PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4178, 11 August 1874, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, August 10. NEW MEMBER. Mr. Von Der Heyde, the newly-elected member for Waitemata, was introduced and sworn, and took his seat. PETITIONS. The following petitions were presented by Mr. Fox :—Prom 1637 inhabitants of Auckland ; from 206 inhabitants of Christchurch ; and from 6i inhabitants of Kaiapoi, in favor of the existing Licensing Act. Mr. Von dee Heyde presented a petition signed by 466 persons living in the north part of the Auckland Province, praying for the construction of a junction railway between Kaipara and "Waikato. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On the motion of Mr. McGlashan leave of absence for fourteen days was .granted to Mr. Pyke, on account of urgent private business. RAILWAY FROM PALMERSTON TO QUEENSTOWN, OTAGO. Mr. McGLASHAN asked, —“ Whether the Government will cause surveys to be made, as early as may be found practicable, for a line of railway through the central part of the Otago Province, commencing at a point on the Great Northern line near Palmerston and extending to Queenstown, Lake Wakatipu.” Mr. RICHARDSON replied that the Government regarded the work as a purely Provincial one, and at present had no intention of either constructing it or of surveying the line. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NO RTH ISLAND. Mr. VOGEL gave notice that on Tuesday next he would submit resolutions to the House affirming the desirability of abolishing Provincial Government in the North Island, and that Government should, during the recess, take into consideration how that can best be accomplished, and the Provincial revenues should be divided, in the spirit of the compact of 1856. THE LICENSING BILL. On the proposal to go into Committee, Mr. POX observed that he saw it stated in a local newspaper that he was about, on this occasion, to make a sensational speech. He was not aware of having ever done such a thing, and challenged any hon. member to say that during the twenty years he had sat in the" House he ever attempted to make a sensational speech, and least of all that he had ever done so on the great and important topic of the liquor traffic. Nothing would have been more easy. If he tookthe history of publichouses in the towns and villages of the Colony, with the ruined homes, brokendown colonists, destitute widows, children turned into the streets as Arabs, and the thousands of miseries that flowed out of every one of those institutions which the law permitted, and placed them in contrast "with the unlimited wealth of those great millionaire distillers and brewers, whose families indulged in the luxuries of life, who themselves rode in golden coaches, who were carried to the grave in golden hearses, and buried in golden coffins, he could draw a picture that ought to .touch the feelings of every right-minded man. He only intended to make a few remarks, in a plain business-like way, that might guide the judgment of the House in reference to those clauses which the Government had laid on the table, and which the House was to examine in Committee. He thanked the Premier for postponing the motion for going into Committee until to-night, and to that hour, when the House was generally well filled in all its parts. He thought the more light there was thrown upon the subject of the liquor traffic the better. There was much more of the drink now carried on done in dark cellars, and concealed back rooms, than was done in the blazing light of day. He was desirous of repeating the protest he made when the Premier introduced his Bill, in. regard to the course the Government were pursuing in reference to this matter. The Government were endeavoring, practically and absolutely, to repeal the 18th clause, which was the principle of the Act of last session. He was aware that the head of the Government had intimated that such was not his intention, but he was satisfied from a close scrutiny and examination of it, that the effect of this Bill was to practically repeal the permissive or popular controlling clause of the Bill of last session. The Government had no right to come down with a Bill that practically repealed the whole principle of the Act of last session, and materially altered what was regarded by the advocates of liquor traffic reform as the most important part of that Bill, which was the result of three years’ open, fair, and above-board discussion, was taken up on numerous petitions, presented to the House, and carried at the request of 17,000 persons. There were 3,000 signatures attached to petitions now lying on the table: so that there were 20,000 signatures to petitions in favor of such a measure being passed. Having been passed and being supported by public opinion, the