EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9172, 1 August 1895, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30. : FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Mr WARD mado the Financial Statement. At the conclusion of thu Statement, Mr Ward moved a resolution to give eilect to the proposed alterations in the tariff. Mr WARD, in reply to several questions, said he was following the usual custom in asking the House now to agree to the new duties, but the discussion . on the whole Financial Statement would betaken at a later date. Tho resolution imposing the new duties was carried on the voices. TAGIF? COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. Mr WARD then laid the report of the Tariff Commissioners on the table with the evidence attached. The House rose at 9.35 p.m. Wednesday, July 5L The House met at 2.30 p.m. QUESTIONS. Replyinc to Mr Jiassev, Mr J. M'KENZIE said that the Agricultural Department had under consideration the advisabieneas of offering a bonus for encouraging the production of European il.ii in the colony. Replying to Mr G. J. Smith, MrSEDDON said that he bad received no comn.unicatiou from the Mayor of Christchurch with respect to the state of the labour market in that city. Replying to Mr Buddo, Mr REEVES said that probably an amendment would be brought in in the Shops and Shops Assistants Act to »liow harvesting machinery agents to keep open on the statutory half-holiday for the sale of harvesting machinery ouiy. Replying to Mr M'Lachlan, Mr KESVES said that he should consult tho law officers to »cc whether tho New Zealand creditors of Miles and Co., of Christchurch, could be protected from the lass sustained on their wool, on the ground that the firm was domiciled in Londou. TUE OTAGO CENTRAL RAILWAY. Mr EARNSHAW moved the adjournment of the Honse to refer to the refusal of the Premier to furnish him with a roturn as to the estpeoditure on the Otaro Central

line. He spoke at some length, and declared that every vote for works in Otago had been deliberately withheld by the present Government. Mr J. M'KENZIE said that Mr Earnshaw was prompted to ask for these returns by the Otago Cen nl League, bnt that League had expressed itself satisfied with the action of the Government. Mr Earnshaw and the League, however, were doing more harm than good to the Otago Central. Several other members spoke on varion3 subjects, and a discussion arose, which continued till the 5.39 adjournment. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed as 7.30 p.m. NEW MEMBER. Mr Thompson, the iiewly-eleciei member for Auckland, took the oath and hi 3 seat. LICENSING. Mr McXAB moved the second reading of the Licensing Acts Amendment Bill, to amend the law reUtiug to the sale of intoxicating liquors. He eaiu the licensing law oi the colony had been a fruitful source of legislation for years, and so far as he could see they were a lung way off finality in this respect. He referred to the Government Bill of last session, and the circumstances that led to its being dropped, wbich resulted in the House sepaiating without passing any legislation on the subject. During the recsss this matter had occupied a great deal oi attention, and he felt convinced that either his Bill or the Government measure would have to be passed this session. There was no doubt that Temperance reform had taken a prominent place last election, and he was sure that if it, were not for the promises on chat subject ijicde by members a good many of them would not be present in the Hou*e. The Bill he was now asking the House to agree tc was fully discussed during the recess, and at the Alliance Convention, in March last, an opinion favourable to the great bulk of the Unit was expressed. Ho wa9 perfectly prepared to receive reasonable amendments in the Bill, such as whether they snould havo a reduction of circuits or not. There was no provision iv the Bill for u> reduction, but if the majority of the House desired a provision of Luat kind it could be worked into the Bill, The Bill proposed to strike out bottle licenses und New Zealand wine licenses altogether, aud to abolish licenses for railway lefreshment-rouitisafter January, 1897. With regard to the case of prohibition being granted iv any district, it should not °be lawful to gianl any charter for a Club in such district. All Club charters in existence in that district were to continue in force until the 30th of June, and theu bo null and void. It proposed to put Clubs on the same tooting with respect to the prohibition vote as licensed houses. Clause 9 related to local option, new licenses having to bs subject to a vote of the electors. The Bill provided that the day on which the local option poll should take place should be the second Wednesday in April, 1897, and thereafter on the second Wednesday in every third year. Section 12 provided whether a baie majority or three-fourths should rule, and clause 13 brought the real issue of prohibition out and out before the electors. The Bill further provided that the local option poll should be taken on theaume day as the election for the members of the Houae. If prohibition were carried it would not be lawful to grant or renew any license or Club charter in the colony, and ail licenses, Club charters and railway refreshment room licenses in force on that day should continue in force until the 30th of June next; - ensuing, and then cease. He should be happy to reply to any objections a against the Bill. Mr SEDDON cougratulated Mv MoNab on the modest speech he had made. There were many debatable points in the Bill, but he would remind tho House thac the Government had a Bill before the House. Ho thought this was a question which should be dealt with by the Government of the day. The Government had not given any ground for fearing that they were not sincere in their desire to pasa their Bill, and had not departed from the views he expressed last session on this question. However, after the experience they had diAung'-tho recess, aud the attacks mate on him and his colleagues''as to their insincerity in the matter, ho had this session brought down a Bill, with a few amending clauses, leaving tho consolidation part of the measure till another time. He felt they should pass a Bill of this kind this session, as nest year they would be Hearing a general election, and would then probably have extreme views on both sides preparatory to facing the people. Mr McNab had laid stress on the various Conventions held in the colony, but he thought their strength was multiplied, although he believed they were working in a good cause. Ho felt that the work done by the Government) and the Liberal party in the cause had never been properly acknowledged. The present Liberal Government was the Grsc that placed the liquor traffic under the direct control of tho people. He was glad to find that Mr McNab and those «vho thought with him were at least compelled to admit that a reduction of licenses should be inserted in the Bill. That proved that they were in favour of the Government Bill. If he (Mr Seddon) knew the mind of the Houae, he felt sure it would agree to the reduction instead of no licence. It was a mistake in Mr McNab'a Bill to provide for a triennial poll aud at the same time to allow a Committee chosen by a very few people, in defiance of the decision of the people, to refuse licenses. As to the question of holding the licensing poll on the same day as the general election, he had, after mature consideration, coma to the conclusion that both were inseparable, and if the election were held on any other day they would have a very poor representation of the voice of tho country. He thought it would bo injurious to have the bare majority, and he believed there was a majority in the House and country for the three-fifths. It was right to have a bare majority as regards reduction, but where it so materially affected revenue there must be more than a bare 'majority. It was for Mr McNab to consider whether ho would proceed with the Bill after the Government Bill was before them, as it was not possible for him to get the Bill through Committee before the Bill was read the second time. He (Mr Seddon) wished both parties in the House to come to a conclusion on the liquor traffic, and endeavour to settle (.his vexed question for a time at lease-

