PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2579, 3 August 1895, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. . .Friday, August 2. ■ The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m. / " UW OF EVIDENCE. , . The Attorney-General, replying to the Hon J. MacGregor;: said the Government intended,to bring in a Bill to consolidate and ameud.the law. of evidence at an early date.. . ; ■ , NEW BILL. ,! The Beprint of . Statutes Bill (Sir P. A. Bnokloy) was read the .first time: 'i ... STATE FOREST RESERVE.' ;. . . The Hon Mr Kelly moved that tho report of the Waste Lands ■ Committee upon. Paper No. 4 relative to laud proposed to bo withdrawn from reservation as a State forest, brought up bn- Tuesday, tho 30th of July, bo agreed to. The lion gentleman said the land referred to’ consisted of .200 acres in tho Manawatu district, and was forest land well timbered. The motion was agreed to. FIRST HEADINGS. The following Bills received from the House was read tho first time:—Coalmines Act Amendment Bill, ■ Hawkeshury Bocreation Vesting Endowment . Bill, Wainiate Municipal .Reserves Bill, Auckland Harbour Board and .-Hcvonport..Exchange Bill, Wellington City ; Wa ter. Supply Bill, Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill No. 2, Threshing Machine- Owners'. Lien Bill, Otago Dock Act Amendment Bill, Counties Act Amendment Bill. FINAL STAGES. Tho Native Townships Bill was read tho third time and passed. DECEASED HUSBAND’S BROTHER'S MARRIAGE ■ . , , B,IL ; L. . The Ifon J. MacGeegof. moved tho second reading of this Bill, and in doing so. rcmqvkod that tho Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council in 1803, by the Hon Hr Pollen, -who,’he believed, still sup. ported the Bill, .which was needed, ho understood, in,order torolieve several oases oS : hardship which existed within the Colony in consequence of the’ brothers-in-law, who were compelled to keep their brother’s , widow and children, being prevented from nmrrying, their sisters-in-law. Tho Hon C-.C. Bowen failed to see why relief should be accorded to people who, , with their eyes open, had contracted mar- . yiages which the law disallowed. At present the relative positions of brothers-in- , law and sisters-in-law to each other were .... regarded virtually as those of brother and ... sister, and therefore, to make, their mar- .. riage with each other, legal, .would, in his , opinion’, prove to he a great mistake. As ap amendment, he moved that the Bfll.be . read a second time.that day six months. The Hon Sip G. S. Whitmore would support the amendment, as ho believed these continual alterations with the marriage laws were subversive of domestic peace, and family ties. He expressed regret that the Government, had not seen fit to intervene in stopping these undosir- . able marriage Bills. , • The Hon W. McCullough supported the Bill, as also did the Hons B. Pharazyn and Dr Pollen and the Hon J. Bigg. . , ' The Hon J. Kerr, said the Bill had not been asked for by the. people, and there* , fore for that reason alone, apart altogether from , any moral objection, he should Oppose the Bill. ; The Hon W. C. Walker likewise opposed the Bill, as also did the Hons J. A. Bonar, ' J. T, Peacock and J. B. Aolahd. The second reading was lost by 18 to 14, and the Bill killed.