Premier was not justified, by a side wind, and without the fullest and amplest public notice being given, in attempting to repeal or materially modify tho Act of last session. "What was done with the Goldfields Bill this session? Tho Goldfields Committee refused to recommend any law being passed, because the people interested had no opportunity of considering the question. Tho Premier addressed tho House to the same effect. Yet that Bill affected only a small, part of the population of the Colony, but this Act of last year not only affected the whole Colony but had the support of the vast mass of public opinion. As he had before said that Bill was discussed in an above-board manner, and was carried with' the approval of both Houses: particularly of the Upper House, which was almost unanimous. The Government by side wind legislation were endeavoring to sweep away the principles of that Bill without con-

suiting the people. He trusted that the hon. member at the head of the Government would yet see the expediency of withdrawing all portions of the Bill having the effect such as he had described. If that were done, he (Mr. Fox) would be perfectly willing to assist in endeavoring to make as nearly perfect as could be the clauses relating to the transfer of licenses and so on, but not the establishment of a quarterly licensing day. He did not intend to make a long speeclx. The utterances of the Premier on the liquor question were not distinguished by any close study of the subject; to some of the statements he made in his speech in replying to the objections to this Bill, it would be his (Mr. Fox’s) duty to reply. The first point that struck Mm on reading the Premier’s speeches, as reported in Hansard, was the entire absence from them of any large, statesmanlike view of the question under discussion. The hon. gentleman, when proposing those large schemes that he has brought forward during the few years he has been in office in the Colony, brought to bear on the various subjects a large amount of careful consideration, and a vast and overwhelming amount of statistics, facts, figures, and documentary evidence to prove and strengthen his case; but, when he approached the discussion of this subject, he was woefully and lamentably wanting in all those features. The Premier seemed to be absolutely incapable of understanding that this was one of the first questions of the day as regarded the happiness and prosperity of the people whose affairs he administered. His only idea in reference to it, judging by anything he had said or done upon it, was how to afford facilities to obtain drink by those who wished it, and to give facilities to sell drink to those who sold it. Those were the sole points of view from which he approached the matter. He never considered it as regards the welfare of the people, nor in all its aspects, or as one would naturally look at it—as regarded our criminal statistics, our gaols, and our lunatic asylums, His idea was purely tMs— Let those drink now who never drank before, And those who always drank now drink the more. (Laughter.) Apparently the Premier had no other idea in considering the subject than to make it easier to get and to sell drink. That was not the view in which any great statesman would approach the consideration of such a subject. He would read to the House the opinion of a man who was a statesman and a philanthrophist, who had heaped up a great fortune by being connected -with the beer trade, and was therefore as capable as any man of speaking on the subject in all its aspects. He had read it to the House before and would do so again in the hope that it would inspire the Premier with some insight into the subject, and enable him to bring his powerful mind to its consideration, and lead him, instead of becoming the patron of the publican, to reforming our social habits. If the hon. member had held an earnest view of the subject he would have adduced more weighty arguments than he used on the occasion he last addressed the House on the question. When approaching any question he had not seriously considered, the hon. gentleman usually began by apologising for ■the little he knew about it; and in this instance Ms apology could not be considered overstrained. In his Handbook of New Zealand the hon. member said colonising meant making homes. He (Mr. Fox) said the hon. member by Ms Bill was destroying homes, building with his left and feeble hand and pulUng down with his right and strong hand. The liquor traffic simply meant destroying homes, and he trusted the hon. member would impress that idea on Ms mind, and place it side by side with the excellent definition he had given of the true meaning of building homes. He listened with great attention to the Premier expounding his views on forest conservation; and his sympathies were