LICENSING BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3889, 25 September 1928, Page 30

LICENSING BILL.

FATE OF THE MEASURE. THIRD READING DEFEATED. A CLOSE DIVISION. WELLINGTON, September 19. In the full knowledge that at this stage of the fight on the Licensing Amendment Bill the House of Representatives will give its support to the principles of two issues, a bare majority, and a three-years’ tenure the advocates ot the prohibition and continuance causes marshalled their forces in full strength in the House to-night to see that no point is won or lost by default as ths Bill goes through committee. A formidable list of amendments which are to be moved faced members as they took their seats, and crowded galleries testified tn the fact that the licensing question is the most absorbing political topic before the public at the present time. A laugh was raised at the outset when the Speaker declared the House in Committee on the Mental Defectives Amendment - Bill, as well as on the Licensing Bill. “ Speak up; we can’t hear,” were the cries which greeted Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), who was the first to take the floor and open up the general discussion on the licensing question permitted undet the rules of governing the debate on the motion that the short title of the Bill should be adopted. Mr Lysnar urged the Prime Minister to adopt some of the amendments, particularly those standing in his own name, protesting against the deletion of the State control issue. Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said that the prohibition cause was a dying one. In 1918, in spite of the handicap of the compensation clauses, prohibition-had nearly been carried, but since that time the prohibition vote had fallen steadily. He favoured giving the people a number of issues on which to vote. “ What’s wrong with our primary products? ” demanded Mr W. S. Glenn (Kahgitikei. “ Nothing. They bear comparison with any in the world. What’s wrong with our women folk? Nothing.— (Laughter.) Then, what is wrong with our licensing laws? Nothing. Those in this House whom I. term the ‘ drys ’ are trying to convert,our little country into a miniature United States of America. — (Loud laughter). We don’t want a lot of young spoon-fed calves.-” Mr J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said he would not mind a number of issues being put to the people, and he would certainly like to see-them determined by preferential voting. A note as of olden times was introduced by Mr J. Mason (Napier), who intimated that he intended to move an amendment making it permissible to manufacture and sdll mead. “ Mead is made from second grade or inferior classes of honey, and is one of the eldest wines known, records of it being foflnd as far back as 2000 8.C..” lie said. “Its manufacture will give a stimulus to the. honey industry in New Zealand, and I am informed that after two or three years the mead is equal to the best sherry.” A bright patch was provided when Mr Lysnar again spoke of members who entered Parliament “tied.” It was noticeable, he said, that those “tied” prohibitionists did not speak. A member: They are tongue-tied.— (Laughter.) ) Mr Lysnar said that in one of the districts' represented by a prohibitionist member a whisky still had been found. No doubt the member had sampled the -product of the still. — (Loud laughter). The next Mr M. J? Savage (Auckland West) convulsed the House. “Let me say before I begin.” he commenced; but it was some time before he succeeded in explaining that he had not come into the House “tied.” Mr Savage renewed his previous advocacy cf the retention for the State control issue. He pointed out that as the law now stood the prohibitionists, ?f they were in a majority, could carry the day even although the State control issue was included.

Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru).said that under the present system prohibition had to obtain a majority over the votes cast for both continuance and State control, whereas continuance could win on a minority vote. Mr Savage clearly stood for a minority decision. Mr Armstrong: He did not say so. Mr Lee: That is the result, though. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that Mr Lee had not mentioned that Mr’Savage stood for the provision of preferential voting. As everybody knew what would happen to the Bill, Mr Holland suggested that the committee should proceed to the divisions without further delay. Mr Lysnar provoked considerable laughter by declaring that Mr Holland was sitting on a rail on the licensing question and “standing in the middle of tlie road.” He was waiting to tumble over to the side from which the most useful political kudos would be derived. Referring to “secret” pledges. Mr G. E. Bellringer (Taranaki) said that the answers candidates gave to the New Zealand Alliance were published in most of the newspapers throughout the Dominion. There was nothing in the nature of “ secret ” pledges. On the second clause, fixing the frequency of the polls at six years, a division was called for, with the result that the clause was struck out by 47 votes to 26. The following is the division list:—• AYES (26). Bell. Macmillan. Campbell. Mason, - J. Coates. " Ngata. Eliott. Pomare. Field. Rolleston, J. C. Glenn. Samuel. Henare. Seddon. Horn. Smith. • Hudson. Uni. Hunter. Veitch. Luke. Ward. Lysnar. Wilford. M'Leod. Williams.