The following is the division list : Ayes, 14. —Scotland, Bolt, Swanson, Shrimski, Pharazyn, Kelly, Ttigg, Jen kinson, Taiaroa, Feldwick, .MacGregor, McLean, Pollen,McCullough. . Noes, 18.—Reynolds, Richardson, Baillie, Whitmore, Bonar, Bamiooat, Williams, Kerr, Jennings, Walmwaha, "falter, Aolaud, Qrraond, Bowen, • Holmps, cock, Montgomery, Buckley. , ■' , .■ i 1 - The reasons for .the, House .disagreeing, with! the Council's amendments in the Criminal Coda Act Amendment Bill were considered. ■ The Attoeney-Genekal moved that the Council does not insist in its nmendm^nt^,

A division on tho question resulted: — Ayes, 7; nooa, 23. Reasons |for tlio Council insistin'; upon their amendments were accordingly drawn up and transmitted to tho House. The Council at 4.30 p.m. adjourned till Tuesday. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, AlJ'-lUfJT 3. Tlio Speaker took tho chair at 2.20 p.m. QUESTIONS. Tho whole of tho afternoon was taken up in answering and discussing questions on tho Order Paper. ANIMALS PROTECTION ACT. This Bill was taken in committee. In clause 4 a minimum penalty for Bronchos of tlio Act war. fixed at X~>; and the maximum penalty altered from 32100 to 32.70. Tho Premier moved to add a clause to tho Bill to prevent tho killing and olfering for sale of garno recently released by any acclimatisation society; or any class of garno that might, at any timo bo scarce. This was agreed to. ' • Another now clause providing that, except whore specific provision is made to tho contrary, tho minimum fine under the Animals'Protection Act 1880 shall bo 321 was added on tho motion of tlio Pkkmier. Mr Houston moved to add a clause providing that no Native pigeons shall be killed during 1896, and that every sixth year therefrom shall bo set aside as a close season. The Native members protested against this, as many Natives depended to a great extent on the pigeons for food. • The Premier moved to amend Mr Houston’s clause giving the Colonial Secretary power to exclude tho Uroworn country or any other Native district from tlio operations of the Act. Mr Houston’s clause us so amended was agreed to. Mr T. Mackenzie moved to add a now clause prohibiting tho taking of seals within Now Zealand jurisdiction. This was lost by 21 to 33. The Bill was then passed through all stages. ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL, The amendments made in this Bill by the Legislative Council wore agreed to. ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS SALES CONTROL ACT AMENDMENT BILL, The Premier moved tho second reading of this Bill. It gave him very groat pleasure, ho said, to put before tho country tho Government’s views on the liquor question. There was a necessity for dealing with the question this session. Extreme views wore held ;by both sides. There wore many now members in the present House, and ho ventured' to say tho extreme views entertained by them on the liquor question had been considerably modified by their experience in the House. It was a question that needed dealing with in a manner that would give lusting satisfaction. No one party or Class could insist on having all their own way, They must legislate to satisfy tho majority, and ho. ventured to say the Government Bill now hefore'.tho House would give satisfaction to tho great majority of tho people of tho Colony. Until the present Government came ’ into office, there had been no licensing legislation since 1881. In 1893 the present Government took the matter up, and gave the people direct control of. this most. important subject. The poll under this Act gave no real idea of the opinion of tho people, as the votes of twothirds of those'entitled to vote were not recorded. : No legislation would bo fair, he contended, unless it gave the opportunity for all to record their- opinions upon tho liquor question. There were really four issues, viz.,,tbitWiu'rl AS at: present; redilrii,, tion in tlio number of licenses, local Prohibition and colonial Prohibition; and the Government in their Bill had provided that qll those issues should be submitted to the people. As, regarded, the, two first, issues.,they..agreed that,a bare majority, was sufficient, but in the two latter a threefifths majority was necessary. It was contended by some, that the reduction and Prohibition votes should bo .cumulative. This, however, was manifestly unfair to those who had opinions either way. For instance, it was unfair, to make the vote of ( n man. who,was,in,favour ,of reduction eoiint for,Prohibition. .The Government had provided . in their Bill that nil voters, could vote on two of the issues submitted, They could have, allowed “ proportionate voting" to show the feelings of tlio voters oh the different issues, but had