most heartily with him on that subject. He would have been delighted to have seen the frees of other parts of the world introduced into the country, and still more delighted to have seen carried into effect a statesmanlike system which would preserve our natural timbers. TMs Bill planted two other trees ; first of all, a tree that destroyed all that came within its range—a most pernicious tree. It was the great Upas tree of the public-house, and the one tree that would grow plentifully about it was the gallows. He trusted the hon. gentleman who was confering so much good on the Colony by proposing a great system of forest conservation would not be so regardless of our moral condition as to also plant these two baneful trees. There were two other points in the hon. member’s speech wMch he desired to notice. One observation that tell from the hon. member, and fell from most opponents of liquor law reform, was that the pictures drawn by the reformers, of the evils resulting from drink, were exaggerations. But he had never heard what these exaggerations were. If the pictures drawn by Mr. Buxton, and by Mr. Bruce, and if the report of the Convocation of Canterbury of the magnitude of the evil were not exaggerations they could not obtain colors too dark or frightful to describe the results of drinking. The hon. gentleman also said he did not think there were five people out of every hundred in the country who had ever been drunk in their lives ; and probably not one who was actually a confirmed drunkard. Let the hon. member look not in the country, but in the towns, and walk into our gaols, where he would find every man there imprisoned brought there through strong drink, and in the lunatic asylums, three-fourths of the people there confined brought there through strong drink. Therefore, that argument had nothing in it. After referring at some length to the Premier’s objection to the permissive principle, the hon. member said what was asked was that the people should be consulted whether or not a trade that the law declared to be dangerous should be placed at their doors. Was there anything exceedingly unnatural in that, or anything to be alarmed at, or any interference with the liberty of the subject ? The Premier further objected to the prohibitory veto, and particularly to giving women votes. When the hon. member wished to be very persuasive he put forward a plausible plea, and he (Mr. Fox) did not know any person who had a more plausible way of putting any subject, and of persuading an unwilling audience to come round to his view of it. That objection came from the hon. member for Auckland City East and Premier, who, if he was not mistaken, addressed in a fatherly and kind manner the young ladies at the Girls’ High School at Dunedin about extending the franchise to women. The extension of the francMse to women would be liable to exactly the same objections that he advanced against the Permissive Bill. He, for one, did not grudge giving the francMse to females, but he did not say whether he would vote for giving it them : that was a matter for serious consideration. (Laughter.) He did not see any distinction between the two cases. If the principle were carried into effect they would have the wife standing side by side with her husband and rejoicing with him in the possession of the franchise that would enable her to assist him in retaining the morality of the country. The Premier had brought down, by supplementary order paper, a number of clauses wMch to a certain extent modified the Bill, and he (Mr. Fox) had proposed a long series of additional clauses, but he would not anticipate the discussion upon them. But before sitting down he would make a few remarks on the subject of the petition that was presented the other day. The action of the Government in this matter had been so sudden, and had taken the country so much by surprise, that there had been no opportunity for the people in the North to present petitions as they did on the previous occasion, but - he know from ■ correspondence from various parts of the Colony, that if time had allowed there would have ibeen a great many signatures obtained to petitions. On the petition that emanated from this City he had a few words to say. In the first place, a boast had been made that that petition was signed by adult males. Any petition to the women portion of the community in favor of the liquor traffic would have resulted in a miserable and beggarly account of empty boxes, and the women would have pitched the petitions into their faces, and have ordered from their houses the persons who brought tho petitions. It was miserable and barbarous, unmanly and cowardly, to make a boast of no woman having signed tho petition. Tho liquor law reformers did nothing of the kind— they invited women to sign petitions.

