SECOND EDITION PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2872, 8 June 1882, Page 3

SECOND EDITION PARLIAMENTARY.

LEGISLATIYiTonNCIL. Wellington, June 7. The Council met at S p.m. QUESTION. In reply to Sir, G. Whitmore, the Hon. Mr Whitaker said Government had not intended to alter the rule by which it was necessary to stamp all deeds relative to the purchase of native lands before submission to the Frauds Commissioners.' VENTILATION IN RAILWAY TUNNELS. On the motion of Mr Stevens, it was agreed that ,the Government be requested to make enquiries respecting the latest improvements in the ventilation of railway tunnels, with a view to improve ventilation of the tunnels on the New Zealand railways. miscellaneous. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Amendment Bill was read a first time; various other Bills uero considered in Committee, and the Council rose at 5 p.m.

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at 2.30p.m. , ■ -“HANSARD." The report of the Debates Committee recommending the issue of a daily “ Hansard,” or if not, that “ Hansard” be issued four times weekly, was ordered to be considered to-morrow. DEVELOPMENT OE NEW ZEALAND INDUS- • TRIES. Mr Munro moved —“ That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and .report as to,what action should be taken to improve the facilities for shipment at Westport in order to fully develop the coal trade of that port ; the Committee to consist of Messrs Johnson,Macandrew Fergus, Fish, All wright, Wright, Levestam, Hutchison, Levin, and the mover. ’* The motion was carried. Mr Munro moved that a return showing the quantity of coals imported into the several ports of the colony, showing separately the total quantity of coals exported from .Greymouth and Westport during the 12 mouths ended May 31, 1882, for colonial and in*ercoloniol consumption. EXTRA SITTING DAY. Mr George moved that after Monday next the House sit on Monday evenings. The Hon Mr Rolleston opposed the motion, alleging that the exigencies of the public service demanded that Ministers should have the whole of Monday to themselves. The House divjded —Ayes, 24 ; Noes, 46. The motion was therefore negetived. The House-adjourned at 5.30 p.m., and resumed at 7.30 p.m. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY DILL. Mr M. W. Green moved the second reading of the Employers Liability Bill. It was based on the English Act of 1880, and adapted to the requirements of the colony. ; t Mr*Dargayille seconded the motion. He detailed the history of the English law on the subject, and went on to say that a measure of this kind was absolutely necessary for the colony. What the Bill aimed at was, shortly, that the workmen should have the same protection as the outside public had. Mr Bathgatg said a measure of the kind must be passed sooner or later, as the working classes were bound to work on it from time to lime until it was secured. The Hon. Mr Rolleston considered the principle of the Bill right, but would like to study the details at a more leisure hour. He suggested leaving it to a Select Committee. Mr M. W. Green agreed to accept the suggestion. Mr Holmes considered it a moderate Bill, and would give it his qupportj with the amendment introduced that the workman’s own unskilfulness and negli gence sho.uld relieve the employer. Mr Connolly saw the necessity for referring the Bill to a Committee. Mr Swanson took exception to the liability indicated by the previous speaker. The motion was then put and carried, and the Bill referred to a Committee. DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL. Mr Holmes moved the second reading of the Distress Amendment Bill. The Bill was designed to protect the goods and chattels of persons other than tenants found upon premises, from being distrained for rent. There was also a clause enacting that proporty to the extent of £25 belonging to the debtor, could not be distrained upon. The latter enactment extended a provision of the kind contained in the “Debtors and Creditors Act.” Mr Shrimski opposed the Bill. It would have the effect of defeating the landlords’ interest altogether. Mr Moss asked the Government if it was not intended by them to bring down a Bill for the abolition- of distraiut for rent. . Mr De Lautour moved as an amendment—“ That it is desirable the Bill should be withdrawn, and Government be requested to introduce a Bill similar, to that session, for the total abolition of distraint for rent.”

Mr Swanson argued that a landlord would act as the butcher and baker. When he found he was not receiving his money he cfould immediately stop supplies. Mr Pyke looked on the law as it stood as a remnant of feudalism which ought to be swept away at once. The landlord ought to have no more preference than other creditors. The Bill did not go far enough, and he would support the amendment. The Hon. Mr Dick said the Government had not yet made up its mind to bring in a Bill similar to that of last year. If the landholder was to be in the same position as a shopkeeper, then he should have the same privileges and bo at liberty to enter into possession and turn out the tenant. The Bill as it stood was sound. The proposition that third parties should be protected to the limit of £25 was objectionable. It was far too great. Mr Moss said he was surprised to hear that the Government was not sure of the measure it introduced last year. Mr Holmes said that if it was considered that the sum named was too high, he would be contentjto see it reduced from £25 to, say, £l6. Mr Wynn Williams pointed out that the landlord could not sue for his rent for three or six months, or* until the rent became due. The merchant was different. He could sue at once. The House then divided on the original motion —Ayes, 51; Hoes, 33. On the question that the Bill bo now road a second timo> Mr kShrimski called ■•• for a division—Ayes, 42 ; Hoes, 21. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed that day fortnight. EIGHT HOURS BILL. The House then wont into Committee on the Eight Hours Bill. A long discussion ensued, none o£|the proposed amendments finding any .favor. (Left sitting at 1.30 a.m.