PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9269, 3 August 1893, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— I'IUCSS ASSOCIATION.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. HAKBODK DILLS. The Otago Harbour Board Empowering Bill and the Wanganui Harbour Endowment Bill were read a second time. PAYMENT OF MEMBERS. The Taymenb of Members f Bill was amended by message from the Governor in the direction of imposing fines on members of both branches of the Legislature -councillors to be fined '2">s, and members of the Lower House 40s per day for each day absent. MAGISTRATES COURT KILL. The Magistrates Court Bill was considered in committee, and reported with trifling amendments. The Council then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wkdnesday. The House met at 2.30 p.m.

PROTRACTED DISCUSSION'S. A question asked by Mr. Ai.i.km with reference to payments to Mr. Williams in connection with the West Coast Settlement Act provoked a long discussion, in which a largo number of members took part. This was followed by another long debate on the co operative system of labour, the opportunity being afforded by Mr. Fisher's motion for ft return giving voluminous particulars in connect with these works throughout the colony. Eventually the motion was agreed to. MARTINMIKNRY RIFLES. Replying to Mr. Dnthie, Mr. Skddon said tho shipment of Martini- rifles for tho Rifle Association would arrive in the colony by March, 1891. LABOUR BILLS COMMITTEE. The name of Mr. Jamoa Mills was added to the Labour Bills Committee. STATU HANK. Mr. Taylor moved that in the opinion of this House the Government should obtain all information in order to bring in a State Bank Bill.

The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. I.IUKNSINt! ACT AMENDMENT KILL.

On the first order of the day being called on (the Licensing Act Amendment Biil), Mr. Buoui.VN'D rose to a point of order. He contended that the present Bill introduced by Sir K. Stout was substantially the same as the Direct Veto Bill introduced early in the session, and lie submitted that two Bills to the same, effect could not. be introduced in the same session. If this Bill were passed, he submilted that the Direct Veto Bill could not be brought on this session, as one of the Bills proposed to prevent the wale of liquor and the other one to close publichouses. The SPEAKER said he had looked at this matter carefully, and lie found that where two Bills proposed to effect the same object but in different ways they were virtually separate Bills, and were in no way identical, lie therefore ruled that Sir K. Stout was quite in order in moving the second reading of the presont Bill. As to the second point raised by .Mr. Backhaul, that of the Direct Veto Bill, lie said that question had nor, yet arisen. When that Bill was reached he should be prepared to rule on it.

Sir R. Stout then moved the second reading of tho Licencing Act Amendment Bill. In doing so ho said it needed no apology for him to bring in such a measure, as it was creatine such a largo amount, of interest all over the world at present. Tho Bill was really a very slight alteration of the existing law. It did not propose any new principle. The present, law gave the people the power periodically to settle the question of the number of licenses in particular districts. The Bill proposed to insert, two additional question-, namely, shall licenses be granted and shall licenses be reduced. That was the only addition to the present law made in this law, which was so simple that lie hoped the House would pass it without much debate. Ho asked tho House whether it wished this question to be a test one during the coming elections. He held it would be to the interests of good government if they removed this question from polities and relegated it to the people. This great question had to be met, and if it were not mot in the simple form he proposed, it would probably be met in a much more unpalatable form. Tho question would havo to bo decided on a majority .alone, and he warned tho opponents of this Bill that if they did not accept the reform he proposed they would have to face one of a more drastic character. In moving in this matter he did not wish to say a single word against those who were engaged in the liquor traffic, many of wore kind and humane men.butthequcstion had still to bo seriously face 1. It was at present a great blot on humanity, and humanity required that that blot should be removed. The question appealed to all their highest instincts, and to the highest morality. Did lion, members know what misery was caused by drink, and how many deaths resulted from it? There was no doubt it was tho social curso of the age. There was hardly a family in the colony that could say that none of their family had boon ruined through drink. Total abstainers might probably look at this question from a narrow point of view, but why should stones be east at them, as they were striving to effect a great reform '! This was surely a question that should bo raided above party, and each one should ask himself what he could do to help on this great reform. If they did so ho felt Mire the Bill would be carried by a good majority. Mr. SAUNDERS seconded the motion, and paid the licensing question was always a difficult one to deal with. He hold that the present Licensing Act had been a great step in advance, but had not done so much as it might have done owing to the apathy of the temperance party themselves. He hoped they would succeed in making some reform in the liquor trallic, and he thought I the present Bill a large amendment in that direction. He hoped the Bill would receive the attention which it deserved, and that they would do something to keep temptation out of the way of those who required such protection.

Colonel Fraskr thought the present Bill was not the one that the Temperance party expected. All the petitions that had been presented to the House were in favour of the Direct Veto Bill, not the present Bill at all, and it appeared to him as if the promoters of this Bill wore shirking the question. Even the high priest of temperance, the Kev. Mr. Walker, had informed a member of the Houso yesterday that Sir It. Stout's Bill was not what they wanted, that they wished to go to the country on the question of veto or no veto. There was also not a word in this Bill respecting compensation, and he held that justice should be done to the publican as well as to any othor member of the community. Sir R. Stout had told them the other night they should do everything to make the Government finance strong, but he now, by this Bill, proposed to sweep away nearly half amillion of revenue from the Government, besides taking £(50,102 of revenue from local bodies.

