PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4807, 18 August 1876, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. . Thursday, August 17. _ The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. NOTICES OP MOTION, ETC. A petition was presented and some notices of motion *|fiven. WAIOKO CHURCH OF ENGLAND SITE CROWN GRANT ' mi,. The report of the Waste Lands Committee on this Bill was brought up. It recommended that the Bill should be passed with the addition of the proviso—That the Crown grants should not be issued till the balance of the purchase lUtcM-y 'had been' paid.—The committal oT the ’Bill was made an order of the day for next day. the marriage act, 1851. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the above Act.— Agreed to. CHARRING TIMBER. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE moved,— For leave to lay upon the table a letter from Mr. J. Watson, shipbuilder, Hobarton, on the chairing of timber ; and that such letter be printed. The hon. member said the question of the preservation of timber was of pressing importance in New. Zealand in the.absence of stone. Wood, as hon. members were aware, was extensively'used in buildings, in bridges and culverts, and in our harbor works. Experience had shown that .wood, as at present employed, was of an extremely perishable character. He had, heard on good authority that a bridge erected at Auckland only three years ago, in which jarrah timber had been used, was so penetrated by the sea worm as to be practically useless. That statement was, he believed, exaggerated; still it was a fact that the worm had done, considerable injury to the bridge. ..There were other instances where similaritimber had undergone, partial destruction. Various attempts had been made in other 'countries to render timber indestructible, but these had been found expensive, nor were they in allrespectssatisfactory. InNewZealand no attempt had been made in this direction as yet. ; The writer of the letter (which Mr. Waterhouse read) called attention to the charring of timber as a preservative, and gave several instances of the success of the process.

In particular he mentioned a case in which a submerged pile, was, oh being examined, found to have one side .completely penetrated with the worm, while the. other side, which apparently had been charred ; through the tree taking fire, was instance was givenlof .'a .- raft ;partially constructed of charred itlmber,: On v Jjeing broken up,-after four years’ use, the charred timber was found to be as" sound as ever, while the rest was . quite gone. The process of chamng was a simple and inexpensive one...,'‘The treating of piles in this manner would cost but little. It was remarkable (proceeded Mr. Waterhouse) that an art which had been familiar to uncivilised nations, and which had been used in the earliest dawn of their history, should have been lost sight of now. He mentioned instances ,in Switzerland where structures of wood some 2000 years old were still to be seen in a state of preservation. In these cases it had been found that the timber had been charred, - There was of ;coure a difference between fresh and salt water, but still it was a fair inference in favor of charring. Otherwise the timber would,not have lasted so long. The motion was agreed to. , . ''tabaNaki botanic gaedbns Bill.

This Bill -was committed, and the amendments made by the Waste Bands Committee inserted. The third reading, was made an order of the day for next day. " ~ : j The Council then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. " 1 "• Thursday, August 17. . The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. ' . PETITIONS AND NOTICES OP MOTION,. Several petitions were presented and notices of motion given." ’ " • f ■ TH» SMVTHIES CASE., The report of the committee oh the Smythies petition was ordered to be printed. .QUESTIONS. -Mr., MAC!ANDREW asked the Minister for Public Works,—Whether or not the Government intend to give effect to the, recommendation of .'the Public Petitions Committee, as embodied in their report on the petition from settlers in the Clutha district, with reference to the the main trunk line betweenjßalolutha and Clinton ? The, Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said that the .cpmmittee on" the question had reported that a branch line would serve the district betterthan the deviation proposed. [Mr.. MURRAY asked the Minister for Public Works,—lf he will explain the item £4BOO, proposal to be deducted as unused ironwork from total cost of Thames water-race, amounting to £65,621 13s. 7d. (see .Public Works Statement,'page 26); and whether the unused ironwork was the result of an engineering blunder ? ■ The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said that the water-race had been undertaken under great pressure, and to hurry its construction a certain length of ironwork was ordered. It was found subsequently that by a deviation a saving in cost of construction could be made, and the-ironwork was not required. Several applications had been made to purchase the ironwork from the Government, and it could be easily disposed of if necessary. : ■ ;■ NEW BILLS. The. ,i following Bills were introduced and read a first time By Mr. Rolleston—A Bill to enable the Superintendent of the province of Canterbury ,to maintain the new bridge over the river Avon.—By Mr. Button —Hokitika Harbor Board Bill.: : i EESOLDTIONS. Mr. CARRINGTON moved, —That certain land orders, bearing date’ 19th February, 1876, having' been issued under the hand of his Excellency the Governor, in fulfilment of the award of a commissioner appointed under the authority of The Taranaki New Zealand Company’s Band Claims Act, 1872, by which land orders Edward JohmSartoria and the estate of Edwin Henry Dowhe and others were declared entitled to select land in the province of Taranaki to the value of £17,060 ; and that, on the presentation of the said laud orders at the Crown Bands Office,-Taranaki, the commissioner made a note thereon to the effect that there was “no land available for the purpose,” out of which a selection could bo made ; his House, therefore, is of opinion that a select committee should be appointed to consider the question, with a view to recommend what course should betaken to satisfy the said land orders. The committee to have power to call for persons and papers) and to report in a fortnight. The committee to consist of the Hon. Mr. Stafford, Mr. Busk, Mr. Harper, Mr. Barnach, Mr. D. Reid, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Ballanee, Mr. Seymour, Captain Russell, and the Hon. Mr. Bowen ; five to be a quorum. Carried, Mr. STOUT moved, —That copies of all the estimates of expenditure and revenue sanctioned by the Governor under the Provincial Appropriation Extension Act, 1875, and of all correspondence .relating thereto, and also all letters referring to,tha sanctioning of contracts and works under that Act and the Abolition of Provinces Aut, 1870, be laid before this House. —Carried,

