The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1893. The Licensing Act Amendment Bill.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4713, 3 August 1893, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1893. The Licensing Act Amendment Bill.

Thr division on the second reading of Sir Robert Stout's Licensing Act Amendment Bill shows that a fairly substantial majority of the present House of Representatives is in favour of the application of the direct vote to tbe licensing of public houses. It is true that tbe division was taken in a thin House, but an examination of the list? sbows that forty members voted or paired in favour of the second reading, while twenty-three voted or paired against it. The full House consists of seventy-four members, but as the seats formerly occupied by Messrs Cadman and Bees are vacant, there remain only nine M.H.R.'b who did not back their opinion by their votes. Reckoning all these gentlemen as opponents of the Bill, there would still remain a majority of eight in its favour. Though at least forty members of the House are prepared to support the principle, they do not by any moans agree on the details of the Bill. One gentleman, for instance, objected to deciding the question by a bare majority} another was in favour of adding a compensation clause; and a third made it understood that, while he believed in the principle of the direct vote, he was opposed to the direct veto. Whatever differences of opinion there may be in the House upon matters of detail, the supporters of the direct vote have every right to congratulate themselves on the fact that that principle haß been affirmed by a substantial majority in the Lower Chamber of the Legislature^. They have the more reason to | do this because an attempt to stonewall the Bill failed in preventing the second reading, and succeeded in doing no more than causing a waste of time. That stonewall wa3 an utterly unjustifiable one. The feelingr of the House which, there is little doubt, reflects the feeling of tbe country, is decidedly in favour of the i principle contained in the Bill, and for a section of the opponents of the measure to set themselves to endeavour to thwart the popular will by putting up a stonewall was grossly impertinent, besides being utterly foolish, for had they prevented the Bill from passing its second reading, the only result would have been that the question involved wonld probably have been fought out at the forthcoming election, at which it is bound to be considered, with more acrimony than if the Bill had not been "killed." The speeches made against the second reading, with one exception, contained nothing that calls for notice. The exception was the speech of the Hon "W. P. Reeves, which . was a masterly exposition of the difficulties of the position. The attitude taken by Mr Reeves is perfectly intelligible and straightforward, and is not inconsistent with a desire to uphold the principle of the direct vote during the next Parliament. In order to support tho second reading of Sir R. Stout's Bill, however, he would have had to violate an election pledge, and at all ricks ho chese to keep that sacred. Though many may regret that Mr Reeves did not vote for the Bill, his action should gain him the respect of | every honest man in the community