EVENING SITTING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5357, 7 September 1895, Page 7

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. ; ALCOHOLIC LIQUOBS. The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Aofc Amendment Bill was farther considered in committee. Clause 2, interpretation. The Hon E. J. Seddon moved to alter the interpretation clause so that Section 3 (poll to be taken on day of general election) shall not come into operation until the day before the day appointed for the first general election of members of the House, after the commencement of this Act. After a lengthy diecußßion, Mr Seddon withdraw his amendment. Several members urged that it would be very inconvenient to country members to take the poll on the same day as the general election. The Hon K. J. Seddon said that there wa& no doubt it was » great consideration in country districts and to those engaged in agricultural pursuit?. It was a great inconvenience to them to leave their work and travel long distances, but on general election /iay all could leave their employment and record their votes. It was not 8o much a' matter of inconvenience in towns, where they could vote without suffering any low. He should be prepared, although it would add to the cost of elections, to amend the Bill by having separate polling-booths and separate officers. He wished to get the voice of the whole of the people on the licensing question, as he felt that they could never have root till thia important question was decided. If the people of the colony wanted prohibition they must have prohibition. He now hoped that the Honse would give a straight-out vote as to whether or not the licensing eleotion should take place on the same day as the general eleotion. Mr Hall-Jones moved an amendment that the licensing poll Bhould not be taken on the same day as the general election. Ayes 31, Noes 31. Mr Guinness voted a gainst the amendment and in favour oi the clause as it Btood in the Bill. Clause carried without alteration. Clause 3, grant of licenses subject to vote of electors. Mr G. W. RossELL moved to strike out

