GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2561, 23 June 1882, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(Pm PRESS ASSOCIATION.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, June 22. THB BBOGDHN CLAIMS. The Hon. Mr Oliver gave notice that he would move for a joint committee to consider whether the Brogden claims should be referred to arbitration. OILtHG THOtTBLED WATERS. The Hon. Mr Chamberlin moved that the Government should cause all coasting steamers and sailing vessels to carry oil, so as to throw it on the sea in case of danger from shipwreck. The Hon. Mr Oliver and the Hon Mr MsLban spoke of the question as an interesting one. No experiments so far were successful. The Hon. Mr McLean also thought shipowners would try the experiment without compulsion, and he knew the Union Company would be only too happy to take any means calculated to lessen the danger of life. The Hon, Mr Oliver thought the subject had not reached a stage when it could be legislated on, bat thought its discussion and publicity were bound to do good. The motion was then withdrawn. RETURNS. Sir Q. Whitmore moved for a return of all contracts chargable out of loan, signed by the Government, between October of 1879 and March Slat, 1882, with the view to showing that the Grey Government had not anticipated the £3,000,000 to the extent that had been stated. The Hon. Mr MoLhan and the Hon. Dr. Pollen opposed the motion, which could do no good, and would keep open a disagreeable subject, which the colony was anxious to forget. The motion was carried. THE INDEMNITY BILL. The Indemnity Bill was read a third time. PEACE PRESERVATION BILL. For the third reading of the Peace Preservation Bill a division was called, when the Hon. Captain Fraser and the Hon. Mr Mantell voted against it, there being twentyfour for it. The Hon, Captain Frabbb gave notice that he would record bis protest against the Bill. The Council rose at five ruinates past five. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, June 22. The House met at 2 30. NOTICES. Mr Hamlin gave notice that he would ask if the Government was aware the refresh-ment-room at the railway station, Mercer, was being used by boarders, and also for the entertainment and supply of spirituous liquors to others than those travelling by rail. Mr Bracken gave notice that he would ask if attention had been called to the ease of a school teacher in Dunedin who had been dismissed the service for writing a letter to a newspaper, and if so, would the Government express an opinion as to whether or not the Board had exceeded its duty. QUESTIONS. Replying to Mr Feldwick, The Hon. Mr Diok said it was true that two men had been confined in gaol in Invercargill awaiting their trial at the Supreme Court since February. They were unable to find the necessary bail. The question of increasing the number of sittings of the Supreme Court there was one which depended altogether upon the question of additional Judges. Replying to Mr Smith, The Hon. Mr Johnston said a footbridge would be attached to the railway bridge at Waipawa and Waipukurau. Replying to Mr Smith, The Hon. Mr Rollbbton said it was intended by the Government to introduce a Special Power and Contracts Bill in about a fortnight. Replying to Mr Fulton, The Hon. Mr Dick said the Government did not consider it conducive to the interests of justice, or to the well being of the Natives, that the two licensed publicans at Ohinemutu should also be Justices of the Peace. Beplying to Mr George, The Hon. Mr Dick said the Government would not introduce a Bill prohibiting the payment of wages by the truck system. In remotely situated country districts, a prohibition of the kind would entail serious inconvenience.

Replying to Mr O’Callaghan, The Hon, Mr Rolikston said the Government looked upon the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture as a matter of importance, and it was a subject at present under consideration. Before the session ended he hoped they might be able to make a more definite statement.

Replying to Mr Xe Wheoro, The Hon. Mr Bbvob said he did not consider that Tawhiao’s communication laid on the table contained any proposals, and consequently the Government could not consider any. Replying to Mr O’Oallaghan, The Hon. Mr Johnston said he had several proposals on the subject of railway communication before him, and the propriety of offering the same facilities in regard to return tickets on Wednesday as are given on Saturdays could be considered along with these proposals. Replying to Mr Hutchison, The Hon. Mr Johnston said that the result of tenders for public works was not made public until the successful tender was completed. They considered that course a very necessary precaution, and for that reason they would not undertake to make these results public immediately upon the tenders being opened. Replying to Mr Seddon, The Hon. Mr Boblbston said the Government had taken into consideration the propriety of introducing a Bill dealing with the question of the payment of members, but had decided not to do so on its own motion. If Parliament signified a wish that they should do so that wish could be given effect to.

