no good whatever. When notice would be given that an election was to take place respecting a house applying for a license, the publican would exert his utmost influence to secure the support of those whom he could prevail upon to vote for him, and to prevent those from voting who might be opposed to granting him a license. Mr Hodgkinbon supported the Bill. There were features connected with the liquor traffic which were anything but creditable to the colony, and every means should be taken to lessen the great and growing vice of intemperance. Mr Mandees opposed the Bill. The liquor laws required consolidation more than extension.

Mr Bryce opposed the Bill, but from very different reasons to the member for The arguments that people should be trusted with this power as in other matters was not a fair argument, the cases were not analogous. He had no objection to see people trusted in this as in other matters, by placing the control of the question in the hands of a board, that would be an analogous case. Mr Stout replied saying that the great argument why the Bill should pass, was the enormous amount of money spent on liquor in the colony, an amount not less than two millions annually. The money spent in liquor did no good to anybody, and if it were saved we need have little cause to borrow. It had .been said that England drank herself out of debt when the revenue from liquor became very large, but if England’s working men had saved that money instead of drinking, would the country not have been better as well as richer. It was a great mistake to suppose the duties collected on liquor did the country any good. Take away from it the cost of gaols, hospitals, and lunatic asylums, the largest proportion of which could fairly be put down to liquor, and there would be little if any margin left. The hou gentleman then quoted from published reports from Canada, the United States, and England, as to the working of prohibitive laws and the great benefits flowing from those laws by their tendency to diminish the consumption of spirits. It had been said that as the race was gradually becoming more enlightened and civilised, there was less occasion for such a law; but it might as well be said that because murder and other .crimes were gradually becoming rarer, we therefore need not iuvoke aid of repressive legislation. He did not claim that the Bill was more than a step in the right direction, and that it would have a tendency

to lessen the drinking habits of the people. The question was not one they should look at standing with folded arms while they saw the people becoming more degraded. There were noble cultivated men in the colony who, through being given up to the demon drink, were a curse to themselves, to their friends, and the colony. If the Bill could only be the means of rescuing twenty or thirty of these men, it would have done some good. Whether the Bill was read a second time or not the question was one that would assert and reassert its claim to public attention. It must go on, it would go on, until it was eventually grappled with, The House divided, and the second reading of the Bill was carried by 38 against 28. The Bill read a second time, and its committal fixed for that day week. AUCKLAND INSTITUTE. The Auckland Institute Bill was read a second time. EDUCATIONAL RESERVES, In committee on the Canterbury Educational Reserves Sale Bill, clause 8 (college may invest monies received") was amended so as to make it compulsory for the college to invest the monies arising from sales of lands. A new clause was introduced providing that the Act should come into operation on the 2nd of October, 1876. Before reading the Bill a third time, Mr Stout expressed his regret that the fourth clause should be passed in the form it was by making the College lands subject to the waste lands regulations of Canterbury. Mr Eolleston, while agreeing with hon gentleman in principle, said that in this particular case it would be a breach of agreement not to deal with these lands as was set forth in the Act. The hon gentleman then read the resolution of the Provincial Council which explained his statement. The Bill then passed. PORT CHALMERS. Mr Macandrew read a telegram from Dunedin stating that the Taupo had gone up to the Rattray street wharf, drawing 12ft 6in, and that she passed Macandrew’s Corner without stopping way or stirring up mud. The remaining business was postponed, and the House adjourned, Friday, July 21. The House met at 2.30. PUBLIC WORKS BILL. Hon B. Richardson gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he would ask leave to introduce a Public Works Bill for 1876. AGENT-GENERAL. Mr Murray asked if the Government would consult the House before they appointed an Agent-General. The Premier said that at present nothing had been said upon the subject, The Cabinet had not even discussed the question, and nothing was decided. As soon as they decided upon anything the House would be informed. ROADS NORTH OF AUCKLAND, Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Public Works what action has been taken during the recess for the purpose of providing further road accommodation north of Auckland. Hon E. Richardson said that, as he would make his statement at the beginning of next week, he would take that opportunity of affording all possible information on the question. RATING BILL, The House went into committee on the Rating Bill. Clause 40, defining rateable property, was postponed at the request of the Premier. On clause 41, defining the form of rate, Mr Hodgkinson moved an amendment that the following words be added, “ or an acreage rate not exceeding one penny per acre on crown lands leased, or licensed, or threepence on all other lands.” The amendment was negatived, and the clause agreed to. Clause 43 was amended, so as to give the ratepayer twelve days’ notice of the time when the rate-book is open for inspection. Clause 44 (rate book to be signed by three members) was amended, by giving the local bodies power to fix the time and hour for inspection. Clauses 45, 46 and 47 were passed unanimously. Clause 48 (occupier to pay only for the time he occupies). Mr Whitaker moved that the clause be struck out. The clause was omitted.

Clause 49 (repealing Acts for the recovery of rates). On the motion of Mr Whitaker the following words were inserted at the beginning of the clause — “ except as hereinbefore provided by section 38.”