NOES (47).'Armstrong. Lee, E. P. Atmore. L,ee. J A. Bartram. Linklater. Bellringer. M'Combs. ' Bitchener. McLennan. Buddo. Martin. Burnett. Mason, H. G. R. Dickie. Nash. Dickson, J. M‘C. Parry. Dickson, J. S. Potter. Forbes. Ransom. Forsyth. , Reid. Fraser. Rolleston, F. J. Girling. Savage. Hamilton, A. Sidey. Hamilton, J., R. Stewart. Harris. Sullivan. Sykes. Holland, H. Tapley. Holland, H. E. Waite. Howard. Walter. Jones, D. Wright. Jones, W. Young. Kyle. To clause 3 Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) moved an amendment providing that the issues submitted to the people should be decided by means of preferential voting. This amendment was defeated by 61 votes to 12. At clause 3, Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt) moved a further amendment changing the issues on the ballot paper from “ continuance ” and “ prohibition ” to vote for or against national prohibition. That, he said, would give the prohibitionists exactly what they said they wanted. Mr Wilford then moved a further amendment, the practical effect of which was to add State Control as an issue to the ballot paper. This w r as rejected by 51 votes to 22. Clause 3 was then agreed to confirming the two-issue ballot paper. On clause 4, which provides on what majority the issues are determined, some confusion arose as to the priority of proposed amendments. . Mr J. Bitchener (Waitaki) had given notice to strike out practically the whole of the clause, leaving as it now stands. Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay) then interposed with an amendment to alter the majority of 55 per cent, proposed in the Bill to 524 per cent. This gave rise to considerable discussion as to which amendment should be first taken. The Chairman of Committee ruled in favour of Mr Campbell’s amendment. This ruling was challenged, and the Speaker was called in to determine the point. . The Speaker ruled that the first portion of Mr Bitchener’s amendment be taken, which, if carried, would virtually determine • the whole question of majority. DRAMATIC END OF DEBATE. WELLINGTON, September 20. The fate of the Licensing Amendment Bill has been sealed, the third reading being defeated by 34 votes to 33. After it had affirmed the principle of the three-year tenure and the two-issue ballot paper in the early hours of this morning, the House in committee faced its most critical division on tlie detail of the Bill—that on the question of the majority. The Bill proposed that the carrying of national prohibition or national restoration should depend on either issue receiving the endorsement of 55 per cent, of the voters, and when the clause came up for consideration members became absorbed in a discussion as to which of the several amendments that were advanced should have priority. The ruling of the Chairman of the Committee (Mr F. F. Hockly) was challenged, and was referred to the Speaker, and eventually it was decided that—Mr J. Bitchener (Waitaki) had precedence. By 43 votes to 30 the 55 per cent, provision was deleted, and the pros and cons of an amendment moved by Mr H. JI. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay), suggesting determination by a majority of 524 per cent, were gone into. This proposal was defeated by 42 votes to 29. Mr Bitchener then moved as a further amendment—“ That the question should be decided by a bare majority,” and this was carried by 42 votes to 30, the division list being as follows:— For Bare Majority (42). Armstrong Linklater Bartram Lee, J. A. Bellringer Martin Bitchener M'Combs Buddo ' Mason, H. G. R. Burnett Ngata Dickson, J. M'C. Parry Dickie Potter Forsyth Ransom Fraser Reid Girling Rolleston, F. J. Hamilton, A. Savage Hamilton, J. R. Sidey Harris Stewart Holland, H. E. Sullivan Holland, H. Sykes " Howard TapleyJones, D. Waite Jones, W. Walter Kyle Wright Lee, E. P. Young Against the Bare Majority (30). Atmore , Lysnar Bell M'Lennan Campbell M'Leod e Coates Macmillan . Dickson, J. S. Mason, J. Eliott Nash Field Rolleston, J. C. Forbes Samuel Glenn Seddon Hawken Smith Henare Uru Horn Veitch Hudson ' Ward Hunter Wilford Luke . Williams Following the course he took last year when the House amended his proposals in a similar fashion, the Prime Minister then intimated that he could not undertake to sponsor the Bill through its third reading, but would accede to a request that he should see it through -the remaining committee stages. “Members will realise that as far as the Bill I introduced is concerned it has lost all recognition almost of what I think were.the masterful proposals and principles contained in- .it,” Mr Coates said. “ However, I am anxious that if possible during this Parliament we' should get a Bill through the House that will, I hope; have the effect of satisfying the majority of