Sir GEORGE GREY moved,—That the petition of Tapa Te_ Waero, a chief of tho Ngarauru tribe, be printed,—Carried. Mr. MURRAY moved, —That there bo prepared, and Included in the tables attached to the next Financial Statement, a return showing the indebtedness of the various local government bodies on tho 30th Juno, 1877. Carried. Mr. STOUT moved,—(l.) That a return should be prepared during the recess showing approximately tho population in every electoral district in the colony, on the 31« t day of December, 1876. (2.) That such return, when prepared, should be published In the New Zealand Gazette. —Carried. , Sir TL DOUGLAS moved,—(l.) For a return showing the items on which the sum of £51,068 16s, 4d. has been expended (as shown ia a return to th? order of the House, No. 101

B). (2.) Such return to show the expenditure by electoral districts. —Carried. . Mr. W. WOOD moved,—That the petition of owners and occupiers of land in the elcotoral district of Mataura fce referred, to the committee appointed to consider. the rabbit nuisaricei—Carried. - ... , The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL moved,— That the number of the members of the Disqualification Committee be increased to fifteen, and that the name of Mr. Brandon be added to the list of such committee.—Carried. Mr. STOUT moved,—That a return showing (1) the amount of the ■ estimated- expenditure on the various lines of railway, - (2) the amount of the contracts, and (3) the amount of extras allowed on the contracts, be laid before this House.—Carried. •

Mr. DE LAUTOUR moved,—That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in future alienation of Crown- lands by sale, license, or lease, the survey fees, if any, should be charged on a uniform acreage basis, irrespective of distance from any survey office ; and that this resolution be referred to the Waste Lands Committee, to report as to the best means to give effect thereto. —Carried. Mr. BARFE moved, —That a return be laid before this House showing the cost of the construction of certain mechanical contrivances forwarded by the Public Works department to Hokitika, for the ostensible purpose of conveying the iron pipes of the Waimea water-race to their destination ; together with all costs and charges in connection with the same.—Carried. Sir GEORGE GREY moved,—That there be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between Major Te Wheoro and the Government regarding the possibility of capturing the reputed murderer Winiata.—Carried.

Sir GEORGE GREY moved—That .all correspondence relative to the opening up' direct communication between this 1 colony and Brisbane, or between this colony 1 and Fiji, New Caledonia, Samoa, or Tonga, he laid before this House.—Carried. • ’ Mr. WAKEFIELD moved,—That there be laid before this House a return showing all agreements entered into, or appointments made, by the Government up to the present time in respect of the conservation or planting of forests, as well as a description of the duties at present being performed in' consequence of any such engagements or appointments. —Carried.

