LATE PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1222, 2 August 1895, Page 25

LATE PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, July 31. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PRIVATE BILL. The Hamilton Gas Works Bill (Dr Pollen) was read the second time, and referred to the Select Committee. SUNDAY-TRADING IN CHRISTCHURCH. On the motion of the Hon Mr SitßiMsict, it was resolved that the evidence and judgment on the cases lately tried in the Magistrate's Court in Christchurch with reference to the sale of liquor on Sundays be printed. DIVORCE BILL. The Hon J. MacGregor moved tho third reading of the Divorce Bill. Tho Hon Sir G. S. Whitmore moved as an amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The third reading was carried by 19 votes to 15, and the Bill passed. THIRD READING. The Adoption of Children Bill was read a third time. coroners' inquests bill. The Hon H. Feldwick moved the second reading of this Bill, which had come from the Lower House. The Hon S. E. Shriblskl said that in view of the assertion made by the Attorney* General on the previous day, that it was the intention of the Government to abolish coroners afad coroners' juries, he moved an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. After further discussion, the Bill was lost by 21 votes to 12. BILLS IN COMMITTEE. The Property Law Consolidation Amendment Bill was further considered in committee. Progress was reported, with leave to sit again. The Commissioners Powers Bill was committed and reported with a number of verbal amendments. SECOND READINGS. The Colonial Secretary moved the second reading of the Mining Companies Act Amendment Bill. The motion was agreed to on the voices, and the Bill was referred to" the Goldfields Committee^ The Hon E. C. J. Stevens moved the second reading of the Cemeteries Act Amendment Bill, which was introduced in the House. / The motion was agreed to without debate. The Council at 4 p.m. adjourned till the following day. HOUSE OF "REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, July 31. The Speaker took the chair" at 2.30 p.m. JriRST READINGS; The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—lnvercargill Corporation Reserve Exchange Bill, Mr J. W. Kelly; the Inebriates' Institutions Bill, Mr Joyce; the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill, Hon Mr Reeves; the Lunatics Act Amendment Bill, Hon Mr Reeves. CRIMINAL CODE BILL.

The committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the amendments made in this Bill presented their report, which was agreed to. LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr McNab moved the second reading of this Bill. During the recess, he said, there had been a disturbance throughout the whole of the Colony on this question, and a very large section of the community demanded legislation on the subject. He did not see therefore how members could go back to the country -without this session passing a Bill going in the direction of temperance reform. The Bill he now moved the second reading of was the Bill framed by the temperance bodies of the Colony, but he was perfectly prepared to take any reasonable and workable amendments to it. For instance, in the very important question of whether in such a Bill provision should be made for "reduction," there was no such provision in the Bill, but if the majority of the House, so desired, re was quite willing to agree to it being included. Proceeding, Mr McNab went on to deal in detail with the provisions of the Bill, which have been fully given in these columns. He could not see why clubs should be on any different footing to hotels. Turning to the reduction question, he pointed out that at the last local option poll 107,518 votes were recorded, 42,429 being in favour of a continuance of licenses, 16,096 for reduction, and 48,993 polled for no license, showing that only 16,090 were in favour of reduction. He was opposed to the local and colonial option polling being taken at the same time as the general election, and his Bill provided that the polling should be taken in April every three years. The form of ballot-paper was simply license or no license and no confusion could arise under it; the majority to carry either local or colonial option being a bare one. In answer to the Premier, Mr McNab said he was willing to refer the Bill to the Statutes Revision Committee

The Premier congratulated Mr McNab on his very moderate speech in introducing the Bill. There -were many debatable questions in the Bill. The Government had a Bill on the same subject, and he thought that it was the duty of the Government to deal with matters of this kind. (Hear, hear.) They had given no cause for there being any doubt that they would deal with it this session. The Government, he contended, had been quite sincere in their desire to pass the Bill of last session, and the attitude of the Temperance Party on that occasion was responsible for it not becoming law.' This session he had brought down a Bill in another form, and hoped that it would not meet with a similar fate. It was necessary that such a Bill should be passed into law. The circumstances now were likely to warrant the

Bill receiving fair treatment from members, and he felt sure that the Government measure would pass into law in a form likely to give satisfaction to the greater portion of the tibriidivinity; Mr McNab's Bill, it had been stated, had found favour with the temperance bodies. He thought the strength of the Temperance Party had been overrated, but he gave the t members of that party credit for working lin a good cause. The [Temperance Party, ' however* did not acknowledge what the Liberal Party had done for them—that it was the Liberal Party that had given the people the direct control of the liquor traffic. He admitted that there was one blot on the Government legislation—the necessity for half the votes on the roll being recorded—but in the present Government Bill this blot was done away with. Mr McNab had expressed his willingness to accept "reduction'' as Olie of *tlie questions in tho Bill; In doing this he had accepted the Government Bill; (Cries! of No and Yes.) Reduction had not yet had a fair chance"; Mr I McNab had quoted last election returns | when some 10/.000 votes were recorded. j He would point out, however, that there I were 300,000 voters on the rolls, so that j nearly 200,000 did not then express an opinion. After mature consideration he had come to the conclusion that this tem- ' perailce c|iie£tidh tr&B inseparable from j general politics, and therefore lie w?s in" favour of the licensing and general etedtion polls being taken together. lii all re- : forms, if they were to last, it Was necessary to have a good working majority. On this Consideration it tras necessary to have at least 1 a three-fifths maj jfity Ort the question of Prohibition. To carry Prohibition on a bare majority would be disastrous to tho country, and he felt sure that the majority of the people of the country and members of the House now recognised the necessity for a three-fifths majority. On the smaller question of reduction he recognised that a bare majority would suffice. Mr Seddon then weut on to point out the difficulties in the way of such a measure in the hands of a private member passing into law. The Government wished to come to a ccheitisioii upon this Vexed question; and would go on with their Bill in the hope of settling it for a time at least.

