PARLIAMENTARY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2291, 5 August 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

r PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.] LE GHSL ATI VE COUNCIL, Thursday, August 4, The Council met at 2 30 p.m. An adverse committee report was received on the Otago University Rsservo Vesting Bill. The Presbyterian Church Trustees Incorporation Bill was read a first time. Notice was given by the Hon. W. Mantbix to appoint a Select Committee to consider steam communication with England. The Hon Dr. Menzies moved the second reading of his Education Act Amendment Bill, The Hon. P. Whitaker moved the previous question, but after a short debate the second reading was carried by IS to 12, the voting being the same as on the recent motion in favor of Bible reading in schools. The debate on the Waitara Harbor Board Loan Bill was resumed, the second reading being carried by 15 to 13. Several members urged that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Lower House committee had reported on the New Plymouth harbor works, and the committal of the Bill was adjourned till Wednesday, The Medical Practitioners Society Bill (Hon. Dr Grace) was read a second time by 20 to 6. Nine other orders of the day were postponed, and the Council rose at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, August 4. The House mot at 2.30 p.m. CHURCH TRUSTEES INCORPORATION BXXX. Mr Stbvenb moved that the report on the Church of England in Now Zealand Trustees Incorporation Bill be adopted. Mr Sheehan and Sir W. Fox opposed the Bill, the latter doing so as, in his opinion, it might eventually lead to a combination between the Church and the State.

Sir G. Grey also opposed the Bill, and suggested that it should he allowed to stand over until the next meeting of the General Synod. Although a private Bill, it was one that affected the whole colony, and that fact not having been generally known, no oppor. tunity was afforded for opposing it, Mr Stewaet supported the Bill, stating that in its present form it related solely to Otago, and it would be unfair to deprive that part of the colony of the facilities it proposed in the Ohuroh dealing with its endowment. If it was desired to inquire into the nature of these endowments, the passing of this Bill would not in any way interfere with such an inquiry. Mr Bryce also opposed the Bill, and suggested that it should be withdrawn in the meantime.

Mr Speight objected to the Bill, inasmuch as it paved the way to a constant interference by Parliament with the Ohuroh. ’Mr Thomson moved—“ That the Bill be remitted back to the committee with instructions to take further evidence.” Mr Sheehan would like to see the Government take the whole question of these endowments in hand, and see to what purpose they had been put. Mr Stevens said that the main object of the Bill was to incorporate the trust with respect to the diocese, and had no bearing whatever on any question of Church and State. He could not undertake to accept the amendment or yet withdraw the Bill, as it simply aimed at making reasonable provision for a very large interest in the colony. Mr Pitt said that the Diocesan Synods of Nelson and Wellington had both met and considered the Bill, and arrived at a conclusion adverse to it. On the original motion being put the House divided—ayee, 25 ; noes, 27. The Bill was ordered to be re-committed. SEOOKD BEADING. Mr Weight moved the second reading of the Hororata Water Baca Bill, which was agreed to. PETITION. The Hon. T. Dice presented a petition from Christchurch in favor of the Gaming and Lotteries Bill. NOTICES OP MOTION. The Hon. T. Dice gave notice that he would ask leave to introduce a Prisons Amendment Bill. Tea notices of intention were given asking leave to introduce Harbor Board Endowment Bills. Mr Finn gave notice that he would ask whether the B.M. and Warden at Kumara did on a recent occasion open his court for the transaction of business between the hours of 10 p.m, and 4 a.m., and whether he did during such hours take the evidence of certain girls between the ages of 11 and 15 years, and also at 3 a.m. issue a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, and if so what action Government intend taking under the circumstances.