Wanting sometMng to amuse him he took one of the local newspapers, and there read of a meeting held in this City, and found that the first meeting in the early part of the day was attended by half a dozen persons, and in the evening there were present two wholesale dealers, some publicans, and a number of persons—hangers-on of publichouses—men of the class that'publicans could attach to them by an occasional hot meal, some beer, or small coin. There was also at that meeting the member for Christchurch City East, who, no doubt, went there for a special purpose. [Mr. Fox here quoted from Mr. Wakefield’s speech.] Mr. WAKEFIELD complained of having been misreported. He told the meeting it was desirable those in favor of the Licensing Bill should give expression to their opinions whether or not publichouses should be opened during certain hours on Sundays. Mr. FOX accepted the hon. member’s explanation for what it was worth. Perhaps he attended the meeting as a shocking example of a man who could not get Ms beer on Sunday. The SPEAKER called the hon. member to order. Mr. FOX did not deny that the petition was numerously signed, but complained that the signatures were obtained in the bars of publichouses, and included those of persons who were the victims of drink. He concluded by stating that he hoped the House would stand by him, and see that the prohibitive legislation of last year should be preserved intact. The failure of the Bill of last year was, in his opinion, due to the manner in which the Government appointed the officers to execute it. They hoped by degrees to bring it into effectual operation. He appealed to the House, after having recognised the right of the people to regulate the liquor traffic, not to allow it to be swept away, as was proposed by the present Bill. Mr. VOGEL observed that those who took up the cause with such fiery action as the hon. member for Rangitikei did, placed a gap between the large bulk of the community who were disposed to assist in remedying an admitted evil, and the few who took up the cause in such a hot manner and forced to the opposite side of the question persons of moderate views. He himself had as great a horror of drunkenness as anyone coidd have; but he looked upon the matter from a reasonable point of view. If the hon. member for Rangitikei accompanied the Permissive Bill with fair compensation the proposition might be reasonably entertained ; and he took leave to say that any other proposal would not have the support of any British community. The object of the present Bill was to meet the impracticability of worldng the measure of last session. The member for Rangitikei had been pleased to say that the faults of his Bill were due not to the Bill itself but to the manner in which the Government worked it. Whether worked wisely or not, it did not result from want of care, for it gave them a considerable amount of trouble. The Bill itself was faulty : and that would naturally be the case when the self imposed task of preparing a licensing Bill was undertaken by one who had a horror of the subject. He .(Mr. Vogel) would rather not have dealt with the matter, and he was not at all sure that the wiser course would not have been to simply repeal the Act of last session. The hon. gentleman himself did not seem to have been satisfied with it, and he (Mr. Vogel) did not know anyone on either side who was. He was not ' all sure that the subject should be dealt with in a piecemeal manner. The present Bill merely crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s of the hon., member’s Bill, and gave some practical shape to the measure which everyday experience proved to be most unworkable. On ordinary subjects the hon. gentleman spoke with vigorous logic, but on this he was apt not to be logical. Take for example the hon. member placing his (Mr. Vogel’s) remarks on female franchise in juxtaposition with the hardship of allowing private houses to be invaded at all hours by persons claiming signatures at so much a head. There was a very wide difference between an ordinary election, with a certain amount of canvassing, once in three, four, or five years, and absolutely legalising the invasion of private houses for signatures, which was the mere meaning of the Permissive Bill. At all events, the majority of the people were of the same opinion as himself. People could not be made siber by legislation, and in that view he was fortified by the failure of all previous attempts at prohibitive legislation. He was bound to say that, although he had never the opportumty or means of investigating the subject closely, the information he had obtained led him to consider that legislation to repress drunkenness had been umformly unsuccessful. Moreover, he thought the principle the hon. gentleman wished established, that a majority of persons in any division of tho country should have the right to insist on a certain business being closed without providing the means of compensation, was a principle allied to confiscation and foreign to the great masses of the English speaking people. In conclusion, he repeated that if the Bill was a failure it did not arise from any fault of the Government. Their desire was to give it a fair trial. They were not -willing to, and would not pack the Licensing Benches with advocates of the Bil), but endeavored to select men who they believed would be' able to perform their duties in a calm and unprejudiced manner. If the present Bill was. passed, he thought it would be a great improvement on the Bill of last year. Ho was not very sanguine of the success of legislation of this kind; he could only hope for the best. He had replied with difficulty to the hon. gentleman, because he was not