GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2550, 10 June 1882, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM,] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, Jtjnb 9. WESTPORT HARBOR. The Legislative Council sat only halt an hour, there being no business other than the Hon. Mr Holmes’ motion —“That the Government should take steps to improve the Westport harbor.” The Hon. Mr Robinson and the Hon. Mr Phabazyn having spoken against the motion, it was shelved, by the previous question being carried. The Council rose at 3 p.m. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, June 9, The House met at 2.30 p.m. petition. Mr Macandeew presented a petition from the deferred payment settlers in Otago, praying for the redress of certain grievances and relief. They stated that this was the advance guard of a host of similar petitions en route to Parliament. QUESTIONS. Replying to Mr Tawhai, The Hon. Mr Eollbston said a Bill would be introduced removing restrictions from the sale of school reserves in the town of Hokianga. Replying to Mr To Wheoro, The Hon. Mr Bryce said a measure to extend the operations of the Waikato Confiscated Land Act for two years, with reference to the applications of the Hapukus for land in the confiscated territory, would be introduced. Replying to Mr Te Wheoro, The Hon. Mr Dick said that the County Councils had power to sue the Maoris for rates on Crown-granted lands, under clause 58 of the Rating Act, 1876. TIBET READINGS. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—Tenants’ Fixtures (Mr Moss), Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Law Amendment, Criminal Law, Local Court (the Hon. Mr Dick), Bill to establish a Harbor Board for the port of Picton (Mr Connolly). WEST COAST PEACH PRESERVATION BIEL. The West Coast Peace Preservation Bill was reported. Upon the motion for the third reading, Mr Macandbew entered his protest against the measure, describing it as one of the greatest blots that ever appeared on the Statute Book, The evidence adduced before the Commissioners showed that all the Native difficulties wore occasioned by the high handed injustice of the European* and successive Government*. He aoouted the idea of Parihaka being a glorious campaign. He denounced it as a humiliating spectacle, which would bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of all concerned, Mr Bryce himself included. He had no donbt bat that he would bring down upon his head the censure of the Press by speaking his mind, but ho could survive that. It Te Whiti had committed any crime, then he was entitled to a fair trial. What was Te Whiti’s case to-day might be any other* to-morrow. In passing the Bill they wore assuming the functions of both judge and jury, trampling under foot the saorod charter of the right of a man being board in bis own defence. They were casting to the winds a sacred principle of personal and constitutional liberty. His only hope was that the Governor would sea fit to interfere, and save them against themselves. Mr Shepherd supported the motion, contending that the course was proposed by the Bill was a choice of the best of two evils. Mr Hutcheson referred to the extraordinary unanimity that had sprung up between Sir George Grey and the Native Minister, as also between Mr Sheehan and the latter. He would have nothing to say about this happy consummation, but for the extent to which they had continued to reprobate the policy of Sir D. McLean. It would be a bad day for New Zealand when the many good qualities of that defunct gentlemen were forgotten, far less stigmatised. There was no need for tlpm. Why was Te Whiti, a British subject, to be treated in an exceptional way to any other British subject. Mr Kelly contended that the colony could not be interfered with in the settlement of this question by any Imperial officer. He alluded to that view of the question. There had been some talk about the Imperial Government interfering for what was called the protection of Te Whiti. The Imperial Government could not understand the question, and therefore could not possibly interfere to advantage.

Mr Bkackbn challenged that doctrine, contending that the question was one which involved the credit and honor of the whole British Empire, Mr Levestam acquiesced in the Bill, and scotedu the idea that they wore sitting in judgment on Te Whiti. What they were asked to do was to endorse the Native policy, which he for one most heartily did. Mr Seddok and Te Whbobo spoke against the Bill, the latter expressing a hope that provision would be made in the Indemnity Bill to compensate the Natives for the property of which they had been deprived at the Parihaka raid.