QUESTIONS. Beplying to Mr Beeves, The Hon. J. Hall said that he could not fix the exact date on which the Public Works Statement would be brought down, but he expected it would be next week. Beplying to Mr Beeves, The Hon. W. Eollbston said the Police and Armed Constabulary uniforms were made from Colonial manufactured cloth. Tenders were called for the same, and that at present they were paying £3 12s 6d per suit. Beplying to Mr Ballanoe, The Hon. W. Eollbston said that a Bill to regulate the disposal of Native reserves set apart under section 4 of the West Coast Settlement Act, 1880, was in course of preparation. Beplying to Mr J. B. Fisher, The Hon. T. Did said that the suggestion for the appointment of a Justice of the Peace at Charleston, and another at Lyell, would be attended to. Beplying to Mr Weston, The Hon. W. Eollbston said that a Bill was in preparation for dealing with Native reserves generally, under which provision would be found re the management of these reserves at Greymouth. bill passed. The Timaru Mechanics’ Institute Act, 1878, Amendment Bill, passed through committee, was reported without amendment, read a third time, and passed. second beading. Mr Lundon moved the second reading of the Onehunga Grammar School Bill. Mr Swanson objected to the Bill, and moved that it be read that day six month*. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 PENSIONS BILL. Mr Shbimski moved the second reading of the Pensions Bill. He bad no desire to deprive anyone of what was duo to them, but the revelations recently made on this subject compelled him to take the action he had done, with the view of arresting what was rapidly degenerating into an abuse. They had instances of men drawing a pension from the colony, and yet going outside the colony and taking service. If they were able for duty outside the colony, it was absurd to say that they should be allowed to burden the colony for pensions. There was no reason or justice in such an arrangement. He could not understand how civil servants should be provided with pensions, when men in other walks of life had no such provision made. The Bill was not retrospective, it only dealt with the future. Then again the Bill proposed for the future to relieve the Government of granting any pensions and leaving it to the Parliament to say whether or not it was right such a grant should be made. It also debarred persons in receipt of a pension from entering other branches of the Legislature. The Hon. J. Hall took exception to the manner in which the Bill was drawn. Then again, it proposed to interfere with rights which had accrued under statute law. Many persons had served under these conditions, and as such it became a fair contract. The passing of this Bill would be to break that contract. No new rights for pension had arisen since 1871. He agreed that the utmost economy should bo practiced, but at the same time he recognised the importance of keeping good faith. Mr Ballanch agreed that anything m the nature of repudiation should net be entertained. He did not read the Bill as going in that direction. All the difficulty which had arisen in connection with the payment of these pensions had arisen about the basis on which they had been computed. was therefore reasonable that the computation of the pension should be placed before Parliament before it was granted. That was all he understood the Bill aimed at. Ha could not see that the Bill prejudiced the rights of anyone. The proposal to prohibit pensioners sitting in the House was, to his mind, a question for the

constituencies to decide. Looking at the Bill as simply carrying out the principle he had indicated, that the Home should have cognizance of these pensions before being granted he could not see the objection to it. ’ Mr McLean suggested that the "Bill shocld fbe postponed until the report of the public accounts committee had been received. A much more comprehensive measure would then probably be found necessary. Ho suggested that they should provide so that anyone drawing a pension should not be allowed to draw any further public money. It should also be provided that on s man leaving the service and going into business, that should be a final severance, and if he went into the service again the previous term should nob count in estimating the pension. The Bill was defective in that respect. Mr Collins could not accept the explanation ot the Bill given by Mr Baliance. Ho read it in the light of repudiation of all pensions in process of accruing. On that account, he could not vote for it. Sir G. Geey took it that what tie Bill meant was, that before a pension was granted the papers should be placed before Parliament. In the past, pensions had been wrengfully granted. In the past, unlawful arrangements had been entered into between tne Government and officers retiring. No w, if that was the case the House had a right to satisfy itself of the lawfulness of all pensions for the future. The rule in England was that if an officer drew a pension and took service again under the Crown then he drew only one-half the salary accruing to such office. This was the rule he would follow here. He hoped that the Bill with the amendments named would pass into law, Mr HraaTHOtrsE supported the Bill, on the distinct understanding that it did not aim at any breach of existing engagements. _ Mr Bowen said that after the explanations given, and the light thrown on the purpose of the Bill, there could be no serious objection to it. What strnofc him, and he believed also the Premier, was that solemn engagements should not be thrown to the winds. There were one or two amendments that could be made in committee. Mr Sheehan said that the real object was that the House should know of the intention to grant pensions, and the persons therefor. That was both fair and reasonable, as there could be no doubt but that pensions had been unlawfully granted. He went further, and said that the House could review the pensions at present paid. It was a sigmficant fact that the best men in the service were those who had no prospect of a pension, —the men who served under the old provincial system. In private service a man had to make his own provision. Then, again, the civil service was as well paid as any other service, and they had a far surer payment to depend upon. He strongly deprecated this pension system as being whelly uncalled for. He would therefore vote for the Bill, as it went in the direction of curing the evil he had pointed to. Mr Kelly hoped that the Government would bring down a Bill next session dealing with the whole question of their civil service, as it was in a most unsatisfactory state. He agreed with the principle of this Bill, and thought it was bat fair that the question of these pensions should be dealt with in the first instance by the House. Mr Shhphabd also supported the Bill, and spoke in favor of the principles enunciated. Mr Pulton supported the motion, and Mr Bbandon pointed out the confusion which he said existed in every clause of the Bill. Mr J, B. Pishbe thought the House was not likely to refuse any pension that had justly accrued, therefore there could be no harm done by the Bill. Mr Saundbes thought the Bill did not go quite far enough. He was altogether opposed to the granting of pensions at ail. The civil servants should be left to make such provision for themselves. What they wanted was a measure enacting that every pension granted not in strict accordance with law should be abolished, and the recipients should have no claim for compensation. Otherwise, if pensions were to be granted, then he argued that it was absolutely necessary that they should ha fixed on such a footing that they could not be challenged by this House ot Government in any other way. Mr Sheiuski replied to the remarks by the Premier, saying that he had no desire to see any contract repudiated, but at the same time he reminded them that repudiation of this kind had been done in the case of Hoad Boards and other local bodies without any compensation. The motion was carried on the voices, and the Bill read a second time.