Replying to Mr Tomoana, The Hon. Mr Johnston said a footbridge would bo erected for the convenience of Natives crossing the railway line at Waipawa, Replying to Mr Holmes, The Hon. W. Rolleston said steps would bo taken to recover £IB,OOO claimable as legacy duty from Mr Rhodes' estate, which the Privy Council decided they were entitled to recover. BILXS. The following Bills were read the first time :—lmportation, Adulteration, and Examination of Tea (Mr Seddon); To remedy certain wrongs that have arisen from the operation of the Crown Lands Seles Act, 1876 (Mr Pyke) ; To further amend the Patents Acts 1870 and 1881 (Mr Tola) ; To render persons or companies insuring property against fire liable for a contribution towards water supply (Mr Hutchison) ; To regulate the disposal of pastoral lands of the Crown (Sir George Grey). OTAGO HABBOB SCABS BILB, Mr Eish, in a long speech, moved the committal of the Otago Harbor Board Further Empowering Bill. Mr McKenzie seconded and supported the motion. Mr Maoandbbw had looked upon the operations of this Beard as an egregious blunder. They had attempted to put the cart before the horse, but for that irregularity they would not have had largo vessels passing their door, and intercolonial steamers would have been able to reach Dunedin years ago. He was not opposing the Bill, but he contended that it should be modified. The vessels of the immediate future would not bo able to enter the harbor unless the bar and lower channel to Port Chalmers wexe deepened. They had been told that the mercantile interest was in favor of this, but the fact was that three-fourths of the Chamber of Commerce would have voted against its proposals had the Chamber not taken a leaf out of one of their books ani spoken against time. The burden propcstd to be entailed did not fall upon B uedin alone, it fell on the producers and consumers throughout the provincial district. It did not matter to the growers whether the vessels loaded at Port Chalmers or Dunedin, and yet they were called upon to face a serious liability for the latter purpose. Already over £IOO,OOO had been spent, and there was no more water in the upper channel than before that expenditure. In committee ho would move an amendment in the direction he had indicated.

Mr Bathgate argued that the Board was in the position of the constituents of a Bank, on whose behalf the latter had undertaken to advance from time to time the money required for the- completion of a certain work. If the Bank or Home refused to complete the contract, the constituents would be entitled to damages. In this case they had spent £600,000

or £700,000, and they required »till further sum*, amounting to £300,000, to make the previous outlay reproductive. Iho Hon. Major Atkinson protested againat the dootrine,that as a previous Parliament had granted a certain sum for a work, subsequent Parliaments were committed to that work, whether profitable or net. This Bill need rest on no such claim, as it could stand sufficiently on its own merits. He suggested that in the meantime the Board should take £200,000, and if after that was expended they could show a good case then they could come to Parliament for more. What they had to consider was, was the Board in a position to meet the liabilities consequent on the increased expenditure. He thought that had been shown conclusively by the mover of the motion.

Mr Feequs objected to the proposal for reducing the amount to £200,000. They had reliable reports to show that the amount would be required, and the sooner the House faced the liabilities fairly the betterMr Huest felt convinced that the day would come when these local bodies would make default, and leave the colony to make provision for their enormous liabilities. He hoped the Government would reconsider the proposal to give £200,000, or if not, he asked the House to rise equal to the occasion. As a matter of fact, Otago harbor was silting up at the bar. If that could bo remedied, he would allow them any quantity of money, so long as they showed they were in a position to refund it. Surely the proper course was to make good the entrance before they touched the channels. He denied that Parliament had committed itself to the Board in any way. Moreover, the past conduct of the Board showed that they should be very cautious in their dealings with it, Mr Sheimski opposed the Bill, contending that the Board was not i i a position to face the enormous liability proposed. Mr Weston blamed the Government for supporting a measure of this kind on the meagre information vouchsafed to the House. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7 30. SHALL BIBBS NUISANCE BILL,

Mr Steward moved the second reading of the Small Birds Nuisance Bill. Ho gave elaborate statistics and computations to prove that the increase of these birds and their predatory habits were of the most alarming character. He detailed the operations of the Sparrow Clubs, and said despite the destruc tion caused by these the birds were still as numerous as ever. What was ashed was power to levy a small tax, so that every one interested might be made to contribute to the fund for their common protection. He freely admitted that under certain restrictions these birds were useful, and a reference to the provisions of the Bill would show that precautions were taken to prevent extermination of the birds. The Hon. Mr Eolleston seconded the motion. He had no doubt in his own mind that these birds were much abused, at the same time he thought the Bill was necessary, as be felt quite sure that in large numbers they were a nuisance. The mistake seemed to arise from the fact that while this country was well suited to their increase, it was not provided with the checks in the shape of natural enemies which existed and regulated the balance in other countries.

Mr Bheimszi objected to the rating clause, and in committee would move in that direction,

Mr Dodson supported the Bill, and bore testimony to the impossibility of checking the increase of small birds unless some comprehensive system was given effect to.

