GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 970, 4 August 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[BY TELEGRAM. TER PRESS AGENCY.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, August 3. Petitions wore laid on the table by Major Richmond (from Mr Cross, pilot at Nelson, relative to .his retiring on a pension), and by Captain Eaillie (from residents in the Eangitikti district, as to tlic reading of tlio Bible in public schools. In reply to Mr Hall, l)r Pom-en said the Government could not possibly bring in this session a Pill consolidating the law relating to Road Boards. The other business was of little interest. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, AuatrsT k There was no business last night. To-day the House met at 2.30 p.m. NOTICES. Mr Suaki- gave notice to move that the resolution of last session regarding free passes on railways be rescinded. NATIVE LANDS BILL. Mr WIUTAKEit announced that the second reading of the Native Lands Pill would be made an order of the day for Tuesday. TItE AO-EXT-GENERAL. In reply to Mr Macandrew's question as to whether the colony was about to lose the services of Sir J. Vogel, the Premier said that when the vote for the Agent-General's services came on he would be prepared to state what were the intentions of Government in the matter. So far Sir Julius Vogel had afforded every satisfaction to the Government in discharging the duties of Agent-General. TILE lIABBIT NUISANCE. j)r. Hodgkinson asked the Government whether they intended to protect the public estate in Southland and other parts of the colony against the devastation of rabbits. The Premier said they were in communication with the pastoral tenants to see what could be done in the matter. road works. la reply to Mr Travel's as to whether the Government proposed to appropriate funds for a road connecting Palmcraton North with land south of the Manawatu river, Air OltiiQND said Government hoped to be able

to propose an appropriation for works of the kind referred to, because that was only one of many of the same kind in the colony. NEW BILLS. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time :-—Port Chalmers Waterworks Bill (Reynolds), Public Recreation Grounds and Reserves Bill (Sheehan), Invcrcargill Gas Works Borrowing Bill (Luuisden), New River Harbor Board Vesting Bill (Lumsdcn). impounding BILL. Mr Reid moved the second reading of the Impounding Bill, which, he said, was more of a declaratory nature than any alteration of the existing law. Sir R. Douglas and Mr Stafford suggested that the Bill and all of a kindred nature, should be referred to a Select Committee. The 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 bo referred to a commission of inquiry, and dealt with this and other cognate Bills next session. Mr Gisborne pointed out that the most proper course under ths circumstances would bo to pass a short Empowering Bill, instead ot ! dealing with this voluminous and not luminous mass of legislation. Mr Wason said a commission would cause great inconvenience to the country if set to inquire into that 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 ITursthopse considered the Bill one of the best fruits of abolition, because, as if was, it was impossible if one moved about, to fell under which Impounding or Fencing Bill they were. The Bill was really of the greatest importance to the country districts. Mr Roave saw no necessity for legislating on this matter. The existing legislation was good enough. Besides no reason was shown by the mover for making any change. Mr Stout pointed out certain defects in the drafting of the Bill, and certain important oversights. Mr Woolcock thought Government was undertaking too much. These were matters which ought to be left to local bodies, who could deal with them best by bye-laws. Mr Reid, in reply, said the necessity for the Bill was self-apparent. There were ten different fencing laws in the colony, and great confusion was the consequence, and he thought that those who were loudest in now condemning the Bill would be the very 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 a Select Committee. FENCING BILL. 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 Delatour objected to the principles of the Bill altogether, and moved an amendment in effect that it is not desirable to create a j fencing law for the whole colony, the interests of different parts not being identical, and that local bodies in the different districts should have power to regulate fencing, and that where no fencing laws existed, owners of stock shall keep them on their own land at their own risk and expense. ■ Mr Sei'MOUR, in speaking to the Bill, said that he considered fencing laws most important to the colony. In travelling through America he saw immense tracts unfenced, and the few horses and cows he saw were tethered, and, upon inquiry into the cause of this, he was informed it was the result of fencing laws which did not compel anyone to fence. It was different where fencing was enforced. Mr Swanson opposed the Bill. Some of its provisions were calculated to ruin many people. The law ought to be to make people Avho desired to keep cattle to keep them on their own land, cither by enclosing or tethering them. Why should a, man who cultivated (lax have to fence his land to prevent his neighbour's cattle from trampling it down ? Let those put up fences who want them. | Mr Brown (Ashley) would support the j Bill, on account of clause 3, which repealed all fencing laws passed previously. People ought to be compelled to keep their stock on owners' ground. One fault of the Bill was perpetuating the obnoxious regulation of the old provincial laws of Canterbury, under which a Crown tenant could give notice to a freehold tenant to fence, while the freeholder could not notify the Crown tenant. Captain Russell supported the second reading, though he agreed with much that had fallen from Mr Delatour. Sir R. Douglas said the proper thing to be done would be to empower one neighbour to call upon another to fence, and that what- i ever kind of fence they decided upon should j be considered a sufficient fence. j The hour of adjournment interrupted the tlebate. {