Clauses 51 and 52 were passed; Clause 53 (rates recoverable as a debt after fourteen days) was passed unaltered. After some discussion, clauses 61 and 65 passed. Clause 56 (owner is liable after three months) was amended by the Premier, so as to guard against the owner being sued for an accumulation of rates, by compelling the Board to sue for rates before the expiration of six months.

Clauses 67 ;to 62, inclusive, passed un» amended. Clause 63—(Property may be notified for sale after six months notice) was made to read “twelve months.”

Clause 64—(Property may be sold after six months.) A good deal of discussion ensued on the question of absenteeism. It was argued that it would be monstrous tyranny to sell a person’s land without his knowledge. In answer to that, it was urged that the State must not suffer for them ; if they did not choose to look after their land they ought to have a representative. Absentees deserved no sympathy whatever. The House rose at 5.30 p.m.

The House resumed in committee at 7.30 on the Eating Bill. Clause (54 was amended, so as to allow the local body to sell part or the whole of the property of absentees for rates unpaid. The Auckland members supported the clause strongly, but there was some opposition from the Canterbury and Otago members.

The majority of the other clauses passed without material alteration. Several clauses, however, were postponed until the -recommittal of the Bill.

The Stamp Act Amendment Bill was read a second time.

Mr Bowen moved the second reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, and explained that the Bill was introduced solely in compliance with the wishes of the Friendly Societies themselves, and that it had been framed upon the English Act of 1875, which had been drawn up in accordance with the decisions arrived at by a Royal Commission appointed by the Imperial Parliament in

1874. While they were prepared to concede as much as possible to the wishes of the Friendly Societies of the colony, they were reluctant to depart to any great length from the conclusions arrived at by the Imperia l Parliament, who had given the greatest attention to the question. It was urged that the Bill would create a new department in the Government, but the fact was the Government did not wish to create any fresh department, as they calculated upon the necessary work of registering and auditing being done in the law offices of the Government, He pointed out also that it was for the interests of the societies that they should be under the supervision of the Government; in fact, the most influential societies who had suffered from reckless competition were those who were most desirous that they should be subject to Government interference. A good deal of discussion ensued, but while all agreed that the Bill was a good one in the main, and very carefully drawn up, it would be more consistent with the interests of societies if the Bill were not advanced to a further stage without sufficient delay being given to allow the delegates of Friendly Societies and others interested in the question to consult as to the amendments.

Hon C. C. Bowen said the Government had no wish to unduly hurry the Bill.

After it was read a second time its committal was postponed till Friday next. The House went into committee on the Municipal Corporation Bill. A great deal of discussion ensued on the clauses regulating the number of votes to be allowed to burgesses, opinion being divided as to whether burgesses should have plurality of votes or merely single votes for each ward. Ultimately progress was reported without any decision being arrived at. In the course of the debate the Government announced that as regarded the election of Mayor, they intended the burgesses to have but one vote. The House adjourned at 12,40.

PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

(j From a corespondent of the Press,')

Wellington, July 21

Mr Stout’s Local Option Bill would not, it is said, have passed had the publicans been quiet. The bounceable way in which they talked at their meeting in Dunedin made many vote for the second reading in order to show them that they cannot influence political action. Some also, for same reason, abstained from voting. The voting on the Bill was :—Ayes—Messrs Atkinson, Baigent, Barff, Brown J. E., Brown J. C,, Burns, Button, Carrington, Cox, De Lautour, Sir R. Douglas, Messrs Gibbs, Hamlin, Hislop, Hodgkicson, Hunter, Hursthouse, Joyce, Kelly, Lusk, Macfarlane, McLean G., Murray, Ormond, Bead, Rees, Reid, Rowe, Russell, Seaton, Shrimski, Sheehan, Stout, Swanson, Tawiti, Wakefield, Williams, Woolcock, Noes—Messrs Ballance, Bowen, Brandon, Bryce, Curtis, Fisher, Fitzroy, Harper, Henry, Johnston, Kennedy, Kenny, Manders, Aynsley, O’Rorke, Reynolds, Richardson, Richmond, Rolleston, Seymour, Sharp, Stevens, Teschmaker, Tole, Wason, Whitaker, Wood, R,, Wood, W. The Government originally intended to propose a vote of £SOOO for Dr Featherston’s family, but they were informed that any such vote would be most strongly opposed, and if carried at all would only be so by a small majority, and after an unpleasant debate. It was only after some negotiation that it was arranged that the vote for three thousand pounds, being the ordinary allowance of two years’ salary, should be allowed to pass unopposed. There is therefore no probability of any further vote for this object being asked for. A meeting of the Otago members of the Opposition was held te-day. The usual seventeen were present. The committee reported the result of their conference with the Auckland committee, and certain draft proposals in favor of financial separation fully agreed on, were submitted to the meeting. After some discussion, it was resolved to leave the matter in the hands of the committee, with full power to act, the meeting having full confidence in the committee. It is understood that, to-morrow, the Otago and Auckland committees meet the Canterbury committee.