place, experts were appointed to assist the fruit-growers with regard to the growing of fruit. The Government had also sent to California to know if they could get a suitable man who could give instructions as to the best way to prepare fruit for market, but they could not get an expert for less than £700 or £800 a year, and the Government thought that was too much. However, they had not lost sight of the matter, and at the present time they were in communication with people in California with a view of getting an expert for the purpose indicated in the question.

CANTERBURY LAND FOR SETTLE

MENT.

Mr. G. J. SMITH asked the Minister of Lands,-(1) What is the distance from Christchurch to the block of land situated in the Provincial District of Canterbury, containing 255 acres of land of the tax-value of £5,610, mentioned on page 5 of the report on The Land for Settlements Act, 1892"; (2) whether the land was suitable for cutting up into small sections for occupation by the working-classes; and (3) whether the Government propose to acquire at an early date land in the immediate vicinity of the large towns of the colony for the purpose of providing small sections suitable for occupation as above? So far as he could gather, there had not been any land bought contiguous to any of the large centres of the colony. He did not wish it to be understood that he was saying a word against the purchases already made, or recommended to be made, but these purchases were for a certain class of people. There were others who could not afford to leave the towns and settle. in the country. It was in the interests of these people that he asked this question. The third part of the question was the most important. There were a certain number of people who would very gladly take up land in a position where they could cultivate it, and, when opportunity offered, take work in the city adjoining. He trusted the Government would see their way to apply the Land for Settlements Act in this direction.

Mr. J. MCKENZIE said, if the rules of the House would permit it, he had a great deal he would like to say on this subject, but he must confine himself to answering the question. With regard to the first part of the question, he might say that the Land Purchase Board reported that this land was unsuitable for cutting up into small areas. All they could do would be to cut it up into 50-acre allotments, and the consequence of that would have been that there would only have been five sections available for letting. Besides, the Board reported that the land had been very heavily cropped, that it was run out, and that, even if it were opened up for selection in small allotments, there was no prospect of employment for the settlers who took up land in the district. There was another drawback in the fact that the price asked for this land was such as to prohibit the Board of Commissioners from making a purchase, and this arose from the Mr. J. McKenzie

fact that there were buildings upon it that could not be profitably utilised. The Crown would have had to put up the land with the value of the buildings added to the value of the land. Consequently the Board could not recommend the purchase of this block; and, on their advice, the purchase was not made. With regard to the third part of the question, the Land Purchase Board had advertised for suitable lands within a certain radius of the towns and in the vicinity of large towns, and the only ones that had been offered were offered at a price which prohibited a purchase being made. The prices at which they could get the land were such that the Board and the Government could not see their way to dispose of it on such terms as to obtain the rent that would be necessary under the Act; consequently they were debarred from purchasing it: and in the other case the land was very unsuitable. They were now trying to get land near the towns that could be cut up into small allotments, and were advertising afresh for the purpose. They had several offers at the present time under consideration.

CHINESE.

On the motion of Mr. G. W. RUSSELL, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return showing, according to provincial districts, the number of Chinese in the colony at the census of 1885 and 1891; the number who have left the colony from the census of 1885 to the 31st March, 1894; also, the number who have returned to the colony, or died, or who have paid the tax under the Chinese Immigrants Act.

AUCKLAND, ETC., ELECTORAL ROLLS. On the motion of Mr. MITCHELSON, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return showing the cost for the three years ending the 31st March, 1889, the 31st March, 1890, and the 31st March, 1891, of the preparation of the electoral rolls for the City of Auckland, Districts of Eden, Manukau, and Parnell, the return to show, separately, the cost of purging, compiling, and printing the rolls, and salaries paid to Registrars; and (2) a similar return for the three years ending the 31st March, 1892, 1893, and 1894.

COAL-MINERS' RELIEF FUND.

On the motion of Mr. ALLEN, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return showing the amounts at credit of the Coal-miners' Relief Fund and Sick and Accident Funds on the 31st March, 1893; (2) the amounts subscribed during the year ending the 31st March, 1894, by the owner of every coalmine to the Coal-miners' Relief Fund and Sick and Accident Funds; (3) the applications made under "The Coal-mines Act, 1891," on the Coal-miners' Relief Fund and the various Sick and Accident Funds, giving the name of the applicant, the district, and the reason for applying for assistance; (4) the applications granted, and the amounts paid to each applicant; (5) the balance to credit or otherwise of

the Coal-miners' Relief Fund and the Sick and Accident Funds on the 31st March, 1894; (6) the cost of administration for year ending 31st March, 1894.