thought this top, cumbrous. There wore many, who .were opposed to local Prohibition being bno of the issues submitted, on tho ground that IbcaJ Prohibition could never bo properly given, effect to, but the Government hail decided to adhere to this issue. The reasons, for the different majorities required to carry reduction and Prohibition wore plain. The change that would.be effected by redaction being curried would be merely, the closing of .not less than 5 per cent, nor more than 25 per cent, of the betels in, a, district,' Prohibition, oh. the . contrary, ineank the dosing of all.’the hotels—-a.change seriously affecting the whole tdistript; including the finance of the local authorities. Not only this, but it also meant (in interference with the liberty of. the, subject.. In all important matters of, tips,, kind a substantial majority was required] ’. If reforms were to stand,,! thby vidiist! bo carried by a substantial majority.. Talcing into considora-, tion the number who would not record ' their yptes, the carrying of Prohibition by, a three-fifths ‘ majority, would after all really incur the carrying it by a minority of those on the roll. The real matters in dispute !wore the issues to, be submitted to the ppqpla, and. the majorities to carry these)(issues. It had been said, that the Government Bill would allow a minority, to dominate,.the. majority. This was. not so. Cjn, the contrary, the_ proposal to make; the reduction and Prohibition votes cumulative would do-that. It was, ns ho had stated, unfair to make ft Prohibitionist’s vote count for reduction.;-' ICJrintplaints 1 CJrintplaints had been made, and he regrottad, to say in some cases. substantiated,,' that , the law had not' boon ’ enfolded' by the police. Ho had never spared officers who had so,, neglected’ their' duty. . In. the pist" constablet''had been fined ■' for entering hotels when 'on' duty during prohibited hours. (Fortho futura hb propoaed that ahy such breach'of tho police, regular tiona’would, mean dispbiirge. This’ would algo Apply to 'members or the 'Permanent Artillery Force. The main body Of the police was a body to be proud of,' and it was tv grriafi pity that tljri snortoqminhs Of a few should drirwr down"! these aceus&tions upon the whole force. Ho would like ‘to ’See! these ! ! ‘accusations Chocked. Where a man ias' blnraoble let 'hiifi ; be blamed; butdo riot attack thOwhole force for it. The' same applied to the hotelkeepers! The whole body shCuld ' not be blamed for the lawbreaking W ! a 'few., Neither should a inail be blamed , for taking, a. glass Of stimulant. ; 1 It whs unwise to be .continually harassing people, and hotel beepers as well as others should hard a' certain security of tenure; and licensing elections, therefore, '; ’ should ' not take plrico ;at shorter' ! 'periods than three years!, Continuing., Mr, Seddon proceeded; ‘ to deal with the 'detail!?- of wie Bill. jWhich liavo'alrcady.been published in /the, New. Zealand Times.’ Ho admitted that there were' ‘ofijeotioris to ' holding', the licensing election on the 1 day of tho general election, but if agohd poll,was wanted that was the best dhy tri obtaih.it; This question' and tho question of separate polling booths would, however, be left to the .House to decide. It was a wisa'pfrivision, he.thought, to include clubs in.the same Category as hotels.' ■

Sir Eqbebt Stout congratulated the Premier bit baying mad,h a considerable Bdvancer i: on the licensing legislation of 1893; The great bloiriix Ijlr Seddon’s speech nos that he had no enthusiasm for political reform, fie merely introduced this Bill with the object’of getting rid of this licensing question with 09 little friction as possible. The Government hod merely taken up tho question os being an awkward one likely; 'to prove inconvenient to thpir following nnless removed, Tbo Premier, in tho,present Bill had ihad to admit the fallacy Of certain of bis proposals of 1893. But nbw as to the questions©! tho majority. Let him ’give‘. ’an illustration. If 3000 voters’ went to’’the poll, and 1730 voted for no license, 1309 for reduction and duo solitary voter recorded his vote for licenses 1 to remain as at present; what would-be the’ result? It would moan that the 2999 voters' would 1 not, got their way, but the one solitary voter would got his. And’“this was (Jonxocraoy, Was it fair? Was }t Liberal ? Was not this a minority ruling the ' majority ? Sir Eobert Stoiit went on to urge’ the fairness of bare' majorities,' contending ■ that even if Prohibition wan,carried by only one vote the good results that would ensue would mean the carrying’Of the next poll by a larger ■majority. . Tho • Colony, might, as the Premier had stated, bo opposed to Prohibition.’ ' If that was so, so ho it; but was this any reason why tho poll should not he, decided by a hare majority. He thought not.' 'Eegarding. the cumulation' of the Prohibition and reduction votes ho claimed that - as both of those were' against licenses they should be counted together. In conclusion he urged members to look at this matter from,a social »spect,‘and if they bad the benefit and welfare of the community at heart vote for what the Temperance Party asked for. ' ’■ ■■ : Mr La wav condemned the Bill and. temperance legislation generally. Ho would not trust the people upon this question on account of the agitators/ : . , Mr Duthie regretted that tho burlesque speech of,the last speaker should have been delivered on so serious a subject. His (Mr Xlpthiete) opinion was thiji tjie gyeat; majority'of th.e, people had not yet hpen educated np-to Prohibition, afid any elfprt to attain must meet with defeat, At the satae time it was necessary to amend tho existing state of. things. ' Tool many hotels had sprung into existence. A bettor class Of houses was needed, and in order to obtain this some security should Jjo jsfivon to hotelkeepers'.' The Bill was,

to his mind, a very unsatisfactory ono. Many hotelkeepers merely kept their bouses for tho sale of liquor, and most of this class being “ tied” houses tho licensee.? were compelled to commit all kinds of breaches of the Act in order to make things pay. Tho law was not enforced as it should bo. The only way to permanent reform was tho gradual reduction in tho number of publieliouses and the educating of the people in temperate ways. Ho agreed with the Premier that respectable publicans should not bo harassed ; it was a wrong thing to degrade the hotelkeepers in tho way licensing legislation of late years had done. Mr G. W. Bussell supported the Bill. Ho believed that tho great : moderate party outnumbered either the Prohibition or tho liquor party. In his opinion tho only solution to the liquor question was to leave it to bodies similar to tho old Provincial Councils to deal with. Ho was opposed to colonial Prohibition ; and was not in favour of a bare majority for local Prohibition. Ho congratulated tho Premier upon having boldly taken up this question in Hie manner be had.

Dr Newman said there were two or three striking features in the Bill. Ono of the most vicious was clause 27, dealing with an increase in tho number of licenses, in case of a growth of 10 per cent, in the population. Ho objected also to the clause allowing a license to be shifted from one part of a district to another. The clause prohibiting Maori women from entering hotels was a very satisfactory one. The question of dividing the temperance vote in the manner proposed in tho - Bill was most objectionable, and not at all likely to load to a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. Mr Willis did not believe in tho sudden and violent change contemplated by the Prohibition Party. No country in. the world needed Prohibition less than New Zealand. He supported tho Bill generally, hut deprecated tho abolition of the New Zealand wine licenses.

Mr Here said the Maoris of the Colony were anxious to restrict the liquor traffic, and ho congratulated tho Premier on tho great endeavours he had made to overcome this liquor question. Mr Soddon fully deserved such congratulations. The Premier said the remarks of th» lust speaker cheered him on. Sir Robert Stout had accused him (Mr Soddon) of having no ideal in this matter. Sir Robert Stout was as usual in tho clouds, striving for an ideal. Ho (Mr Sedden) was practical, and desired to put in''practical form legislation for tho good of the country. He knew that nothing he could do would gain him the thanks of tho extreme Temperance Party, but that would not prevent him continuing his work in the interests of the people of the Colony, and endeavouring to promote the cause which that party had in view but which they themselves by their extreme actions kept back. The Government Bill would not pleaso the extremists of either party. He know that and did not want it to. Mr Duthio, he contended, was inconsistent. in opposing the Bill. He would oppose any attempt to amend the measure in the direction of doing away, with,, tied houses, not because ■ho agreed with the system of tied houses, on tho contrary, but it was likely to imperil the Bill. The reason the abolition of the wine and bottle licenses was provided for in it was to do away with the possibility of their being converted into sly-grog shops, which was very possible under the restrictions contained in the Act. ... Tho motion for tho second reading was carried on the voices, Mr Pabata, .who called for a division.being unable to get a single supporter. ■■ r The House rose at 0.55 a.m.