Mr Db Latouk argued that it was neceo sary that some effort should be made to prevent ex post facto legislation. In the present circumstances it would be improper to attempt such legislation, but when their passions inflamed by this proceeding had been allayed, then he invited them as a Liberal party to Insist upon such legislation. The Bill now before them was without precedent, either hero or elsewhere. Mr Gbeen, at considerable length, opposed the Bill as violating every principle of justice, and aifording no security that farther injustice would not bo committed in the same high-handed manner. The Hon. Mr Bbyok replied, expressing bis astonishment at an old member of the House like Mr Maeandrew appealing to the Governor to run counter to the deliberate decision of the legislature. Knowing what ho did of the constitutional history of the colony, it was extraordinary that Mr Maeandrew should make such an appeal as he had done to the Governor, as he had in one of his despatches said it mattered very little whore the Governor was. Yet now he turned round and appealed to the Governor against the decision of a large majority of the Legislature. In the name of the House, of the Government and of the country, he (Mr Bryce) protested against such a doctrine. The House divided.

Ayes, 56—Messrs All wright, Beetham, J. B. Brown (St. Albans), Oadman, Colly, Dargavillo, Dick, Dodson, Driver, Fergus, FitzGerald, Fulton. George, J. Green (Waikouaiti), Hall, Hamlin, Hobbs, Hurst. Hursthouse, O, J. Johnston (Te Aro), W. W. Johnston (Manawatu), Kelly, Levestam, F. W. Mackenzie (Mataurn), Mason, Macdonald, Mollraith, J. McKenzie (Moeraki), McMillan, Mitohelson, Morris, O’Callaghan, Peacock, Pearson, Petrie, Postlethwaite, Rolleston, Rutherford, Sheehan, Shepherd, Stevens, Sutton, Sutler, Swanson, H. Thomson (Christchurch North), Tod, Trimble, Watts, Weston, Whitaker, J. B. Whyto (Waibaito), J. O. Wilson (Kaiapoi), J. Q. Wilson (Foxton), Wright, Nobs, 21—Messrs Bracken, J. Buohanan (Napier), Daniel, DeLautour, Duncan, Feldwiok, W. W. Green (Dunedin East), Holmes, Joyce, Macandrew, Montgomery, Moss, Seddon, Taiaroa, Tawhaio, To Wheoro, J, W. Thomson (Olutha), Tomoana, Turnbull, W. White (Sydenham). On tho motion for going into committee on the Indemnity Bill, Mr Mohisomeby reminded them that the Natives at Parihaka had sustained damage in the destruction of their crops, &0., and he hoped compensation would be given. He had no objection to the Bill otherwise.

I Mr Tb Whboro spoke to the same effect. The House went into committee, and the Bill passed through without amendment. It was reported, read a third time, and passed. LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT. Sir Qeobqe Grey moved the second reading of the Law Practitioners Bill. He reminded them that this was a Bill similar to one which passed the House last session, but which was thrown out in the other Chamber. A Bill of the kind was foreshadowed in the Governor’s speech, but he had no idea what the nature of that proposal was. This was in effect a measure which had, with trifling exceptions, been adopted by 60,000,000 of the English speaking community. Last year the Bill had met with marked acceptance almost from one end of the colony to the other. The proposal of the Bill was to dispense with serving a term of probation, leaving the Judges to say what the examination of fitness on the part of candidates should be. In America these examinations were conducted in open Court. He had not adopted that as a proposal in the Bill before the House. The other portion of the Bill authorised any person of good moral character to be nominated in Court to conduct a case on behalf of any other person. The hon. gentleman’s remarks were interrupted by the 6.30 ad journment. EVENING SITTING, The House resumed at 7.30. Sir George Grey resumed the debate on the second reading of the Law Practitioners Bill. It had been asked how men in the United States unknown to the world in youth suddenly took a great position in mature life. The answer was that her institutions were fra and unconflned to all. Grant and Garfield were named as instances of this fact. In New Zealand, as the law stood, no such chances were afforded. At present there were members of the Press in this colony, men of known ability, who were debarred from ever moving out of the sphere in which they might happen to be placed. This Bill was designed as a measure to open up the way for such men, and there were very many such in all the various ranks of life. The United States have paid for immigrants, but they opened every rank in life alike to all. Every office in the country was open to everyone. There was every prospect of a large influx of immigrants into this country, and an opening of this kind would in his opinion materially assist. The Qovern-