ELECTORAL ROLLS.

On the motion of Mr. ALLEN, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return of all public moneys spent in connection with the enrolment of electors previous to the last general election; the names of the Returning Officers; the names of persons who received payment for enrolling electors, and the amounts paid to each; the names of those districts in each electorate in which enrolment was performed by official agents; and the names of those districts in which enrolment was not performed by official agents.

TOTALISATOR.

On the motion of Mr. MITCHELSON, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return, in continuation of H.-5, 1893, showing the total number of permits issued, and days of racing on which the use of the totalisator was authorised, during the year ending 31st March, 1894; and (2) the amount of the percentages paid to the Treasury from the investments on the totalisator in the several provincial districts of the colony respectively for the year ending the 31st March,

1894.

SINKING FUND.

On the motion of Mr. MITCHELSON, it was ordered, That there be laid before this House a return showing the amount of sinking fund released during the Treasurership of the late Sir Harry Atkinson, the loans to which such released sinking funds were attached, and the purposes to which such released sinking funds were applied.

SHEARERS' ACCOMMODATION BILL. Major STEWARD said that to his honourable friend the member for Wairau belonged the credit of bringing for the first time before the House the question dealt with in the Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time. The honourable gentleman three sessions ago pointed out to the House that there were instances in which the accommodation provided for shearers was of an exceedingly unsatisfactory nature, and that it was desirable that some inspection should be exercised with regard to shearing-sheds, in order to insure that the men who resided therein were properly housed. In accordance with the honourable gentleman's wish, an inquiry was made, and a report laid before the House, which showed that he had grounds for the action he took. Within a few months of that time he (Major Steward) had the honour to be asked to accept the position of president of a shearers' association, and the shearers forming the membership of that association had asked him to endeavour, in his place in the House, to secure the passage of the necessary legislation in their interest. Accordingly, the previous year, although he occupied the position which

Mr. Speaker now held, and was therefore unable himself to bring it forward in the House, he drafted a Bill, which he submitted to the Labour Bills Committee and to the Minister of Labour. It was approved by the Committee, and accepted by the Minister, and introduced as a Government Bill. Had it been mentioned in the Governor's Speech that the objects of the Bill would be provided for by the Government he would not have taken the step he was now taking in asking the House to legislate on this question. Not finding that to be the case, and finding that he was to be relegated to his old position as an active member of the House, he had given notice of the Bill. He had since found, to his great pleasure, that the Government had provided for what this Bill intended to provide in the 53rd clause of the Factories Bill; and he now simply asked the House to agree to the second reading of this Bill, with the understanding that, if the Factories Bill should survive the accidents of the session, then it would not be necessary to proceed with the present Bill. But, in the event of an accident occurring to the Factories Bill, it would be well that the present Bill should remain on the Order Paper. As regarded the necessity for some legislation, he might simply say that, although the promoters of the Bill did not attempt to say for one moment that the owners of shearing-sheds and runholders generally treated their men badly, yet they did say that there were exceptional cases in which the men were treated exceedingly badly, and that for such cases it was necessary that legislation should be enacted. The majority of the population of the country, he was happy to say, were honest men; yet that did not prevent the House passing laws for the punishment of larceny and all sorts of dishonest conduct, although it might happen that there was only one dishonest man among a hundred. So, also, if there were only one runholder amongst a hundred who treated his shearers badly, it was imperatively necessary that shearers should, as against such employers, be protected by law, as all other workers were protected in regard to their proper treatment. That there were cases in which such protection was necessary, the report to which he had referred was ample evidence. If it were necessary to supplement that, he could tell the House of cases in which the building used for shearers during the time of shearing was, during the time it was not so occupied, used solely as a kennel for the shepherds' dogs, the consequence being that the shearers coming round next season could get no sleep, because of the populousness of that particular apartment in the shape of insect life.

An Hon. MEMBER.-Chamois.

