PARLIAMENTARY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 214, 8 September 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

[The first portion of yesterday's Parliamentary proceedings will be found on the fourth page.] Wellington, Thursday. Mr Wright defended the Committee's report and said he attached very little weight to Mr Blackett's calculations. Mr Richardson expressed full faith in Mr Blackett. Mr Ballance and Mr Moss expressed disapproval of the Bill altogether. Mr Saunders also opposed it, because he was sure tbe Government were not ia earnest; that tbe whole thing was a sham, and that tbe wasteful expenditure was to go on, Messrs Pitt, Tawhai, Hursthouse, Fulton, Weston, McCaughao, Montgomery, and others also spoke, and with the exception of Messrs Pitt and McCaugban, nearly all the speakers expressed opinions in favor of giving the Commission power to decide finally on stopping or carrying on the woiks without further reference to Parliament. The Bill was then read the second time sua tho Home rose at 1-5 a.m.

, Thia Day. The House met at 11 a.m. Sir G. Grey moved the second reading of the Protection of; Debtors Bill, which was intended to render property to the extent of £50 exempt from seizure for debt for rent or any other cause, and to allow bankrupts to retain property to the same account. Mr Hall said it was too late in the session to ptoperly consider so important a subject. He objected to the first clause, as it would prevent the seizure of goods, even for a penalty unless the person had upwards of £50 worth. „-ySir W. Fox objected to' the third clause which would render landlords a prey to unscrupulous tenants. He suggested the postponement of the measure Until neit session; protnislng to give the subject full considerative during the recess. Mr Weston comended that clause 4 was absolutely prohibitory;, and would prevent any one rroih effecting a mortgage. He 1 took exception to the clause, which, he contended, was unworkable. He concurred in the opinion that the Bill should remain over as it was most unlikely they could do the subject substantial justice this session. Mr Shephard held tbat there waa another principle in the Bill. Its effects would be to put an end to credit among the humbler classes, and in case of rents they would either have to pay- in advance or else the: tenant would be bound to give good and substantial security. In contradistinction to the many adverse opinions expressed on the subject he conceived that this would involve considerable hardships. He acquiesced in the second reading, but advocated the propriety of allowing the Bill to stand over at that stage, at least for the present. Mr Andrews spoke in favor df the' Bill, and contended that the existing : usage was to bring the poor into a hopeless State of poverty. The step was in the right direction although he wa9 not quite sure the amount, £50) was correct. He suggested it would be better to reduce the amount to £20. Mr Shrimski spoke on behalf of tbe poor and unfortunate landlords. The Bill, as it stood, opened the door to dishonesty, and its tendencies were to make tbe landlords barsh and uncompromising. As the law stood they did not hear of so much abuse practised by the landlords to recover rent. Mr Swaiison thought the Bill a far reaching one. So far as he could judge, the Bill was one that would prevent poor enterprising people from raising money sufficient to give them a Start ih life, Mr Seddon supported the Bill as a step in the direction of abolishing legal recourse fbr recovery of debt altogether^ consummation, he considered, devoutly to be desired. Mr Pitt spoke of the distress- for rent as a remnant of the dark ages, aud as such he desired to see it swept away. Sir G Grey replied that rich men were enabled to make settlements upon their wives and children and tbat secured their effects from their creditors. This Bill proposed; tp make similar settlements for the wives and* families of the poor. ; The House divided. Ayes 23, Noes 35. Sir G. Grey'moved the second reading of tbe Legal Advocates Bill. Mr Weston _ opposed, the motion. The Bench ought by rights to be supplied from the Bar. Although he was sorry to say that in New Zealand that icourse had not been followed in certain Courts, he hoped it would be extended to. the Supreme Court. In tbat caa£ it was necessary to protect the Bar both as regards legal and general knowledge. Sir William Fox insisted that the Bill was simply a reproduction of a Bill wbich had been already rejected, if anything, iv a more objectionable form. He moved that it be read tbat day six months. The House divided on tbe question that the words "be now read" stand as printed. Ayes 19, Noes 18. On the question tbat the Bill be read a second time, the House again divided. Ayes 19, Noes 18. The House adjourned at I*2o p.m.