Mr O'Callagean expressed an opinion that this was a subject upon which tho agrioulturists were pretty well agreed. Speaking from bis own experience, he bad far the past eight or nine years been convinced of the necessity of legislative action for chocking the evil.

Mr McKenzie supported the Bill, and insisted that the of its provisions depended upon the preservation of the rating clauses, Mr Stevens stated, in evidence of the destructive proclivities of the sparrow, that in districts where they prevailed farmers who formerly sowed two bushels to the acre were now compelled to use three. That represented to a man having 100 D acres under crop a money lose of £2BO. Mr Hubsthousb also supported the Bill, arguing that the use of poisoned grain did not tend to destroy a more valuable class of birds, ac the stnall quantity which destroyed the sparrow had no effect on game bird:, such as quail, &o. The motion was carried. THE EIGHT HOUR SVSTEM'. The House went into Committee on the Bight Hours Bill, which was further considered and reported with amendments, which simply made it affirmatory of the eight hours system. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PBHSON. Mr Weston moved the second reading of Offences Against the Persons Act Amendment Bill. Alluding to the birching of larrikirs, he argued that birching was in use in public schools, and the lads to whom it was administered wore not found to be demoralised, Mr Hutchison argued that this system of flogging would not achieve the moral reform of the offender. No doubt all manner of punishment web torture. Ha would draw a distinction between mental and physical torture; if they sanctioned the latter, why was it that they did not return to tho old methods of barbarism, such as the thumb screw and tho boot jack. Each manner of physical punishment tended to degrade the human mind. The analogy drawn between the public schools birching and the flogging of a criminal held no better than that of the man who. indulged in a moderate glass of liquor and the besotted creature who drank to excels. Again, he objected to the provision for private whipping, as contrary to the whole spirit of the British law, Mr Hubsthousb, for similar reasons to those expressed by the last speaker, also objected to the Bill. It would be no satisfaction to a woman who had been abused by her husband to have him carted off to gaol and whipped. Such a state of things would tend to widen the breach so much that it would be quite impossible for them ever to come together again. Then what would they do with women who beat their husbands. Cases of this kind were not uncommon, and if it was right to whip the husband, was it not equally right to whip the wives ? He moved that the Bill be read that day six months. Mr Moss contended that there was no necessity for a Bill like this. He was told that it was needed for Christchurch Then make it applicable to Christchurch, as it was not required in other p’aces. Mr TUBNBUI.Ii blamed the mover for taking up the time of the House with a measure of this kind. He hoped they would waste no longer time with it. The Hon. Mr Kolbeston spoke in strong terms against larrikinitm, end urged that if this BUI were brought into operation they would have very little of offences of the kiud. He had heard it said that wife beaters were liable to be demoralised. That was a most extraordinary argument Was it possible to demoralise such men ? He had no sympathy with the sentimental talk of degrading the whole community, and he would support tho Bill.

Mr M. W. Qbben would support the Bill to a second reading. He regarded lurrikiniam as an overplus of energy, for which it would be right to find an outlet iu some more legitimate way. With some few amendments in committee it could be made a useful measure.

Mr Lbvestam thought it curious that the only two members who had spoken in favor of the Bill hailed from Christchurch. He would be ashamed to have his name mixed up with such a measure. Colonel Thimble argued that the degradation lay not in the punishment, but in the crime. Ho would heartily support the Bill.

Sir Geobgb Obey said he was a person of mawkish sentimentality, as had been denounced by the last speaker. If they introduced a particular punishment into a country it was soon introduced info and inflicted for other offences. There were now t wo Bills of the kind before them, and if once introduced it would go on from crime to crime until flogging became the order of the day. The Bill itself was an anomally ; it affirmed the principle that beating was an offence, and then they beat the men who did it. If they flogged a man they would score his back for life, and his children would see it, and bo told their father had been flogged by their mother That was destroying that family for life. It would be a great blot upon their statute book. He deplored the seeming levity with which this birching had been referred to by the mover of the motion. He had

been told that reoorders and Judges were in favor of this mode of punishment His observation had been that the minds of judges always tended to the greater severity of punishment for the repression of crime. When the pnnishment of death was being restricted to murder, the judges actually remonstrated against the proposal. He asked i hem not to put upon their statnte book that which would be a blot to New Zealand and a reproach to their common humanity.

Mr Fulton argued that similar or even more grievous offences had been repressed by this means. He held that the punishment proposed would act as a deterrent, and thet was the very best method they could adopt to reclaim the criminal. He would gladly support the Bill, adding that every Magistrate wit.h whom he had conversed was in favor of a proposal of the kind.