Major STEWARD said that was something like the animal to which he referred. He could give another case in which a sheareran educated man, for it happened that in the ups and downs of colonial life men were to be found in the sheds who had a University education-one such man was walking outside the shed at about four in the morning, and met his employer, who asked him how it was

if any honourable gentleman who happened to be the unfortunate possessor of sheep was going to say anything in reference to this Bill. To his own mind this Bill was simply "flapdoodle." It was not wanted. He was surprised that the honourable member should introduce such a Bill, or ask honourable members to waste the time of the House in discussing it. He did not know whether the honourable member knew anything about sheep-stations or not. If the honourable member had had a little practical experience of these places he would not have been so anxious to introduce this Bill. According to this Bill, every man who was the owner of a few sheep-if it was only a dozen sheep-and who had to employ a shearer to shear those sheep

Hon. MEMBERS.-No.

Mr. THOMPSON said it did not matter how small the flock was, if he employed three or four shearers, any one of those men who might wish to get his employer into trouble could insist upon his employer building a house, if it was to be occupied for only one night, under a penalty of £50. What was the life of shearers in the colonies? They were a class of men who took up shearing as a profession. They travelled about from station to station, and in the colonies of Australia, at any rate, they probably got eight or nine months' work out of the twelve. They were, perhaps, not more than a week or two at any one station-sometimes not that. Speaking from his own experience, most of those men preferred living in their own tents to living in any huts.

An Hon. MEMBER.-No.

Mr. THOMPSON said it was the case in Australia. There were very few of them who slept in huts at all. They rode from station to station with their own tents. To expect sheepowners to build houses in these circumstances was the greatest absurdity he had heard of. In fact, in a short time, if such legislation were passed by that House, it would be a crime for any man to own a sheep or an acre of land. He was not a sheepowner himself, and he thought it was a fortunate thing that a man was not a sheepowner, because it appeared to him that a dead set was made at every man who happened to be the owner of sheep, and it seemed to be desired, if possible, to deprive him of his sheep. From his own experience, he doubted very much if the shearers themselves would ask for such a measure. If they had done so, they could not be the class of men who acted as shearers twenty years ago, because the provisions of this Bill were more suited for women than for men. He certainly had never seen anything on sheep-farms which warranted the necessity of such legislation as that Bill. He thought they were going too far in trying to tamper and interfere with every industry in the colony, and he was of opinion that if they introduced fewer measures of that kind, and attended to business which was of more importance to the country, it would be much better for the House and the country.

Mr. BUICK said the honourable member who had just sat down had described this Bill

as "flapdoodle." He did not know exactly what that meant, but he thought, if it meant anything, it meant nothing more than the honourable gentleman's speech itself. The honourable gentleman stated, as a reason why he thought this Bill was flapdoodle," that every man who owned a dozen sheep must employ a man to shear every three of those sheep, and he must build three rooms to accommodate every man. There was nothing of that kind in the Bill, and an argument of that kind showed that the honourable member had not studied the measure. The honourable member asked, What was the life of a shearer?

Mr. THOMPSON said it was a very jolly life.

Mr. BUICK said he did not think it was; but shearers, at all events, were entitled to as good a life as most men. They ought not to be huddled together like animals, as, apparently, the honourable member would like to see them. The honourable gentleman had described what occurred in Australia. What had they to do with Australia? It was not their duty to legislate for Australia. They had to legislate for what they saw around them every hour of the day during the shearingseason. That House did not regard it as a crime on the part of any one to own sheep, and they were not legislating to make it a crime. What they were legislating for was to make sheepowners, the same as factoryowners, sensible of their responsibilities. It was the duty of the House, which represented the people of the country, to see that the interests of every class were properly attended to. He was not surprised at the speech of the honourable member, because he did not think the honourable gentleman had got the interests of the working-men very largely at heart. However, he thought the honourable member who introduced the Bill deserved the thanks of the House and the thanks of a very large section of the people of the colony for introducing it. The necessity for this Bill had been so far recognised that the Government of the day had accepted the principle of providing proper accommodation for shearers; they had included such a principle in one of their labour measures. In introducing the Bill the honourable gentleman gave some illustrations to show the necessity for it. If he (Mr. Buick) chose he could also give many such illustrations, but he did not think that was necessary. He believed that those who had had any experience of this phase of life knew perfectly well that the Bill was absolutely necessary. He could assure the House that on one occasion when he was at the southern end of his electorate-now in the electorate of the honourable member for Ashley he saw one room 10ft. by 12ft., where thirteen men had been sleeping the night before. If it was a proper thing to huddle men together like that, then that was not his idea of life. He had also seen a small room in his own district, where ten or twelve men were sleeping, and the man in the top bunk was not a foot away from the roof. That was not