OEDEE3 OF THE DAT. Christchurch District Drainage Act Amendment Bill—second reading.—Carried. Stewart Island Grants Act Amendment Bill —second reading.— Carried. OANTERBUEY PASIOEAL LEASING BILL. The adjourned debate on the question that this Bill be read a second time that day six months was resumed by Mr. Stout, ,wbo contended that the object of the Government in opposing the measure, was to give the Canterbury squatters a practically interminable tenure of their leaseholds. —Mr Stevens pointed out that squatters and holders of these runs were more likely to give high prices for the runs, because they had improved the properties and placed upon them various conveniences, and moreover were better acquainted with the condition of the land and climatic influences. He considered the Bill would unsettle and frighten everybody, prevent improvements being made, and generally operate against the interests of the district.—Mr. Bumsden thought it remarkable that the hon., member should propose special 1 legislation for particular provinces, -when he had strong ideas about colonial legislation. He said such a Bill as that now before, the House showed what a-mistake abolition of the provinces had been. It was quite impossible to' have a general land law for the colony, because of the variance of the circumstances of the different provinces. He spoke against free selection, because in the past it had led to" the eyes of the land having been picked out. He should vote for the Bill, although he had no doubt there would be a general measure.—Mr. Muebat-Atnbley opposed the Bill/ because in . the face of the successful operation of the Canterbury land regulation during the past, it was not only unnecessary, but strnckat the root of the system which'Had worked so well in the past.. Bet the House wait for the Government measures, and then decide what was to be done.—Mr. Donald Reid said this was a very important subject, and under the old condition of things he should have left the matter to the Canterbury members, but with a united" Parliament that sort of thing could not be done. He defended the principle of free selection, and said it would be their duty in future toreduce the size of the blocks of land, so as to settle a larger population in the country. In further remarks he compared the land systems of Otago and Canterbury, arguing that the system of Otago was calculated to settle the people on the land, while in Canter-, bury the effect of existing regulations was to throw large tracts of land into the hands of the squatters. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. —Mr. De Bautoue spoke in favor of the Bill. —Mr. J. E. BeowN opposed it, and the Hon. Major Atkinson hoped the House would not commit itself to the Bill, or any Bill affecting the waste land, before the Government had broughtits proposals down.—Messrs. Sheimski, Mueeat, Sheehan, Bowen, Burns, and Wakefield addressed the House.— I The adjournment having been moved was negatived on the voices. -Mr. Fitzeoy said if this Bill were passed very serious provincial embarrasment would arise to the poorer landholders—men who had risen from the working classes and were struggling to obtain a position. It would not affect the larger holders, it would benefit them. He hoped the Bill would not pass.— Mr. Rees, replying to some remarks from Mr. Fitzroy in reference to pressing an unfair measure upon Canterbury, said the hon. member and the other Canterbury members should have acted on a similar principle when unfair measures were proposed to be pressed upon Auckland.—Subsequently Mr. ROWE again moved the adjournment of the debate, and a division ensued, the noes being 34, ayes 25. The debate on the main question was resumed by Dr. Hodgkinson, who defended the BUI.— He was foUowed by Messrs. Woolcock and Thomson. The first opposed and the • latter supported the second reading. In reply to Mr. Thomson, who had contended that the effects o£ the Canterbury and Otago land laws were so marked that immediately the Waitaki was crossed the better settlement of the land on the south side became apparent, he quoted the last census returns to show that in Canterbury 78,000 acres of land were held by 4000 holders, while in Otago 109,000 acres were held by only 4000 odd people. He opposed the Bill, because it would injure the small rnnholders who substituted industry and energy for capital. The large holders would not be affected. — Mr. Huestiiouse said in consequence of election pledges he must vote for the Bill.—The Hon. Sir Julius Vogel premised his remarks by saying the delay in bringing down the Government Waste Bands Bill was occasioned by the long discussions which had taken place 1 on various subjects, and so great had that delay been that the Government had a right to consider what measures should bo brought forward, and in what form they should be brought down. This question, however, must be dealt with. He regretted to see that personal ill feeling and animosity had been dragged even into the debate ; and in this connection he had been much pained this session to find that such a kind of party warfare had been so freely resorted to. During the past few weeks there had been coarser language and more abuse than had ever been known in previous years ; and if this sort of thing were allowed to go on, he trembled for the character of the Parliament in future. Addressing himself to the question, he said the Government intended to deal with the matter in a manner quite different to that in which the hon. member for Coleridge proposed to deal with it But apart from this, the Bill deserved to be thrown out on its merits, because it was crude and unworkable. He discussed the details of the Bill, and then proceeded to allude to what seemed to him to have been very much like talking against time. ~