meat had indicated that they intended bringing forward Borne measure to alter the admission to the legal practice. In that case he asked that this Bill should have a second reading, and that when they had the Government measure before them they could see how far that measure was harmonious with the Bill before them. The Government measure might have been introduced in this instead of the other branch of the Legislature, is the Bill of last session met with the utmost indifference at the hands of the Upper House. He was quite ready to accept of the best measure, independent of who brought it in, The Hon. Mr Bolleston said the Government intended to bring in an amendment and consolidation of the law relating to legal practitioners, but the Bill of the Government would not embody the proposals in the Bill before the House. It would however propose an amendment in respect of the admission of legal practitioners. The Government did not include in the proposals of the Bill the third clause relating to a candidate’s moral character, as that was a proviso that would not work well. Everyone was presumed to be of good moral character, unless there was something put forward to the contrary. The Bill proposed to make men lawyers by means of what was known as mere cram, and that would have a detrimental effect on their educational policy. Instead of general attainments being arrived at in their educational pursuits, a mere system of cram for a particular branch of study to the exclusion of general attainment, would result. Mr Weston objected to the Bill on account of the effects it would exercise, not on the profession, but on the public. Alluding to the multiplication of lawyers’ fees in proceedings, he said that was the fault of the machinery provided by the Legislature for conducting the business, and also the appointment of a wrong class of men to act as taxing masters. In further argument he pointed out that while the bar at home admitted Australian practitioners, it did not the New Zealand practitioners. This showed that, instead of taking away from their status, it would be of greater importance if they added to that status. The practical effect would be that every man would bo a lawyer, and in reality there would be no law at all. As a natural sequence, men of this class would eventually find their way on to the Bench, and in that way incalculable injury would bo inflicted on society at largo. It was true that in some of the States a man might gain admission to the bar upon, a declaration that he had served three years in an attorney’s office, but that only held good in a few States. In others they insisted that the qualification for admission was that they had practised before some bar for those years. That one or two men had risen to eminence at the American bar was no argument in favor of this Bill. Mr J. W. Thomson would have to hear stronger arguments than those set forth before he would vote against the Bill. Ho did not think it was necessary that a man should have a University training to make him a lawyer. His idea was that there would under this Bill be greater competition than at present, and in that way many of the worthless lawyers at present in this colony would go to the wall. Again it would have the effect of inducing a course of study which would be beneficial to many, even although they did not follow it out to a final issue. Mr Babbon gave it as his opinion that the moral character of the New Zealand bar would not compare favorably with the moral character of the public at large. If they were fit to make laws, surely so much perfection was not necessary in the case of persons administering those laws. The Bill proposed on examination in law, and even it it did not, then it would only be a question of the survival of the fittest.

Mr Bathoate, although a lawyer for forty years, had never seen any good arise from the law being madaa close corporation. He objected to all such dose corporations, and he would therefore support the Bill. He alluded to the fact that there never had been an attempt made on the part of the lawyers to reform the law. All they did was to look how they could best make out a big bill. That was one of the results of the law being a close corporation. Mr Te Wheobo thought the Bill would give greater facilities for young Natives to go in for the practice of law. Many Natives were anxious to see their children go in for this study of law, but they were deterred by the difficulties at present surrounding that study. He would support the Bill. Mr Wynn Williams would leave the matter in the hands of the House. He would bo sorry to see it pass, and believed the House would regret it. As he was personally interested he would not attempt to influence that decision. In contra-distinction to what Mr Bathgate said, he pointed out that sweeping reforms had been suggested by members of the profession, and that, as in the case of the Laws Consolidation Commission, in opposition to the expressed advice of the Judges. Mr Sbddon said it might bo that the lawyers were well up in law, but, as a rule, they were lamentably deficient in common sente. He argued that in the Wardens’ Courts on the goldfields men of practical experience were authorised to appear as mining agents. The fact was that these men were preferred to the lawyers, and their fees were infinitely smaller. In the R.M. Court these agents were not allowed to appear. The thing was most invidious, and ho would support the Bill, with the view of getting its invidiousness swept away. Mr Bctthebfobd would vote against the Bill. Referring to the moral character clause, he said it need not always happen that a good man was a wise man. On the contrary, they often found the wise man was not the good man. Mr Connolly spoke in opposition. He congratulated Mr Weston on his courage in speaking out on behalf of the profession. Although a practising lawyer, he felt that he would approach the subject with perfect impartiality. Ho admitted it would be injurious to the profession, but to the public the evil would be incalculable. They had ■warms of young lawyers, so that fact alone was sufficient to show that the door was wide enough. To these young men it would be an injustice to place all and sundry on the same fo Bing with them, He objected to Supremo Court Registrars and Judges' associates being admitted, as under the existing laws. He looked upon that a* an injustice to articled clerks, who were bound to show that they had not earned a shilling during the whole period of their articles. These Registrars