Mr Fish said as the B'll stood it was liable to grear, abuse. It enabled a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace to visit every case of assault, however trifling, with a flogging. If the Bill was allowed to pais it would require many amendments. His opinion, however, was against the the Bill. He believed that the effect of flogging was to demoralise. If the Bill was to bo passed it should be with the express stipulation that none but the most aggravated offenders should be visited with the lash.

Mr Peacock gave the Bill bis hearty support, arguing that the persons for whom it was designed were persons of the opposite of fine sensibilities, and it was only the lash that could be made to appeal to their feelings. Mr Holmes opposed the Bill, expressing his opinion that those who supported it could not have read the Bill. He submitted there wore offender* who should be subjected to tho lash, but not one of these offender* were included in the Bill. He asked if a young person of seven years who assaulted a grown up man was to be subjected to the lash. If a man assaulted his wife he was to be flogged, but if he half killed his sister -in - law or his grandmother no such punishment could be had recourse to. The Bill as it stood was adisgrace to their civilisation, and ought to be rejected. It was utter nonsense to say that it was not more degrading for a man to thrash his children than to have them thrashed by tho public executioner. Mr Wbbton replied, After which the motion was put, and the House divided. Ayes, 47 j noes, 22. AEEIEMATION IN LIEU 01 OATHS. On the motion for the committal of the Affirmation in Lieu of Oaths Extension Amendment Bill, The Hon. Mr Dior suggested that it should bo delayed, as a Bill of a similar import had advanced several stages in the other Chamber. When it came doon the Government would be prepared to hand it over to the care of Sir George Grey, who was the mover of the Bill before the House. Mr Babhon said it was unfair that Sir George Grey, who had initiated the measure, should abandon it in favor of the Government measure. He thought the Government might very fairly be asked to abandon their BiU in favor of that of Sir George Grey. The Hon. Major Atkinson said that the Bill of last session was thrown out in the other Chamber. The Government took that as an indication of what wanted, and accordingly introduced a similar measure. Ho took it that the object of a member i» these circumstances was to get the Government to take up his proposals. He hoped this would not bo made a party matter. The situation was a complicated one. If they rejected this Bill, then they could not very well expose their own measure. On the other band, if they adopted this Bill, and sent it up to the Council, the Council would be sure to say, wo reject this,_ as we have already adopted one of tho same import. Ha apprehended all that was wanted was the legislation, and not the barren honor of having initiated the measure. Mr Sheehan spoke in favor of the Bill. He thought that it would, under the ciroumslanoos, have been the more proper course to have introduced the Bill into this Chamber. Ho defied them to show a precedent for having a Bill passed by the Lower Chamber one year introduced and passed by that Chamber the next. It was a most singular proceeding, and without parallel in tho history of constitutional government, and he thought it was only right that they should assert their own privilege* and insist that the Bill initiated in that Chamber should be carried out. He only looked upon that Chsmbir as one of review, and not as the controlling power. He thought the Bill before them ought to take precedence of the other.

Mr Montgomery thought it was a mistake to have the Bill they referred to last year introduced into the Upper House. It was now the duty of this Chamber, under the circumstances, to push through their Bill. There was a principle involved, and they should adhere to what was their right. The Bill in the other Chamber was different from the ono now before them. The Hon. Mr Rolleston did not think it was a question of privilege. It came to them as a measure from the Crown. Whether right or wrong the Legislative Chamber threw out the Bill of last year, and in the exercise of a similar right they passed the measure this year. He was not sure it would be right of them to consider two measures of the same import in the one year. Mr Turnbull said that Sir George Grey had undoubtedly carried on the Government of the country for the last few years. He was literally “ dragging the Government at his chariot wheels.” Under these circumstances Sir George Grey could very well afford to give way. It would be virtually Sir George Grey’s measure, and he should be content with that knowledge, Mr Holmes spake in fovor of the Bill being withdrawn, and Mr Seddon against the proposal. Sir Geoesk Obey said it was a matter of indifference who carried the Bill so long as was carried. At the same time he could not help remarking that this Bill was read & first time before the Bill was introduced into the Upper Chamber. In that case it was the Upper Chamber that created the If they had this power then all power of initiating any measure for the public good was taken out of their hand. It wes a great question of privilege, and he could »ot consent to withdraw the Bill. If the House determined not to go into committee, ho would bow to their decision. Ha would not take up the Gorernment measure. He would not have it said be was ready to coalesce with the Government.

On the motion for going into committee being put, it was carried on the voices. In committee the Bill was amended and reported. The House rose at I a.m.