members of Parliament. I am going to persevere and try to do it.”—(“Hear, hear! ”) - On a division after a long discussion the motion to report progress, was lost by . 55 votes to 18. The House endorsed by 36 to 27 the proposal in the Bill giving wine makers the right to dispose of wines containing up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit. The Prime Minister said that the wine makers now had authority to manufacture wine up to that strength, but they could not sell it. Progress, with leave to sit again, was reported at 20 minutes to 5, and the House rose. When the House resumed at 2.30 p.m. to-day the discussion on the Licensing Bill was continued. Mr .A. Harris (Waitemata) intimated that he proposed at the proper stage to move to recommit clause 19. At clause 20, which provides that hotel- . keepers may be required to provide a ’ proper hot water service in hotels, Mr W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) protested that this was most unfair to small country hotelkeepers, who, by the Bill, had been deprived of security of tenure. Therefore they could not afford to provide a hot water service. Small hotelkeepers were having a hard struggle to make two ends meet. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said that some of the publicans’ best friends were their worst enemies, and Mr Glenn was one of them. Hotelkeepers were prepared to play the game and did not object to this provision. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hnrunui) pointed out that the obligation to provide a hot water service was optional, and he did not think a licensing committee would enforce that provision when it was likely to cause hardship. The clause was agreed to. Clauses 21 and 22 were passed Without discussion. The Prime Minister intimated that he wished to withdraw clauses 23. 24. and 25. which dealt with the sale of goodwill and with additional obligations imposed on hotelkeepers i n the event of the longer • tenure being granted them. Mr Coates explained as that improved tenure not having been granted owing to the restoration of triennial polls he did not wish to impose these obligations on them. The clauses were withdrawn. On clause 28 Mr R. W. Smith (Waimarino) desired to amend the clause in the direction of permitting papers published in no-license districts to accept liquor advertisements. He pointed out that papers published in metropolitan centres could contain liquor advertisements and could circulate in no-license districts, which placed the local paper at a great disadvantage. Mr Coates said the present nosition -was too ridiculous for words. The big city papers, were publishing liquor advertisements in every no-license district, while the struggling local papers could not accept a penny from the trade. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that at present liquor was being advertised i n no-lieense districts. and for that reason there was something to.be said for the amendment. Ihe only logical writing of the law -was io say that metropolitan papers containing liquor advertisements should not circulate in no-license districts. On a division the amendment was carried by 47 votes to 24. The clause now reads: “No person shall, after the passing of this Act, be deemed to have committed the offence of soliciting orders for liquor within a no-license district, or within an area proclaimed by the Gover-nor-General under section 272 of the principal Act.- by reason of the fact that he has published, or caused to be published in a newspaper circulating in that district or area (whether published therein or not) an advertisement relating to such liquor.” At clause 37 Mr J. Mason (Napier) moved an amendment which would give chartered chibs that did not have dining rooms the right on six nights of the year to sell liquor between 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock. On a division the amendment was carried by 43 votes to 25. The Minister of Health (Mr J. A. Young) moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word “sale ” of liquor at socials proposed to be held by chartered clubs, Mr Mason said if a club was deprived of the right to sell liquor at socials it was being deprived of the purpose for -which it was chartered, which was the sale and consumption of liquor. Mr Wilford said that Mr Young’s proposal was absurb, because he was willing to permit members of clubs to consume liquor on the premises, but they would have to buy it elsewhere. Mr Young did not press his proposal, and the amendment as moved by Mr Mason was embodied