THE LICENSING BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIV, Issue 10780, 18 October 1895, Page 5

THE LICENSING BILL.

THE COUNCIL'S AMENDMENTS. [from otjb own correspondent. I WELLINGTON, Ocr. 17. THE LIQUOR BILL.

This afternoon when the message from 4he Legislative Council, transmitting the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Bill with amendments, was received, the Premier, in moving that all the amendments should be disagreed with, said that no one regretted more than he did the difference of opinion wbich existed between members of this and (be other House on the alcoholic question. Seeing that the Bill passed the House unanimously the only course open for him was to ask the House to disagree with all the amendments made in the Bill by the Council, and to move that Messrs M’Nab, Mitohelson, Meredith and the mover should be a committee to draw up reasons for such disagreement. This selection of managers, he considered, should be satisfactory to the House, as it represented all sections. Slowly and sorrowfully Mr W. Hutchison rose. The Council, he considered, had jumped on this Bill. They had not gone into the consideration of it with a desire to improve,'except perhaps to improve it off the face of the earth, and he concluded that the House would be consulting its own dignity by taking no further action respecting the Bill. He moved this as an amendment, and having set the heather on fire resumed his seat. Mr G. J. Smith seconded the amendment, and accused the Premier of carefully selecting members holding moderate views and ignoring those who represented ft majority in the country, and having thus intentionally insulted a large section of the community. Why had Sir E. Stout, who had always taken the greatest interest in liquor legislation, not been selected as one of the managers P The selection of managers was an unfair one, and he did not think that the conference should be held. Mr Montgomery considered that there were few amendments made by the Council which the House ought to agree to. It was almost useless to attempt to arrive at any satisfactory solution of the difficulty which had arisen between the two Chambers. It was Mr Maslin’s decided opinion that the Council had deliberately thwarted the wishes of the people of the polony by mutilating a measure that, as it left the House, was generally acceptable. No conference that might take place would lead to any substantial gain, and it would be just as well to defer further action respecting liquor legislation till next session.

The Counoil’s functions, in Mr Earnshaw’s judgment, were to amend Bills so that their intentions might be fully carried out and to check hasty legislation. It had no right to interfere with the spirit of measures passed by the House, as it had done in the present case. The amendments had been carried in the Council by large majorities, and this precluded all hope of a fair compromise. Every fundamental principle of the Bill had been wrecked by the other Chamber, The Premier said that the inflammatory speeches already given were not conducive to smxstiag him to discharge the responsibilities that had been cast upon him in connection with this Bill. This liquor question had that afternoon been used for’ political or, should he say, electioneering purposes, and ho considered that the House should not so use this question. The time was most inopportune for the delivery of violent speeches, and none of the speakers had advanced any valid reason why the reasons for disagreement should not be drawn up. It might be that the Council would be deaf to the House’s representations, but so long as the reasons were such as would commend themselves to the attention and respect of the people of the colony the House would gain strength and ultimately get the measure on the Statute Book. These reasons would not be extreme ones. The onset at first should not be of all forces, and the wise general did not show the enemy his full strength at the first brush. It had been stated that there were some members who wished to keep this licensing business before the House session after session, bo' that their occupation would not be lost. He hoped that there was no foundation for this, but when members were found making violent speeches it only admitted of one explanation. In his opinion the best cause extant would be damned if its advocacy came from such a tainted source. The whole question was whether the wishes of the people should be considered, or whether those who ware practically responsible to no one should dictate to the people and refuse to grant the reforms demanded. He told all parties in the House that the Bill was eminently a fair one and represented the views of the country. In his opinion, if there was anything which would excuse the addition of another day to the length of the session, it was to reinstate the Referendum Bill on the Order Paper and pass it. This was what was wanted on the liquor question, and which the Bill had provided for, but he pointed out that the Referendum Bill would meet with the same fate as that which befel the Liquor Bill. Coming back to the amendments, he said that to agree to them would be folly and an admission of weakness. The House had entered into a struggle, the outcome of which might be that the Government would have to tell the House and the country that with the Legislative Council as at present constituted it was impossible to get the views of the House and country placed on the Statute Book. He considered that by its expression of opinion the Upper House had not shown that consideration to the House and country which both had a right to demand. Sir R. Stout said that he favoured the amendment, as the House had nothing to gain from a conference. “ Sir,” he went on, "before you can expect to get any temperance reform you must have some enthusiasm for the objects of that reform, and those who had carried the Bill had no enthusiasm for its objects. What would be thought of a leader of au Upper House who had charge of a measure who stated that ha did not believe in the Bill and did not expect it to be earned. That had been the position on this Bill.” During the passage of the Bill through the House there had been no lobbying by the trade, but as soon as it reached the Council then the brewers had used their influence. Ha asserted that members of the Council who usually voted at the Government’s desire had on this Bill voted against it, and no doubt at the Premier’s request. “You do me a wrong,” said the Premier, " I never asked any of them to vote one way or the other. You may have some members in the Council,” he added, " to do your bidding, but I have none.” There were members of the Council, continued Sir R. Stout, who were simply what m ght be called adumbrations of the Premier, and everyone of them had simply voted to destroy the Bill. He referred to the similar case in 1893, in connection with the Women’s Franchise, and in answer to incredulous cries of " oh, oh,” he said that he was prepared to prove it if a committee of inquiry was set up. As to tho Premier’s tactics in reference to the committee to draw up r.-asoas, that tho heavy lorces should not first be brought against the enemy, he