Mr. kudus fluid thoy would all admit that this question was (imitating the public mind at present, and he agreed with Sir B. Stout that the subject would have to be dealt with. It was even more important than tho woman suffrage. The country should, however, understand that the Bill before tho House was not the Direct Veto Bill. It was the same in principle, but differed greatly in detail, and he thought many in tho House would bo prepared to support the present Bill, although they would not support the direct veto. Referring to the deputation that waited on him, ho had told them ho wished to consult) his colleagues before stating tho decision of tho Government. Shortly afterwards a deputation of brewers and others engaged in the trade waited on him, to whom he gave the same reply. The Government had given no pledges to either deputation. They asked that the dobato on this question should bo fair and full, and that the forms of the House should not bo used against the Bill. After the debate was finished, if it was the desire of the House that the Government should deal with it, they would do so. He did not wish to # convey that the Government would carry this Bill through the House, bub if the decision of the House was such as he had indicated, the Government hoped to be able to carry a measure that would be fair and reasonable.

which would give satisfaction to all. He did not think it would bo wise or possible to attempt to please extremists of either side, and the present Bill was a great modification of the Direct Veto Bill. Ho should vote for the second reading of the Bill. Mr. BRUCE said the Premier's speech convinced him that the Government of which he was the he id, was not prepared to take the lead in this question. He was not an extremist in either party, but, at the same time, he would be prepared for a little self-sacrifice to save his follow men from going into the putter. Although lie intended to vote for the second reading of this Bill, lie could not agree that the question should bo referred solely to the electors. He also could nob agreo with the proposal that the question should be decided by a bare majority, and thought a two-thirds majority would bo preferable. He did not think the question of compensation should be raised in the present Bill at all.

Mr. Hutchison supported the Bill, and said it was tho business of tlio people to grant licenses or refuse them. He was prepared to trust t.ho people, and felt sure that that trust, would bo rightly exercised. Mr. Bkkvk.- said he felt himself in an awkward position, inasmuch as lie should have to vote in the opposite lobby to his chief. With the greater part of the Bill, however, he agreed. But at the last election he was pledged to support the existing law during the present Parliament. He was bound, therefore, as a matter of honour to vote against this Bill, and ho should do so. The Premier had stated the views of the Government on the Bill, and if tho House decided the question must be dealt with this session they would bo prepared to take it up. The Bill was not, except in one point, revolutionary, but it was a decided measure of reform. _ It contained one most important principle— viz., the direct veto by a baro majority. He was not able conscientiously to support the direct veto by a baro majority without compensation, and although he approve:! of many features of the present Bill ho should vote against it in order to fulfil the pledge he gave to his constituents. He doubted whether a majority of the House believed th.it prohibition wag practicable. Ho did not think it was cither practicable nor desirable, and what they wanted was a middle course. Was alcohol the only thing that did harm to the community? Why medical men asserted that tobacco was more harmful, and ho himself believed that gambling did more harm than alcohol. If they put down gambling by prohibition they must also put down playing cards and horses. Ho believed that the common sense of the colony was in favour of regulation and not prohibition. Mr. lsitt had stated that his party did not want, the regulation of the liquor traffic, but absolute prohibition, but he (Mr. Reeves) did not think a majority of the House was in favour of prohibition although they were in favour of judicious reform. Referring to the old Licensing Act, he thought it was an excellent measure if it were properly interpreted, but people in exercising such extraordinary power as the veto ought, to be prepared to proceed slowly and not inflict injury on many people without due consideration. They should see that there was some safeguard provided, so that such largo confiscation of property as might take place under the Bill would not be effected "in a single hour by a baro majority. Ho would bo prepared to give the direct veto to a substantial majority.

Mr. Tavi.ou had promised his constituents that he would support a Bill of this kind, and he would stand by that, pledge. Mr. Wilms would vote for tho second reading of tho Bill if an all oration were made in the direction of compensation. Mr. Sr.nuoN- explained that ho had not stud that if the second tea ling of the Bill were carried the Government would take up the measure. That was not, tho intention of the Government, and he had nob stated that. What ho had said was that the Government would in that case deal with the Bill as they thought best. Mr. l'isii sail! he could nut often compliment the Minister for Labour on his utterance, but he must say the speech just delivered by Mr. Reeves was a masterly exposition of tho licensing laws. It was highly amu»ing to hear member after member compliment Sir R. Stout on his eloquent speeches, but those who knew the member" for Inangahua as ho knew him would admit that in nine cases out of ten that lion, gentleman merely appealed to the sentiments of his hearers and scarcely ever to their common sense. He asserted that no class of the community was more desirous for moderate reform than the brewers and hotelkeepers of the colony, but the present Bill must really be regarded as a Local Veto Bill. He objected to the Bill on eleven different ground--, namely, that tho colony had not asked lor it, nor had they any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject; that tho Bill did not provide for compensation ; that it did not appiycompulsorily to the whole colony; that it. was attempted to carry its provisions by means of a bare majority; that if the Bill was carried its effect would be disastrous to the colonial and local finance; that any such momentous change in the law should be brought down by the Government; that if it were the will of any considerable majority of electors that the liquor traffic should be stopped, it should bo enacted that no liquor should bo imported into the colony or manufactured here; that compulsory or repressive legislation of this character was inimical to the best interests of the community, and destructive to those principles of liberty inherent in the English race ; that the enactment of such a law as this would encourage sly grog-selling ; that no provision was made for preventing the sale of liquor in clubs, which would, therefore, largely increase in number; and, Lastly, that the Bill was unjust and unfair to the working classc- 1 , affecting them, whilst it would not effect tho wealthy. Mr. Fish was still speaking when the | telegraph office closed at two a.m.