in clause 37, winch was then passed as the amendment. Clause 40. providing for the registration of barmen by the police, was objected to by Mr Armstrong as being no more reasonble than the registration of every shop assistant. The Prime Minister eaid he regarded the clause as a most important one. His view was that if they were to have proper control of the liquor trade they must be careful of the type of men who handled it. Barmen must be given a higher status than ever they had before. They must have authority, and their word must go, so that there would be more efficient control of the liquor business. The clause was withdrawn. The remaining clauses were passed without amendment. The Prime Minister then moved a new clause permitting an unmarried woman, being the daughter'or sister of a deceased licensee, to hold a license of some kind in respect of the same premises. Mr R. P. Hudson (Motueka) supported the clause, as he knew of one case of hardship which the clause would relieve. Mr Wilford thought he saw considerable danger in the clause, which, however, was agreed to. The following amendment, moved by Mr Lysnar, was- accepted:—“Before granting a license for .any licensed premises under this Act to any person, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the Licensing Committee to apply to the Licensed Victuallers’ Association,-or other organisation of the liquor trade, to furnish to. the .chairman, of any licensing committtee a certificate of character of any applicant for license.”

Three new clauses moved by Mr J. Mason (Napier), permitting the sale of “ nectar ” made from honey produced in New Zealand, were withdrawn after they had experienced lime opposition, and were not accepted by the Prime Mfiiister. . The Prime Minister promised to consider a special case of hardship under which the main road in Hawke’s Bay had been deviated by the Government, and left an hotel on the old road “ high and dry.” He thought this was a special case, and that the hotel owner was entitled to some consideration. On this understanding a* new clause moved by Mr Mason (Napier) was also withdrawn. A new clause moved by Mr Mason (Napier) permitting the exhibition of wine and the taking of orders for wine at exhibitions in no-license districts, was agreed to. Mr Mason explained that his amendment was intended to meet the case of the Wellington Winter Show, which was now held in a no-license district, and at which wine makers had been in the habit of exhibiting and canvassing for orders, but now they could not do so. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Eden) moved a new clause permitting one winegrower to sell wine of his own manufacture “ or the manufacture of another holder of a winemaker’s license.” The Prime Minister said there was something to be said for the amendment as facilitating those engaged in the wine trade, but as the clause was now before a special committee he suggested that it’ should be held over and be considered in the Legislative Council. This was agreed to, and the clause was withdrawn. A further amendment moved by Mr H. G. R. Mason was withdrawn, and the Prime Minister then moved to report progress in order to bring in a’ further amendment by’ Governor-General’s message providing that a poll be taken in the King Country regarding whether licenses shall not be granted in that area on a three-fifths majority. The Prime Minister said this was a proposal that had been put before- many Governments, but it could not be done unless brought in by Governor-General’s message. He had in response to a request by members of the district decided to give Parliament an opportunity to express an opinion on it. At present he would express no personal opinion upon it. Mr M'Combs protested that a surprise was being sprung upon the House and on the people of the district concerned by’ the raising of a question which -was surrounded with great difficulty. It was most unfair. Mr Armstrong said this amendment was a local option Bill. It was foreign to the present Bill and would jeopardise its third reading. Mr Lee (Auckland East): So much the better. Mr Armstrong: So much the better! Then the amendment is a catch, and we want no catches here. The Leader of the Opposition protested against the introduction of such an important matter at that late hour after an all-night sitting. It should be withdrawn and brought down in a special Bill, since there was much to be said on both sides. Mr J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) declared that the element of surprise was not present, as the Prime Minister had, when the Bill was brought down, promised that this amendment -would be placed