•* Sir ROBERT STOUT referred to the Premier's opening remarks, and said the Government Bill last session was not brought down till so late a period that the House was near its prorogation. What the House and the couulry wauted was an alteration of the law, not its codification, and to talk of sending Mr McNab's Bill to the Consolidating Committee was simply to talk humbug. He supported Mr McNab's Kill, which proposed to have a triecaial poll. He contended that it contaiued a proposal for reduction, although another form of the reduction question must lie settled by some one. It rested with the Committee, which would be elected by the people, to say whether there should be a reduction. In this Bill ample opportunity was given to the people to vote license or no license,- or to vote for reduotion or no reduction. There were only three questions to ,be considered— first, should there be a bare majority or threefifths ; secondly, when the vote was to be taken, and thirdly, whether there should bo a straight-out vote of license or no license, reduction or no reduction. The House could surely settle those three questions. This question of prohibition was sot a new thing, and in every country where it was carried it was decided by a bare majority. He could see no reason v.hy ife should not be carried ' : by a bare majority." He agreed with the Premier that the poll should be taken on the general election day, as the question was so important that- they should get as maoy of the people as possible. He hoped the House would keep to those three questions, aud they could then deal wicb the dstails of the measure.

Mr LA WRY said Sir Robert Sionfc waa inconsistent in his remarks. He denied that he had obstructed the Government Bill last year, but he had helped to save Sir Robert Stout and those, who had worked with him from political degradation by blocking their absurd and ridiculous amendments. As regarded Mr Mc2*ab's Bill,- he should like to move that ie should be read thtt.- day 999 years, as it was a measure full of humbug and hvpocriey. He did not know which was the worst, the wretched bantling of the member for Mataura or the miserable Bill of the Government, and be should do his best to destroy them both. Mr SAUNDERS wonld vote for Mc McNab'e Bill aud also for the Governtntnfc