Mr Seddon moved the second reading of the O-old Duty Abolition Bill. He contended that the time had arrived when on every principle of justice the mining population of the colony was entitled to relief in thin respect. The tax was a special one, and one which pressed heavily upon the miners. He urged a variety of reasons why the tax should be remitted, and pointed out that most of the local bodies, for whose benefit the tax was believed to be imposed, were willing to have it remitted. They could do better if power was given them to rate mining property. Mr Brown supported the Bill, but thought that, instead of simply reducing the tax Is an ounce, it should be done away with altogether. Mr Beeves agreed that the tax should b« abolished altogether, but the miners had a greater grievance to complain of in the apathy of the Government in regard to prospecting. He insisted strongly on the beneficial results which would accrue to the colony by the judicious employment of a few diamond rock drill machines. Mr Gisborne said that the miners generally desired not the reduction, but the abolition of the tax. It was opposed to the principle of local government to impose this tax, which was utterly indefensible on any ground of principle or policy. In committee ho would move for alterations either for the immediate —at all events ultimata—abolition of the tax.

MrSHEEHAED agreed that no argument had been adduced for the imposition of this tax, which could not be urged in support of a similar export duty on wool and other things. The principle of taxing their exports at all was bad. When the proposition was made in committee to abolish the tax altogether he would support it. Mr Hurst was also in favsr of abolishing the tax altogether. Mr HuesthOUSß said this was no more a tax on local industry than the beer tax was. He would, however, vote for the motion simply because the money realised from the tax was not spent upon the district where the money was raised. Mr J. B. Fishbb suggested that the Bill should be framed so that the districts might adopt it or not. His district, he believed, would not adopt it. He could not congratulate the Government on the policy they had observed in relation to the goldfields. Mr Weston supported the Bill. Mr Sheehan thought it should be left to the local governing bodies to Impose or remit the tax as they thought desirable. The Hon. W. Eollbston would not oppose the motion, but he could foresee very considerable difficulties arising from the loss of a tax that was very easily collected. He supported the proposal of leaving the Bill optional to the districts whether they adopt it or not. He realised and regretted the fact that he had not been able to visit the goldfields of the South. He recognised that the portfolio ought to bo held by a Minister having less to engage his attention. When the session was over re-arrangements would probably be made in that respects Mr Shrimbki announced his intention of supporting the Bill. Mr De Lautoub said he would reserve his remarks on the Bill until it went to the goldfields committee. As it stood he would be disposed to oppose it. Mr Bbid said the matter was considered fully by the goldfields members at the commencement of the session, and this Bill VSI the result of that meeting. He regretted that it did not propose the total abolition of the duty. He would also support the proposed optional clause, as he knew some districts were opposed to the abolition. Mr Speight referred to the diamond drill, which he said had been rendered white elephant in consequence of the tariff adopted. If the matter was properly arranged it would be the pioneer of fresh discoveries. He blamed the Government for tacking on the portfolio of mines to that of lands. He also called upon them to make arrangements for enabling miners to obtain blasting power more easily. Ho would support the motion. .Mr Seddon said that he had not gone in for the total abolition of the tax, because he knew that there were County Councils that had borrowed money on the security of this tax. He was willing to adopt the optional proposal, and hoped the Govornmtnt would take the Bill up.