before members. On resuming in committee on the Bill, the new’ clauses were submitted in detail, the following being the effective provisions:—A poll of European and Maori electors in the King Country shall be taken simultaneously with the licensing poll to be taken after the passing of this Act, to determine the question whether licenses shall be granted within that area or not. The proposal that licenses should be granted within the area mentioned shall not be deemed to be carried unless three-fifths of the votes cast shall be in favour of such a proposal. If the proposal to grant licenses is carried, a licensing district shall 'be created, and the number o f publicans’ licenses granted shall not exceed one for every complete 500 electors of the district at the date of the coming into force of the determination, and shall not be less (if a sufficient number of such licenses is duly ap- °, ne for ev ery complete 1000 electors of the district at the date aforesaid. On the motion being put that the new clauses be read a second time, a division was called for, when the voting Y Q aS: ™ or c,auses > 21; against clauses. 48n lhe clauses were not read a second time. The schedules of the Bill were then agreed to, and the committee stage of the Bill was concluded. On resuming in the House, Mr Harris moved to recommit the Bill in order to reconsider clauses 19 and 37. He did so because he thought members did not fully realise what had been done. The Prime Minister asked Mr Harris oofj.to press his motion, because there was a difference of opinion as to the meaning of clause 19, which dealt with proof spirit of New Zealand wine. The law draughtsman had his opinion, but he (Mr Coa”tes) had gone further, and had asked for another opinion, and he would have the matter looked into before the Bill went to the Legislative Council. He w’ould also give further consideration to clause 37, dealing with clubs. On this assurance Mr Harris agreed to withdraw his proposal to recommit the Bill. THIRD READING. When the third reading of the Bill was called on, the Prime Minister declined to moye it, and this was done by Mr C; E. Bellringer (Taranaki). On the third reading the Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) reverted to the printing of the ballot papers for the licensing poll, and was replied to by the Minister of Lands on the lines previously published. Mr V, H. Potter (Roskill) said he would vote against the third reading of the Bill because it contained clauses 19 and 37. He felt that by agreeing to these clauses prohibition would lose more than it would benefit by its other gains. Mr M'Combs and Mr Harris expressed regret that Mr Potter proposed to take that step in view of the definite assurance of the Prime Minister that clauses 19 and 37 would be reviewed. The Prime Minister defended himself against Mr Holland’s charges with regard to the printing of the ballot papers. When he -introduced the Bill h - knew nothing of .the ballot papers being printed, and he was not in any way deceiving the

House or the people of the country. He aaa .introduced the Bill at the request of the great majority of his own party and of other members. He was sincerely convinced that the principles of the Bill as he introduced it were sound, and since the Bill had been so changed as to make it almost the reverse of his opinions he could not be expected to vote for the third reading. If in that he failed he would do his best to get it through the Legislative Council because he wanted to see the licensing question out of the way. On the third reading a division was called for. and resulted as follows:— The following is the division list:— FOR THE BILL (33). Bellringer M'Combs Bitchener Martin Burnett Mason, H. G. R Dickie Potter Dickson, J. M'C. Ransom Forsyth Reid Fraser Rolleston, F. Girling Sidey Hamilton, A. Stewart Hamilton, J. R. Sullivan Harris Sykes. Holland, H. Tapley Howard Waite Jones, D. Walter Jones, W. Wright Kyle Young Linklater AGAINST THE BILL Armstrong Luke Atmore Lysnar Bartram M'Leod Bell M'Millan Buddo Mason, J. Campbell Nash Coates Parry Dickson. J. S. Rolleston, Eliott Samuel Forbes Savage Glenn Seddon Henare Smith Hocklv Uru Holland, H. E. Veitch Hudson Ward Hunter Williams Lee, J. A. Wilford For the Bill, 33; against the Bill. 34. The Bill was not read a third time. The House rose at 1.35 a.m. ANALYSIS OF THE DIVISION. WELLINGTON, September 21. Members of the House of Representatives have not yet recovered from the surprise they gave themselves this morning when they rejected the Licensing Amendment Bill on the third reading by a majority of one vote. The result amazed the prohibition members and prominent leaders