right. Other stations, on a larger scale, had a larger number of men placed in one building, in which there was absolutely no provision made for decency. In some of these places there was too much ventilation, and in others there was no ventilation at all. It seemed to him that men living upon these stations were treated more like dumb animals than human beings. He did not say that all owners or employers of labour on these stations were 'responsible for that sort of thing. He did not intend to make any such statement, because he could assure the House that there were some employers of labour in this line of business in his district- and he had not the slightest doubt there were others in other parts of the colony-who treated their men fairly. He was prepared to give those people all the credit that was their due. Since this matter was first brought up in the House, a number of the sheepfarmers in his own district had recognised the necessity for something of the kind, and had endeavoured to provide proper accommodation. Ample provision had been made for the men in some of these cases. Then, with regard to the cleanliness of these places, there was a certain responsibility cast upon the men, as well as upon the employers. If employers provided suitable rooms, the men should not allow those rooms to get into such a condition that they were not fit to live in. Where that occurred he had no sympathy with the men at all. But sometimes the men had no opportunity of keeping the places clean, the plan upon which the rooms were constructed being altogether unsuitable. He believed that this Bill was necessary; and, while he said, honestly and candidly, that many employers had recognised their responsibility in this respect, he must say, on the other hand, that many had not. Where the employer was prepared to give the men decent accommodation he had nothing at all to fear from this Bill, or any other Bill of a similar kind. The Bill would only affect those who did not discharge their responsibilities in this respect. The measure was in the interests of a large class of people, who suffered quite enough hardship at their work, without having to put up with inferior sleeping-accommodation. He trusted that the House would see no objection to passing the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. McLACHLAN intended to support this Bill. There were a considerable number of squatters and large sheepowners in his district, and he believed that most of these gentlemen provided reasonable accommodation for their shearers; and in every case where sheepowners provided reasonable accommodation, and made good sanitary arrangements in connection therewith, they would have nothing to fear from the inspection under this Bill. If, on the contrary, they huddled men into pig-sties or dog-kennels, or places of that kind, then the severest inspection should be made of their premises. Our paternal Government in New Zealand professed to look after the interests of every class of workmen, and factories of all descriptions were included in their care; yet Mr. Buick

shearers were not so included, and shearers were men who had an arduous task to perform. It was true they shifted about from station to station, but the work was very hard and very heavy. Their work was done in a not very pleasant stench, and their cooking and sleeping accommodation was not such as was provided at a first-class hotel. If without bearing unjustly on the sheepowners they could improve the condition of the life of the shearers, the House would be entitled to the gratitude of the shearers of New Zealand, and the honourable gentleman who had introduced the measure would be specially deserving of such gratitude.

Mr. MCGOWAN intended to give this Bill a general support; but he, for one, found very great fault with the provisions of the Bill. Some honourable gentlemen had referred to the importance of attending to the comfort and health of their fellow-workmen the shearers; but he noticed that in clause 8 of the Bill, while they were attending to the comfort, health, and treatment of the men, they separated Chinese and negroes from their white brethren. That clause, in particular, he intended to oppose. If they were to consider manhood as the standard they should endeavour to work up to, and that they should improve the condition of the working-classes, it would be a disgrace to their legislation if they passed a clause of this character. All that was required in a Bill of that kind was that the flockowners should provide, as the honourable member for Wairau had suggested, the necessary premises, and having done so the employer had done all that should be required of him by Act of Parliament. He would certainly oppose such a clause as clause 8.

Mr. REEVES said that, on behalf of the Government, he had merely to ask the House to pass the second reading of this Bill. He did not think it would be necessary to pass the Bill and to place it on the statute-book. The principle of the Bill, as the honourable member the mover had explained, had been embodied in the Factories Bill now before the House, and the part of the Factories Bill relating to this subject would, he thought, be found sufficient; but, at the same time, should any misfortune happen to the Factories Bill, either here or in another place, he thought it would be advisable to have another barrel, so that possibly they might bring down the bird at a second shot, in case the first shot failed. He had merely to assure the House that the suggestion that the demand for reform did not emanate from the shearers of the colony was altogether a mistake. It was asked for by them as a class, he thought he might say, from one end of New Zealand to the other. These men were not effeminate and weak, puny creatures, likely to be befooled by "flapdoodle,' or anything of that kind. He should say the shearers of New Zealand were as thoroughly masculine, as thoroughly manly a class of labourers as any in the colony, and he did not think they were at all inclined to cry out for unreasonable or excessive legislation or