Sir Robert Stout denied that the Temperance Party were responsible for the Government Bill of last session not passing into law. The Premier, he said, did not want a straight out fight on this question —he wanted to make a triangular duel of it. He wanted to split the votes up on three questions—reduction, license or no license. The Government Bill provided that a majority of the votes recorded on the whole of the questions Submitted WaS hecessary to carry any one Of the questionsUnless a cumulative vote on redaction and Prohibition was allowed, it gave a miserable minority the power to defeat the majority. Mr McNab's Bill on the contrary gave a straight out issue of license or no license. He was glad to see that the Premier proposed to amend the Government Bill to do away with the necessity for half the voters on the roll voting. There were really only three matters at issue in this Prohibition question. These were the question of whether we were to have a bare or a three-fifths majority; when the vote was to be taken, and whether or not the question put should be simply license or no license. Bare majorities ruled in all other matters, why not also on this temperance question. He favoured the general election as the time for the polling on the licensing question. Mr Lawry accused the last speaker of inconsistency, and went on to say that ho looked upon Mr McNab's Bill as the legitimate bantling of the Emperor of Httmbttg and the Empress of Cant and Queen of Hypocrisy. He did not know whether this Bill or that of the Govern- ! ment was the worst. He would oppose both in every possible way. Mr Saunders said he would vote for the second readings of both Mr McNab's and the Government's Bill. The objection he saw to the Government Bill wag that it would divide the votes of the Temperance Party on the questions of no license and reduction. The great mistake the Temperance Party had always made was that they wanted everything or nothing, and the consequence had been that up to the present they had practically "received nothing. He agreed that more than a bare majority Was. necessary to carry the desired reform, and if the Premier would withdraw'that portion of his Bill splitting the temperance vote he would support that measure.

Mr Montgomery agreed with the last speaker. Both Bills found some favour in his eyes, the Government measure most. . Dr Newman said the curious thing I about Mr McNab's Bill was that it had i brought out the Government Bill. This | latter Bill was framed on the principle of j divide and conquer. Its provisions would I divide the Temperance Party. Dr New- | man expressed general approval of Mr I McNab's Bill as to the issues to be subj mitted, and the majorities to rule. He I urged that, in addition to these, provision ] should be made for the abolition of " tied " j houses, and for the more stringent enforce- | ment of the licensing law by the police, j The Hon Mr Reeves, speaking as a pri- . vate member on a private measure, ex- ! pressed his strong admiration of Mr J Saunders' remarks on the Bill, with which I and with those of Mr Montgomery he largely agreed. There could be no question of much greater national importance than the question of the regulation of the liquor traffic. He thought°that in some cases the complaints against the police were just, but generally they were I exaggerated. The licensing law was a ; particularly difficult law to enforce. If the enforcement of the labour law was left in the hands of the police of the Colony they would be laughed at. Special inspectors were needed for the enforcement of the Labour laws, and it was his opinion that a special branch of inspectors was needed

to see that the licensing laws wer6 Cfiforced. He threw out this suggestion for what it was worth. He recognised that the best taleut and the best brain would be necessary for the proper administration of the liquor laij'a of the Colony. He was going to" tote' agaiiisfc Mr" McNab's Bill, but only because he preferred the 1 Govern* ; ment measure. If Mr McNab's Bill \*as the only licensing measure before the' House he would support it. He objected to Mr McNab's Bill on account of the absence of the reduction clauses. Reduction was more feared by the liquor party than PrbhibiticE. They recognised that the're was a likelihodci df reduction, while prohibition was beyond the faage of practical politics. If the Hottee' passed Mr McNab's Bill he hoped the House would insist on the reduction clauses. Reduction was the ally of regulation,- He was opposed to the cumulation of the reduction and Prohibition votes. It was the only law in New" Zealand that he knew of that compelled a person 1 to Vote for something that he did not desire, lit giving tfro Votes the Government in their Bill had done away with the necessity for the cumulative vote?; They did not desire in any way to split the temperance vote, and if he thought the Government JSteasure would do this ho would vote to amend the clause in question. He was strongly in favour of triennial elections, and would stick to the three-fifths majority, lie' could, fid; understand how any man With a sdrise of re'spOnsibility" could think of enforcing Prohibition iii New Zealand on a bare majority. In the interests Of PVdhi* he thought it better that this great question should be decided by a substantial majority. If Prohibition Was carried by such a majority it should not only close the pubiidhouses, but prohibit the manufacture and importation of liquor. Mr G. J. Smith complimented the 1 Hon Mr Reeves upon his part conversion to the temperance cause; and then referred to the attitude of the Premier. He had no doubt that whatever Mr Seddon's views may have been in the past, he was now most anxious to get this liquor question settled before the next general election. Mr Smith supported Mr McNab's Bill. T'he Hon Mr Reeves denied that he had Changed his Opinions on the liquor question since 18§'3.-

Mr E. M. SMiTri said the present Government had done more for the cattse of temperance than any other, and he supported the Government measure in preference to Mr McNab's.

Mr Collins regretted that any difference of opinion from the Prohibition Party at once branded members in the eyes of that party as supporters of the liquor party. As one of the great middle party he expressed general approval of the Government measure.

Major HARRis' at this stage moved the adjournment of the debate. This was lost on division by 82 to 21. Mr Fraser thought it perfect nonsense to discuss Mr McNab's Bill when the House meant to sacrifice it for the Government measure. He preferred the Government Bill. The motion for the second reading of the Bill was then carried on the voices, and the Bill referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. The House rose at 0.30 a.m.