of the movement who were present in the galleries. It was with almost equal astonishment that the anti-prohibitionists heard Mr Speaker announce, “The ayes are 33, the noes are 34. The Bill "is not to be read a third time.” Throughout the whole of the committee proceedings the prohibitionists had carried the day in regard to amendments which they regarded as material to their cause. This gave them a confidence which the crucial division proved to be unwarranted. The anti-prohibi-tionists had pricked a card which indicated that there might be interesting possibilities. These they endeavoured to keep secret and confirmed them in their refusal to grant pairs in respect to absentee members. At no stage, however, would they go the length of forecasting the result. Sometimes they were optimistic, but generally they thought the Bill would go through. The first indication of apprehension in the ranks of the prohibitionists came after the House had adopted an amendment designed to give clubs the right to sell and serve liquor at banquets on six occasions during the year up to 10 p.m., and to give the licensees of hotels the same privilege on two nights a year. This was regarded as an extension of the facilities for drinking, and its inclusion in the Bill was "a factor that influenced voting on the third reading. As it emerged from committee the Bill in -its essential provisions was similar to last year’s Bill, which was sent on to the Legislative Council by 39 votes to 32. An analysis of this year’s division shows that Sir George Hunter (Waipawa) and Mr C. E. MacMillan (Tauranga) reversed their votes. Last year they supported the third reading. Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori), who last year paired for the Bill, was not present in the House -when the division was taken. Three members who supported the Bill last year—Mr W. Nosworthy, Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames), and Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) —are absent in Canada as members of the New Zealand delegation to the Empire Parliamentary Congress, and were not paired. An eleventh hour pair was arranged as between Mr O. J. Hawken and Mr G. J. Anderson, who voted for the Bill last year. Mr W. H. Field (btaki) who was paired with Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru) stated to-day that he had done so because of the sudden illness that had overtaken Mr Lee. Mr J. Horn (Wakatipu), who last year opposed the third reading, went home believing that his vote would not be needed. Mr R. M'Keen (Wellington South), a supporter of the Bill, was ill, and was not paired. Thus it would appear that had the members of the parliamentary delegation been present the Bill would have been carried by a majority of two. Had the result of the division been a tie the issue would have been decided by Mr Speaker who, probably in accordance with precedent, would have voted the Bill out. 1 .Various reasons for the actual result are suggested in the lobbies. The opinion is held in some quarters that the main factor influencing votes against the Bill.

was the belief that a position of stalemate would again arise after the measure had been amended by and comeback from the Upper House. It was contended that as the prohibitionist inembers all along had remained firm in their decision not to compromise, nothing would be gained by sending the Bill on. A further assertion made was that members resented the reported declaration of officials of the New Zealand Alliance that that body had control of the' New Zealand Parliament, and grasped an effective opportunity of demonstrating their resentment of such a claim. A third reason is the interpretation placed on the effect of the clause inserted in the Bill in regard to banquets at hotels and chartered clubs. The result of the division was certainly not expected by the Prime Minister, who made clear his desire that the Bill should go to -the Upper House notwithstanding that he was obliged to vote against the third reading on the ground that the Bill, as amended, contained principles in opposition to his own personal views as to what was desirable in the best interests of the State and the community. Mr Coates hinted as Strongly as was possible without anticipating the decisions of the Legislative Council that there was a possibility of a compromise on the vital question of a majority. He wanted to see a Bill passed this session that would have the effect of removing the licensing issue from the domain of politics for at least a little while, and at the same time improving the existing conditions. The Prime Minister added that he knew there would be many who, for political reasons, would endeavour to misinterpret, his attitude, but he had given his opinion and had expressed himself frankly and freely, and he would ask the public to judge him fairlv. '•