Sir GEORGE GIIEY rose and; protested against such language. ; A little/ while since the House had been told that “ abusive language” had been used, and now they were

accused of wasting time. ■ He denied ■ -the truth of any such statement, and asked the Speaker to call the attention of the House to the language used. Mr. STOUT rose to speak.. • . - The SPEAKER : The hon. _ member will have the goodness to'resume his seat. Has the hon. member for the Thames any motion to make ? ■ , Sir GEORGE GREY ; I ask that the words of the Premier may ho taken down. The SPEAKER : What words ? Sir GEORGE GREY; “Abusive lanSU The SPEAKER :It is too late for that; the words must be taken down when uttered. The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL ; Sir, I think that the language habitually mclulgeclm by the immediate followers of the hon. member for the Thames ' ... Sir GEORGE GREY ; I move that those words be taken down. After a pause, ' ' ' , The SPEAKER : Does the hon. member press his motion ? , Sir GEORGE GREY : Yes. The SPEAKER : The hon. member will be good enough to resume his seat. ‘ The words having been taken down, were 16 Si GREY : I wish the words “ abusive language” also taken down. The SPEAKER; I have told the hon. member ; Mr. STOUT May ! refer you to a page in “May”—— ‘ ‘ , ' The SPEAKER : ; The hon. member will sit down. L , Mr. STOUT : Sir, before you rule——(Loud cries of “ Order,” “ Sit down.”) : . . ; . Sir GEORGE GREY : I sirpl ,have a right to have the words “ abusive lan- * nudge” taken down. I refer you to the 135th standing order, which says that - words may not be taken down after another Speaker has risen. ’ . , , The SPEAKER : I am not going to debate the question. I am going to rule, and I trust the House will support me. (Cheers.) If the hon. member desired to have those words taken down at the time, he should have said so. It is too late now, I cannot go back. _ _ Mr. STOUT again rose, but was cried down. ... The SPEAKER said he had, on referring to the 113th standing order, found it was loosely drawn, and might be interpreted as the hon. member for the Thames had interpreted it; still, the House had observed a custom—on two previous occasions the same question had arisen—and he should be guided by that custom iu interpreting the standing order. (Ministerial cheers). Did the hon. member still wish the words taken down? Sir GEORGE GREY ; All the words. : The SPEAKER : All the words cannot be taken down.

Mr SWANSON said he did not see the good of taking the words down. The SPEAKER said that one word begot another, and he had been sorry to hear the Premier make use of the words referred to. (Opposition cheers.) The Hon Sir JUBIUS YOGEB : I may say, sir, that until to-night I have taken_ no notice of the constant use of exceedingly improper language, but I have always seen that it must come to an end. The speeches -of certain members of the House have been treated with that contempt they deserve, but it is absolutely necessary for the honor of the House that some notice should be taken of them. Matters have been brought to a climax by the speech of one who for twenty minutes to-night levelled most disgraceful accusations against members who opposed this Bill. The conduct ®f that hon. member, has been most revolting. He insinuated that venal compacts had been entered into, and that hon members were devoid of honesty. Therefore I felt it my duty" to express my opinion upon such conduct. If in doing so I used words which you cannot approve of, I regret it, but I would point out that the conduct of which I have complained, must be put a stop to, even if unruly members have to be expelled. We have recently had an instance in one of the neighboring colonies, where a member \pas unmindful of the feeling of his brother members, and if occasion arise we must follow the same course here. I felt it my duty this evening to call attention to this matter. As far as I am concerned I have borne it for some time, but now that other members of the House are attacked it is time to take notice of it. Amongst the members who have been so treated to-nigbt is the hon. member for Avon, who certainly cannot be called a supporter of the Government. Ido hope we shall hear no more of this sort of thing. I have been almost ashamed of being a member of the House the present session. Sir GEORGE GREY ; I ask that those words may be taken down. The SPEAKER : To which word does the hon. member refer 1