The motion was carried and the Bill read a second time and referred to the goldfields committee. ADOPTION OP CHIXDBBN Bill.. Mr ToiiE moved the second reading of the Adoption of Children Bill. He said it had originated in the other Chamber, and had been adopted without a division. Its aim aim was that the designs of the benevolent might find wide scope and give the same the security o? the law. Mr Stew apt said that the principle of the Bill was one he had been maturing for some time past. In the Bill before them, however, there were certain eafegnards wanting. The child might suffer by the mode of adoption proposed. The Bill provided that when it was adopted it became the legitimate child of the adopter. that case—if, say, its uncle were to die leaving an estate, then the child’s interests would suffer by the adoption. Ho would be disposed to have some nrovision made to protect its interest in that direction. It should also bo a provision that the child was without support ■when adopted. Then, again, the proposed restriction against the adopted child and a child of the adopter intermarrying should not be given effect to. The original name of the child also should be retained as a portion of its name. He objected to matters of this kind being left to the jurisdiction of Resident Magistrates. It was necessary that great caution should be exercised in matters of this kind.

Mr Bowen agreed in the opinion that the measure was likely to jbe a useful one, and one which would require to be given effect to with great care. In that case it might be as well to send it in the first instance to a Select Committee. He argued that the rule followed in America was the one beat suited for their guidance. What they had to guard against was to protect persons who had adopted children and educated them from being called upon by the parent to give up the children. He thonght a register of the transactions should bo kept by the Registrar of Births. He meant by that a register apart altogether from that of the Court. Ho could see no reason why a widow or widower should be restricted from adopting children as proposed by the BUI. Mr Shbphabd thought that they should pause before endorsing the principle of the BUi, and in criticising it pointed out a number of defects. There were absolutely no safeguards provided for the ohUdren, and a system of white slavery might be established under it. He moved that the debate be adjourned till that day week. The amendment was not seconded, and the motion was put and carried and the Bill read a second time. GISBOENB HABBOB BILL. Mr MoDonaxs moved the second reading of the Gisborne Harbor Boatd BUI. He explained that the endowment asked for was 41,000 acres of land, upon the security of which they proposed to raise a sum of £70,000 for the erection of a wharf. The land had only cost the Government £10,600. Mr Hubsthopse objected to the principle of endowing Harbor Boards with the colonial estate. If this BUI passed, at least thirty or forty Bills of a similar nature would be put forward, which they could scarcely refuse. The Hon. W. Boxxeston said that there was no doubt but that their time would be taken up with a great many of these Bills, If they did not strangle them here they would be strangled in another plaoe. The fact was that there were proposals to take every acre of really good avaUable land from settlement and appropriate it for local purposes. The Government was about to open up the very block here proposed to be taken. He blamed Mr McDonald for neglecting the interests of his district.

Mr Tpbnbpxx spoke in support of the Bill, contending that the improvement of these harbors tended to increase the value of the district, and its territorial estate. The true principle of taxation was to raise it from the land, and the object aimed at by this Bill was entirely an ondorsation of that principle. Mr Db Laptops strongly resented the Hon. W. Bolleston’s attack on Mr McDonald, which was evidently intended in view of the elections to prejudice his constituents against him, because he was too independent to beg and too honest to enter into unholy compact*. Mr Stewart spoke in favor of the Bill. It was necessary that the colony should progress, and he recognised in Bills of this kind a step in that direction.

Mr Kblxy recognised that the district had not received much benefit from the public works expenditure, and he thought that the concession sought for by the Bill might very reasonably be given. Mr Macandbbw looked upon the East Coast as having been neglected, and he thought the endowment asked might very properly be given. The Hon. J. Haxx said he would vote for the second reading, aa be thought it was very desirable that this harbor should be improved, and a good use could be made of the foreshore. He would not vote, however, for the landed endowment.

Mr Pitt would vote for the second reading, but he would oppose the borrowing powers sought fer. Mr Montgomhby thought it was better to appropriate the lands rather than vote large sums for such works.

Mr MoLeak denounced the practice of party tactics being imported into these Bills. They should take each Bill on its own merits. Mr Babbok spoke in support of the Bill. Mr Mubeat also spoke in support of the motion, estimating the value of the landed endowment at from £4 to £5. The motion was carried and the Bill read a second time. The House rose at 15 a.m.