Bill, with the hope of amending them io Committee. Sir Robert Stout had already pointed out a fatal objection to the Government Bill, which was that the Temperance party would be asked to divide their votes between uo license and less license, and there wou'd be no result what* ever under the poll to be taken by the Bill introduced by the Premier. The great mistake made by the Temperance party was that they warned everything or nothing, and the result, was that they had got no satisfactory legislation for over twenty yeaw. He thought they should agree to reduction so as to lessen temptation as much as possible. The Kill should be more moderate than it w«s. Il would have more chance of passing. He hoped soms measure would be passed in this direction, and that whichever Biil were agreed on, there would be some concession. Mr MONTGOMERY agreed with much of what Mr Sauuders had said, except that he did nob believe iv a bare majority. As he wanted to see some Bill passed this session he should vote for the second readings of both Mr McNab's Bill and that brought down by the Government. He was in favour of the three-filths majority for prohibition of any kind. Ur. NEWMAN wae glad to see the Premier bring down an amendiug Bill, instead of a consolidation measure, but no onecould doubt that the Premier was very cleverly dividing the temperance party into reductionists and prohibitionists. He thought one clause should be put into the Bill to prevent licenses being removed from one house to another. They should also provide that no lodger should be allowed to treat people. He should vote for a reduction of licenses on the ground that half a loaf was better than no bread. There was also an urgently needed reform iv the abolition of tied houses. Mr REEVES expressed great admiration for Mr Saunders't. speech, which he thought was one of the best he had heard from that hon. gentleman. He (Mr Reeves) thought i here could be no more important; question than the regulation of the..-liquor traffic, which was responsible for a great mauy evils. He defended the police -from the charges made against them respecting the administration of the licensing lav/, and said many of those charges were exaggerated. It was infinitely more difficult to prevent the licensing lawbeing broken than to prevent the Wiour laws being evaded, and the labour laws wero constantly being broken. It would be impossible to prevent the labour laws being broken it there were nob properly appointed Inspectors to see that these laws were carried out, and he waa of opinion there should be some rsspousible officer to see that the licensing laws were not broken. He .held that so long as they had liquor tiaffic amongst them it was their duty to regulate it and coutrol it as much as possible. • He stiould vote ugaiust the second reading of the Bill, but if it were the only liquor Bill before the House he shou d support it. The Government had, however, brought down down their Biil in all sincerity, ami would do their best to pass it. If Mr McNab's Bill were carried he hoped the Houuo would insist, on reduction being embodied in it. Mr G. J. SMITH was pleased with Mr Reeves' speech and hoped, before another year was over, the Minister for Education would be found fighting on the platform of the prohibitionists. He was' surprised, however, to hear Mr Reeves state that the "trade" prsiofcised so many liicks, as he believed Mr Rjevc3 waa indebted to the "trade"for considerable support at tho last election. The Premier had quoted the Biil of last year as a proof of bin sincerity; bub the fact waa that Biil was not introduced till twelve weeks after the session opened, aud only two nights were devoted to it in Committee. If they did not blame the Premier iv this matter, they must all admit that citcumstances were su'!piciou3. He strongly supported Mr MuN&b's Bill, whioh contained the great issue, licen o or no license. If the people decided there should bo licenses they were quite content to leave the number of licenses Iα the hands of the Committee. He denied that there was any extreme proposal iv a Bill which contained the principle of the bare majority, and ho was ab-a Libeiiil pa»y boiug afraid to trust the people. 5% ../'■' Mr E. M. SHITE opposed the Bill and was surprised at it being brought in when the GoveVument Bill' Was before die House. He thought these prohibition people would uever- be satisfied, t-

Mr COLLINS spoke on behalf of the great mas 3of the people of the colony, and not for extremists on either side. He thought it was imperative that the poll should be taken on the day of the general election, and it was not advisable to introduce another disturbing element into the matter by having the poll on a separata day. He was in favour of the three-fifths majority, and said if prohibition were carried by a narrow majority it would be very ineffective. . Mr HARRIS moved the adjournment ofthe debate. Lost by 32 tft 21. Mr ERASE he had stated during his election that he did not agree with prohibition, and hffidid nob believe in it now. He thought it simply waste of time to discuss this Bill, when the Government measure was to bei shortly before thd House. He could not support the bare majority, but in oppoaing thet he did not oppose temperance principles. The motion for the second reading was carried on the foices, and the Bill referred to the Committee. The House rose at 12.30.