Sir George GREY : “ I have been almost ashamed of being a member of this House during the present session.” The words having been taken down. Mr. STOUT rose and said he thought it was much to be regretted that the Premier should have been unable to speak to an important Bill like this without having cast a reflection, not'only upon hon. members, but Upon the Speaker himself. The hon. member (Mr. Stout), had read an extract from “ May on Parliamentary Practice ” to show that charges affecting the character of the House were not to be allowed, and then expressed a hope that the Premier would apologise, and thus prevent the House from taking a more serious remedy. Mr. STAFFORD : I trust the words of the Premier will be taken down. Ido so because I thoroughly endorse them. (Loud cheers.) Mr. W. WOOD : I move that the words of the last speaker be taken down also. (Laughter STAFFORD : I, too, request that my words may be taken down. The words used by the Premier having been taken down, The SPEAKER said : It is now competent for the Premier to give an explanation of his words, after which he may retire. The Hon. Sir JULIUS YOGEL: The explanation I have to make of these words is this : that whilst I recognise we have a very able House—a House equal in point of ability to any House which has ever been elected in New Zealand —it has also been forced upon my attention that there are one or two members who hold themselves up to the disgust of all by abandoning those restraints that ordinarily guide hon. members, and indulge in language not only distateful to the House, but which is calculated to injure the reputation of the Legislature. But this is not all, sir, It is not possible to carry on public business —not only have we had during the present session most disgraceful charges levelled against hon. members; not only references to matters which had no place in the debates of this House, but charges have been made against persons not in this House, and therefore not capable of defending themselves. The people making these charges, unfortunately, although not not representating the general body in this House, are able to do mischief. I hope the House will accept my assurance that what;l said was not intended to apply to members generally, but those members—l may say those two members—who have no , respect for their position. I therefore say advisedly that X have felt almost ashamed of being a member of the House. The speech of the hon member in introducing this Bill could not bo taken exception to, but it was the language of that gentleman who for twenty minutes hurled against a body of honorable men most disgraceful and undeserved insinuations that was objectionable. 1 hope hon. members will understand that I do not intend my remarks to apply generally. The Hon. the Premier then withdrew from the Chamber. Mr. BARFF : I move that the explanation given by the Premier is considered satisfactory by the House. Mr. TRIBE : X second. ‘ Mr. REES did not consider tbe Premier’s explanation sufficient, and thought the Premier should , still bo called on to explain. He (Mr. Bees)' had made no grave charge against the Canterbury members.

; Mr. EOBBESTON said that as Mri Bees) did not understand the gravity of the charges he had made,'he (Mr. Eollestbn) was hot inclined to remember - them. But his statement cleared f the Premier, whose explanation he thought should be accepted. / ;■ - • Mr. STOUT moved' as an amendment, that' this House regrets the intemperate language used by the Premier. } • ■ ' ‘ SirDONALD McBEAN trustee, the amendment would not .be carried; he considered the Premier’s explanation sufficient. - ' • L Mr. MOOEHOUSE considered the insults offered to the Premier unparalleled. •

Messrs. Murray, De Bautour," Montgomerys Woods, Button, Joyce, Busk, J.; ,C. Brown, and Eisher spoke.- Several of these-gentlemen. thought- 1 the'"Premier- had'. been goaded’, into, using the expressions complained of. The SPEAKER suggested that both: motion and amendment should be withdrawn, so that no record of these proceedings should remain. Mr. BARER was willing to withdraw! his 1 motion if no censure would rest on the Premier.

The SPEAKER ; No censure wilTrest; on anyone in particular;- the blame is applicable to all. The best way is to let the matter drop. (Cheers). 1 ■ ' • ■ ■ Both resolution, and amendment were then withdrawn. The Hon. Sir JULIUS YOGEB, who ; had returned to the House, asked what the decision had been ? -.; .

The SPEAKER said the question had been dropped. The Hon. Sir JUBIUS VOGEO considered this unjust to himself, and then asked if it were advisable to continue the discussion that night, and.JHioy.ed the adjournment of the debate. , ‘ T ! ''■

Ultimately the debate was adjourned , until next Thursday.' 7 . C The House; adjourned at 2.15 am. . . ) ,