able to make such passionate appeals to the House. He trusted the House would look at the question as he did, from a calm businesslike point of view, and consider they had not to deal with it as sentimentalists, but fairly, justly, and equitably. The House then went into Committee. Some discussion took place on the 4th clause, in which Mr. O’CONOR moved as an amendment that the consideration of the clause be postponed. He desired to place the power of electing the Licensing Bench in the hands of the people of the various districts. If the ■people did not exercise that power the Provincial Councils should. After some remarks from Mr. Cothbeetson, Mr. Meevyn (who argued that no person should be placed on a Licensing Bench who was not a resident of the district), Mr. Fox, Mr. Vooel, Mr. J. L. Gillies, Mr. Rolleston (who thought the power of appointing the Licensing Benches should rest with the Government), a division was taken, and the amendment rejected by 42 to 20. Mr. FOX took occasion to remark that the Government, far from having taken trouble to administer the Act of last session, had taken but little care in the matter. The whole correspondence was on the table, and it amounted to little or nothing. Mr. WHITE warmly denounced the Bill of last session, which would never have become law if the Government had not abnegated its functions for tho time. It was a wretched measure, and he said so as in no wise interested in the liquortrade. ’On tho 9th clause—holders of public-house licenses may have more than one bar— Mr. SWANSON, replying to some observations by Mr. Fox, suggested that if they desired to bo honest in this matter, they should abolish Bellamy’s. On the 10th clause—wholesale licenses to be issued by the Provincial Treasurer at any time— Mr. J. L. GILLIES suggested that this power should not be exercised by tho Provincial Treasurers, but by the Licensing Bench, as tho former could not possibly be aware of the whole circumstances attending the application. Mr. FOX expressed great indignation that those friendly merchants, who drove to Government House in their carriages, and fed the public-houses, should be excused from showing their faces to tho Bench on those occasions. Mr. WALES thought much would depend upon the proclivities of tho Provincial Treasurer. If Mr. Fox held that office, few would be granted. Too many might bo issued by a Treasurer who held opposite views,

After some observations from Mr. O’Conob, Mr. FOX suggested that legislation should he general and not particular. If the liquor trade were as legitimate as other trades, why hedge it round with s’o many regulations ? But it was not so, and therefore it was right that they should know the character of wholesale license holders. Mr. J. L. GILLIES moved as an amendment to clause 12 to strike out all the words between “The” and “ quarterly.” He hoped that the Committee would retain the principle of the Act of last' year, that license holders should annually come up before the Bench, as he knew many who would stand up in open Court and oppose the license who would object to holding the position of private informers. Mr. FOX supported thd amendment. Mr. VOGEL said the clause had been well considered, and he should maintain the clause as it stood. Mr. FOX pointed out that as the clause stood it repealed the prohibitory veto of the Bill of last session. , Mr. VOGEL did not agree that the clause did away with the prohibitory powers of the present Act. He would extend the time in clause 15 from fourteen to twenty-one days. Mr. O’CONOR suggested the insertion of a clause preventing a person,-who had been refused a license from applying at the next quarterly meeting. Mr. FOX moved an amendment to that effect. Mr. SWANSON pointed out occasions when the amendment would act very oppressively. Mr. VOGEL thought it only justice to a person who had been refused a license to be enabled to apply again in three months. Mr. HARRISON pointed-out that in cases where the publican was not the proprietor, the Act now in operation tended to depreciate the property. Mr. REID thought that the question should be left to the discretion of the Bench. Mr. SHEEHAN thought Government should establish a proper Licensing Court, and furnish good machinery for carrying thenlegislation into effect. The amendment was negatived. Clause 15 was amended by 21 being substituted for 14 days’ notice. Mr. VOGEL moved an amendment to clause 17 “And this Act relating to bottle licenses shall only apply, and be in force in such Provinces as have provided or shall hereafter provide for granting the issue of such Mr. WAKEFIELD set himself right with respect to a late meeting on the subject. He invited an expression of opinion and had not advised one. Mr. CREIGHTON thought that if the Government struck out the clause altogether they would ensure a large amount of moral support. The population of Otago was against bottle licenses. , , Mr. REYNOLDS thought it only right that the House should not take from those Provinces which have done so, the power of issuing these licenses. Mr. WALES thought it inconsistent to abolish bottle licenses and allow retail licenses. He would never attempt to deprive a respectable grocer of a bottle license. Mr. VOGEL thought they were unnecessarily delaying by all this discussion. The Government had done all they could by making the amendment. Mr. WHITE said that the Province of Westland had not issued bottle licenses under their own provisions, but under powers of an Act of the General Government. Mr. VOGEL said that it was competent for the Province to legislate on the subject—that was one object of the amendment. Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at half-past one o’clock.