earned in many instances largo incomes, and yet they were placed on the same footing as the articled clerk. He did not know what the practice in America was, but he thought they had been misinformed, His idea was that there were two grades of lawyers in America, the practitioners before the inferior and the superior Courts. Grant and Garfield were not distinguished as lawyers ; they were distinguished as politicians, and there was nothing in the institutions of New Zealand to prevent any man rising as high in political life as Grant and Garfield had done in the American [Senate. He asked them if they would like to trust their lives with a man who had never been to sea, simply because he had studied the written laws of navigation. Sir George Obey replied. He had been told that the Bill would introduce men into the profession by cram. The fact was that the [present system was essentially one of cram, so that there was nothing in that objection. He was told they were spending enormous sums for mental education. Ho admitted that, but this Bill simply aimed at an outlet for that mental training. What be aimed at was simply the giving an opportunity for amplifying the training they gave in their public schools Mr Bolleston showed that he quite misunderstood the drift of the Bill. The object of the Bill was not to injure the profession, but to elevate both the profession and the masses. That view had been touched by Mr Thomson, but only in part. Mr Weston said he was actuated by a desire to protect the honor and welfare of tha colony. He proposed to do that by shutting out from this important profession a large section of the community. Tnen he was told the English Bar would not admit the New (Zealand trained barristers They did not want to train men who would leave them and go to the home country. Let such men as Mr Weston go to the home country if he liked. If such men as Mr Weston could influence our destinies in the future, no Garfield would ever arise in New Zealand. Was it not a fact that the distinguished Judges in our minor Courts had come from men who had never studied law under the present system. Had these men shown the corruption spoken of ? Mr Connolly said it was an injustice to the young men that studied under articles. Had not these young men all tha advantages of that training. Oould it do them any harm that others should be benefited. If a slave were let free with so many lashes ought he to grumble because another was made free without lashes ? Surely not ; he ought to rejoice. At all events it could not have done him any harm. Ho was asked if young men could not go into polities in New Zealand and become as great men as Grant *r Garfield ? The argument could not have been thought out. How were these men to live until they had established for themselves a name ? How oould a rail splitter in a forest have gone into politics. He [oould not. His first step was through admission to the law. He was told these men had paid great fees ; that was a source of regret to the lawyers, not the community. Such arguments were simply absurd. Such things should not have been mentioned in this House, He would go to a division and into the lobby, for with the noas would go the old antiquated notions which ought long ago have been exploded, while into the other lobby would go with him all who desired to sea fair opportunities given for talent and industry, The motion was put and carried on the voices. AFFIRMATION IN LIEU OF OATHS But,

Sir Geobgb Gbey moved tbe second reading of the Affirmation in Lieu of Oaths Bill. It had a history similar to that of the previous Bill, for it passed this House last session, and was thrown out in |the other branch. Had these gentlemen gone to their constituents, he believed they would not have been returned to Parliament. He believed that the present system of taking oaths as prescribed by lawhad given rise to a general system of hypocrisy. The Hon. Mr Eoliebton said that the Bill was precisely the same as the one brought down in the other branch of the Legislature. There would be no objection to the motion. Motion put and carried. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir George Gbey moved the secondreading of the Constitution Amendment Bill. He explained that the object was to relieve the mother country of considerab’e obligation to the colony in the granting of a Constitution, The Hon. Mr Bolleston said it seemed to him that they had not power to pass the Bill. He thought that time should be given to consider it, and on the part of Government he would ask for time to take legal advice on the subject. He moved the adjournment of tbe debate.

Sir Gbobob Qbey asked when the Attorney General was to Jgive them advice ? He would accept of no law opinion from anyone outside the House. He hoped the Government, when it came forward again, would have an Attorney-General to argue out the point. He was quite convinced the House had power to pass the Bill.

