THE PREMIER AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1894, Page 4

THE PREMIER AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

MORE ABOUT CLAUSE 21. A DRAMATIC SCENE.

The discussion on the motion for the adjournment of the House on tho snbjeot of Clause 21 of tho Alooholio Liquors Sale Control Aot, was oonoluded after we went to prcsß yesterday. Tho apeoch of Sir Robert Stout in moving the adjournment, which we gave yesterday, wan listened to in a silence, and with a rapt attention, that was absolutely painful. The Promier sought to make bis explanation earnest and conciliatory, a fine assumption of injured innocenoe running through it. This speeoh was also listened to in absolute silenoe, but for pertinent interjections from Sir. Robert Stout, Mr. Bell, and Mr. G. J. Smith. The first portion we gave yesterday. After it, the Premier continued. He had, he said, no knowledge aa to the construction now placed on Clause 21 beforo he placed it before the House. Due nottco had been given of the Clause, and the House had an opportunity of considering it, and had passed it. [Sir Robert Stout—*' Give me a Committee, and I will show you."] If Sir Robert knew anything he should tell the House, and not ask for a Committee. [Sir Robert Stout said he would prove it to a Committee J The local bodies were sufficiently strontr to'bave the distriot divided into wards. [Mr. G. J. Smith interjeoted that this was not done by the looal bodies, but by petition outside tnem.j He must take it that the ratepayers returned a Committee to grant licenses, and that both aides had dono their beat in the election. Sir Robert Stout— They did not; they were *$£?* for tho ljOotX Option Poll, f A voioe-r They should have done ao."] I he Premier continued that atany rate suoh

a committco bad boon returned. Whon the Government desired to deal with the Ohinemuri Licensing District they plainly said ao m tho clause relating to it, and had they intended to deal with Sydenham he would have come boldly forward and said so. _ Mr 801 l who followed, was listened to m tho same deathly silence which had indicated tho attention of the Houbo throughout the debate So far, he said, as he could -athor any clear statement from tlip mass of verbiage in which the Premier had wrapped up what he had Bnid, ho i Mr. Seddon) seemed to wish to nay that as lud<'o I )onniston's judgment' still stood, no harm hal been done. Why did the Premier ,t'.n?\vall Hip qneßtion on Wednesday ? (The Premier—" I did not ") Thon Mr. Seddon (ivulontly did not know he was wasting time in reading a long law report. 'I hero was no room for doubt that aectiou 21 was intended by someone to reverse the decision of Judge Denniston. No one could doubt it, and no Judge of tho Court of Appeal doubted it. What they doubted waß whether the lwexsla.tion had offectcd the purpose intended. The Premier said that he had no such intention in introducing the claUße. Somebody clearly had, and somebody had crushed the House. Accepting the statement of the Premier that it was not the Government, was it not of the greatest importance to the House to know who was responsible for the House having legislated without knowing what it was doing? They should enquire who was responsible for so deceiving the Government, and with whom that person oonferred before deceiving both the Government and the House. Under these circumstances the Government could not further object to the Committee. Ho was not making an attack on the Government. Ab counsel for the browers in one case in the Court of Appeal ho could confirm tho Premier's statement that he had objected to interfere An hon. gontleman who isßued a Royal Commisaion to enquire into the means whereby a letter which ought to havo been kept private waß mado publio shonld not refuse to enquire into thia much more aerioua allegation, anc refuso to ascortain by what officer and under what influence tho Government was lod into introducing a clause to an Act which was rotroactive, and which dooeived the Houbo. He would ask the Promier to ascertain who had decoivod him. Tho Minister for Education said the Government could not admit having been decciwid. It took full responsibility for the clause. Ho did not think the Government should appoint a Royal Commission. Mr. Boll— You havo a precedent. The Minister— There were precedenta and precedents, and this was a precedent to bo avoided. Sir Robert Stout said if the Governmen took responsibility for the clause they must take tho responsibility for making it retrouotive. Ho aßked for an enquiry, and it was refused. If he got that enquiry he would undertake to show that this clause was expressly framed in this way to affect Sydonham, and that after it was framed it was altered, in order that the House might be deceived. There was his specific charge. If the Ministora refused onquiry and elected to ait under it they must accept the responsibility. As for the petitioners, they had been, owing to this clause, dofrauded of their legal rights and threatened with ruinous expense. The Government had refused enquiry. He hoped those who had done this great wrong would be able to reconcile it with their consciences. The motion for the adjournment of the House was then put and lost on the voices.