considered that this a was poor compliment to those that comprised that committee. He believed in patting one's strongest force to the front, and pointed out that there was only one occasion known in history where the jawbone of a certain animal had won a victory. He believed that the strongest position the House oould take up was to say to the other place that it declined to consider any of its proposals. He prophesied that if any compromise was arrived at on the Bill the liquor question would be as far off final settlement as ever. He asked the House, if it had any sympathy with temperance reform, not to agree to any conference. He was as anxious to get the liquor question settled as the Premier was, so that it might not be a disturbing element at the next election. The Hon W. P. Beeves followed, and expressed the opinion that to carry the_ amendment would be the worst action to take on the matter. It was not always those most enthusiastic at the beginning of the battle who were found fighting at the close. It was necessary to act coolly and deliberately, and to show every possible courtesy in whatever was done. The Legislative Council often did very wrong things, and three or four years ago it had dispassionately slaughtered a large number of Labour Bill®, but then it was acting under the powers conferred on it by the Constitution. The time would come before long when the relations between the Council and the House would be the occasion of inflammatory speeches, but it was not yet. It was unadvisabla to infuriate the Council, because it was not to be supposed that it had no ft lends. (Opposition "hear, hears.”) He wished that it had none after the way that it had treated his Bills for the last few years. But the Council had very powerful friends, and if the majority in the country were to think as he thought about the Council, it should not be given an opportunity to accuse members of the House of discourtesy. Mr G.W. Busssll was not in favour of the abolition of the Council,but considered that it was time that that effete body was brought in touch with public opinion. Mr Saunders said that all this debate would not have taken place if the Premier had included Sis B. Stout’s name in those proposed to be the committee. 11; had been the women’s vote that had altered both the Ministry and members, and until they in another place were also subjected to the women’s vote the House would always be at its mercy. Mr G. Hutchison told those who supported the amendment that if it was carried licensing reform would be postponed till next century. The Council were told to treat the Bill the same way next session, and a few months after next general election the licensing committees would' be elected before any legislation was possible. Whatever was the use, he asked, of sacrificing for a mere point of dignity a measure which had in i t the elements of considerable and desirable change. The Hon J. M’Kenzie resented the’ accusation that the Government had not been earnest in its endeavour with the Bill, and asked members to recall the perseverance of the Premier night after night piloting the Bill through committee. He did not intend to make a speech, however, but simply intimated that the Government had no objection to Bir B. Stoat’s name being added to the committee.

Sir S. Stout, however? declined to act, and after speeches from Mr Collins and Me Eall-Jones, the amendment was negatived by 46 to 12 and the original motion agreed to on the voices.