ANALYSIS OF THE VOTING. CHARGES AGAINST PRIME MINISTER. WELLINGTON, September 22. A statement dealing with the vote on the third reading of the Licensing Bill was made to-day by Mr J. M'Combs. Last session, said Mr M’Combs, the third reading was carried by a majority of seven votes. The majority of seven had now been turned into a minority of one —a difference of eight votes. Mr M’Combs said that two members had reversed their votes and four members were away unpaired. Three of them had gone away at the request of Parliament on Empire parliamentary business. Two of them, Messrs Jordan and Rhodes, were paired with each other for and against the bare majority. The third member of the parliamentary delegation, Mr Nosworthy, was relying on the Prime Minister to secure him a pair. Writing to the Prime Minister from Auckland before leaving New Zealand, Mr Nosworthy had asked that his “ vote should be recorded in favour of— (I) decision by bare majority; (2) polls every three years as at present; (3) elimination of the State Control issue.” Mr Nosworthy’s request was most explicit, and it was reasonable to assume that when the Bill was altered exactly as he wished it to be altered he would wish his vote recorded in favour of the third reading more especially as Mr Nosworthy had votted for the third reading of the Licensing Bill last session. “ On the afternoon of the day on which the third reading division was "taken,” said Mr M'Combs, “ the Prime Minister, in the presence of a witness, promised the president of the New Zealand Alliance that Mr Nosworthy would be paired on the third reading. This arrangement was dishonoured, and, so far as I have been able to learn, Mr Nosworthy has not been paired on any of the other three divisions about which he left written instructions. When I interviewed the Government Whip as to why Mr Nosworthy had not been paired his first excuse was that Mr Nosworthy did not wish to be paired on the third reading. I pointed out the absurdity of that contention, seeing that the Bill had been altered at that stage exactly as Mr Nosworthy wished. Last session Mr Nosworthy had voted against the motion to report progress, and had also voted for the third reading. The excuse then offered was that Mr Nosworthy would have voted against' the third reading had he known of the two new clauses—Nos. 19 and 37. That excuse was futile because the Prime Minister had promised reconsideration of those clauses, and on this promise all the ‘ drys ’ in the House had voted for the third reading. I was also told that Mr Nosworthy’s secretary had been consulted. Subsequently I saw Mr Nosworthy’s secretary, and he informed me that he had asked to. have Mr Nosworthy paired in favour of the third reading. “ There was one vote the Prime Minister was absolute master of—his own vote—and he-could have paired his colleague who was absent on Empire - parliamentary business. Speaking to the third reading the Prime Minister said he would like to see the Bill go to the Upper House so that it could be dealt with there. In his judgment the Bill should be allowed to proceed—and then he voted against the Bill going to the Upper House, thus ending, any possibility of having the question taken out of politics at the forthcoming election. The Prime Minister could have ensured the carrying of the third reading, and by pairing with Mr Nosworthy his vote would be recorded against the Bill. Opportunity would have been thus given to explore every avenue for a settlement. The Prime Minister’s action thia session

is as clumsy and unstatesmanlike as his action last session when he petulantly moved to report progress and involved hemself and his party *in considerable trouble.” REPLY TO ALLEGATIONS. PRIME MINISTER’S EXPLANATION. WELLINGTON, September 22., Mi- M'Combs’s allegations were submitted to the Prime Minister, who replied that at an interview with the president of the New Zealand Alliance, when a request was made for pairs for Mr Nosworthy, he (the Prime Minister) answered that Mr Nosworthy would be paired in accordance with his own requests. Then he was asked if Mr Nosworthy would be paired on the third reading. “I replied,” added Mr Coates, “that I thought so, but when I saw Mr Nosworthy’s letter I found that he was not to be paired on the third reading in any case. Mr Rhodes, who was away, was not a bare majority man.” The Prime Minister declined to deal with any other aspects of the statement, declaring that he was prepared to leave it at that.