Mr Mohtqombby blamed the Government for not being in a position to say whether they could pass the Bill or not. It was a moat important question, and he had no wish to see it shelved. He conaidered|tho Government should tell them distinctly when they would be prepared to go on wi h the motion. On the question for an adjournment being put, Sir Gbo. Geey asked that it be adjourned till 7 30 on Tuesday, The Hon. Mr Rollbbton objected, stating that his own opinion was strongly against the Bill. Having heard what Sir George Grey had to say in support of the Bill, he now thought it was but right time should be given to consider the question. Still that gave the mover no claim to have it brought on upon a day set apart for Government business. Mr Sbddon moved as an amendment that it be adjourned till Thursday, 22nd inat. Mr Mohtqombby seconded the amendment. The amendment was carried on the voices. NATIVE Lit'D3 CODE! ACT. Mr Macdonald moved the second reading of the Native Land Court Act Amendment Bill. The Hon. Mr Bbyce said the Government pronosed to bring down a similar measure, and he would not object to the second reading, provided it was not pushed further until the Government measure came down. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered for committal on Wednesday fortnight. THE LOAN. Mr BaeeON gave notice that he would on Wednesday, the 21st June, move —“ That in the opinion of this House any proposal for the increase of the public debt of the colony by further borrowing should b« submitted to the electors and receive the approval of threefifths of their number before being finally sanctioned by the Legisloture.” GAMING AND LOTTBBIES BILL. Mr McDonald moved the second reading of the Gaming and Lotteries Act Repeal Bill. Mr Bbacken designated the Bill as an absurd piece of legislation. It encouraged gambling in its form. Respectable persons had been fined for indulging in harmless sweeps, while the gambling machine was legaliasd, which, in the case of the Dunedin Jockey Club, realised as its percentage to the club no lees than £2OOO. The Hon. Mr Dick said that only one clause of the Bill—the clause referring to sweepstakes had been attacked. There were other enactments in reference to gaming houses which no one could desire to see lapealed. In that case he would ask them to vote against the repeal of the Bill, and when the Bill for amendment came up to consider what amendments were required, but he objected to the total repeal of the Act, many of the clauses of which were highly important.

Mr Smith said that as it stood it did tot affect betting at races. Any amendment should provide for that. Again large sweeps went on, the only difference being that, whereas formerly they were signed with the name of someone, now they were published without any name appended to the advertisement. It was trifling and unimportant sweeps and sweepholders who were punished. Again, the totalisator cost 20s, and 2s in the £ was taken away. Previously many of these parties contented themselves with a 2j 6J stake, and there was nothing deducted. Mr Levbstam supported the repeal of the Act, advising the Government to bring in a now Bill embodying the provisions of the Act that were not objectionable. Mr W. M, Qbben argued against the repeal of the Act. He thought the Colonial Secretary was ratter too pliable, and that a man of more firmness was needed to administer the Act in religious matters. He was too ready to grant concessions for lotteries, which were most reprehensible practices. These religions lotteries ought

not to be tolerated. The case of the Dunedin Jockey Club had been referred to. The fact was that a member of that House and the Mayor of Dunedin had gone deliberately to the racecourse and broken the law by engaging in sweepstakes. Such men were not fit to hove a seat in the House.

Mr Bracken rose to a point of order, explaining that it was not fair to malign tha member for Dunedin South in his absence. The Speaker thought the remarks should be withdrawn.

Mr Gbben apologised, and went on to say that he would be in favor of making it a penal offence for newspapers tj advertise sweepstakes. He bore testimony to the fact that the Act had to some extent done away with the pernicious system of sweepstakes. Mr Sheimski supported the Bill, saying that the clubs were most inveterate gambling houses. The police would not interfere, at they were prevented by the upper ten. Mr Levin would nob support the Bill. Mr Fulton did not approve of the Act being repealed.

Mr Shepherd also spoke about amending the Act, but not repealing it. He strongly opposed the totalisator. Mr Connolly hoped the Bill would be rejected. He admitted that amendments were required, but they should be in the direction of making the provisions of the Bill more stringent.

Mr Allwp.ight supported the Bilk Mr Hobbs objected to the Bill, and denied that the repeal of the Act was called for by the colony.

Mr Hursthousb objected to the Act being repealed. Mr Joyce thought his constituents were satisfied with tha Aot.

Mr McDonald replied, and the House divided.

Ayes, 10 j noes, 35 The House rose at 12.30.