a subsection that asked whether the number of licenses in a district is to continue. The flon E. J. Seddon could not accept the amendment, as the electors had as much right to have this issue submitted to them as any other. Sir R. Stout saw no reason why the amendment should not be accepted, aa it would not affect the Bill. Mr Mackintosh said that there should be only one question, prohibition or no prohibition. He held that there should be no license taken away till the majority had decided on this question. His opinion was that local option was not a proper system. It waß absurd, un-English and unfair. Mr Hall-Joneb supported the amendment. Mr Hogg considered it an ingenioua attempt to defeat the object of the Bill. Mr T. Mackenzie said that the object of Subsection 1 was to enable people to understand what they were doing, and he saw no reason why it should be struck out. Mr Allen asked whether the Premier would accept a compromise that rotes for reduction and local prohibition, if prohibition were not carried, should count for reduction. If he inserted a clause of thia kind he (Mr Allen) would vote against theamendment. The Hon W. P. Eeevks thought it better to leave the clause as it stood, with four isßues, which was the best way to let the people see what they were voting for. . Mr Russell's amendment was lost by 42 1 to 21, and the subsection retained in the Bill. Mr Millae moved to strike out Subsection 2, whether the number of licenses existing; in the district ib to be reduced. Loat by 59 to 3. j The clause passed without amendment. Clause 4, poll to be taken on the day of general election. Mr T. Thompson said that thelast vote on this point in Clause 2 was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, and he therefore proposed that this clause should be struck out. The Hon R. J. Seddon thought that as the House had already expressed its opinion on this matter, it should be left as it was. Mr Thompson's amendment was carried by 31 to 30, and the clause was struck out. The following is the division list :— • Ayes (31): Messrs Allen, Buddo, Buiok, Carnoross, Carnell, Crowfcher, Duncan, Duthie, Flatman, Fraaer, Hall-Jones, G. Hutchison, J. W. Kelly, W. Kelly, Lang, Maslin, Maasey, M'Nab, Montgomery, O'Regan, Parata, Pinkerton, G. W. Russell, W. R. Russell, E. M. Smith, G. J. Smith, Tanner, R. Thompson, Willis, Wilson and T; Thompson. Noes (30) : Messrs Bell, Button, Cadman, Carroll, Collins, Earnshaw, Green, Hall, Harris, Hake, Hogg, W. Hutchison, Joyce, T. Mackenzie, Mackintosh, M'Gowan, M'Guire, J. M'Kenzie, R. Mackenzie, M'Lachlan, Millar, Mills, Morrison, Newman, Pirani, Reeves, Saunders, Seddon, Stevens and Sir R, Stout. Paibs— Aye: Mr WI Pere. Wo: Mr Meredith. Clause 6, number of proposals to be voted. Mr Easnbhaw moved an amendment that each voter shall be entitled to vote for one, two or three of the proposals, instead of one or two. The Hon R. J. Seddon hoped that the Houbb would stiok to the Bill, and he held that voters had a very wide range. Sir R. Stout supported the amendment, and said that if the cumulative vote were not allowed, he would ask all those who supported temperance to vote for the Chairman leaving the chair. If the Bill were passed as it stood it would be entirely in favour of the liquor party. He hoped that the House would accept Mr Earnshaw's amendment. The Hon R. J. Seddon asked if this was democracy, that the- temperance members would support the Bill as long as they got what they wanted. (Sir R. Stout: Certainly.) Then Sir R. Stout would find that a majority would not vote for the Chairman leaving the chair. He considered that two votes were sufficient. Voters could vote for local prohibition and national prohibition, or .reduction and licenses to remain as they were. ' Mr G. J. Smith said that they only wanted a Bill to give them a fair fight, so that the people could express their opinions on the question. He held that the Bill as at present drawn was infinitely worse than the present law, and he hoped that the amendment would be carried* Mr Bblli said that the Bill as at present stood was a brewers Bill, and that being so, Mr Seddon could not ezpeot the temperance party to support him. Dr Newman said that if the Premier would not give way and accept an amend* ment of this kind the Bill would be infinitely worse than that of last year. If the Bill passed as it stood it would by no means settle the question. Mr G. W. E.USBBLL said that unless throe votes were given people could not vote on the whole question. , The Hon R. J. Seddon resented Mr Bell's statement that this Bill waß a brewers' and publicans' measure. He asserted that this Bill gave more to temperance reform than any measure introduced in any Legislature in the world. If the House accepted this amendment, it would be his duty to go on with the Bill, but if the temperance party did not get all it wanted it wished' to see the Bill killed. ■ Captain Russell thought that this discussion ahowed how difficult it would be for an ordinary voter to decide what he was to vote for. He suggested that the first thing to be done was to take a straight vote of the people for prohibition or no prohibition. They could then take a vote for the reduction of licenses, but the two should not be mixed up together, aB it would only lead to confusion. Mr Lawet denied that thia was a brewers Bill, and said that if it were bo he should support it and not oppose it. Mr Ceowtheb could not support the amendment to the Bill. It seemed to him to mean that if 4001 persona voted for reduction out of 8000, then reduction would be carried by that one man. Mr Satjnderb had hitherto voted for the Premier's Bill, but he could not support him over Mr Earnshaw's amendment. The Premier should give the people three subjects to vote on, but it they got only*ne Bubjeot it should be for prohibition, whjpi should count for reduction. That seemed to him a reasonable way out of the difficulty. Mr Allen said that rather than vote for the cumulative vote he should prefer three subjects, as proposed by the amendment. Mr Earnshaw's amendment was carried by 40 to 20. The following is the division list :— Ayes (40) : Messrs Allen, Bell, Buddo, Buick, Button, Carncross, Carnell, Collins, Duthie, Earnshaw, Flatman, Fraser, HallJones, Heke, G. Hutchison, W. Hutchison, j Joyce, J. W. Kelly, J. Lang, T. Mackenzie, Maslin, Massey, M'Guire, M'Nab, Millar, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Morrison, Newman, O'Regan, Pinkerton, Pirani, G. W. Russell, W. R. Russell, Saunders, E. M. Smith, G. J. Smith, Tanner, Wilson and Sir R. Stout. •j Noes (20) : Messrs Cadman, Carroll, Crowther, Duncan, Groen, Harris, Hogg, W. Kelly, Lawry, Mackintosh, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, R, M'Kenzie, M'Laohlan, Mills, Parata, Seddon, Stevens, Willis and T. Thompson. Pair— Aye: Mr Wi Pere. No: Mr Meredith. i The Hon R; J, Seddon said that he should loyally accept the decision just given by the House. Clause 1, provision subject to which the poll is to ba taken, The Hon R. J. Sbddon moved that this - ,

clause should be Btruck out, owing to the alteration in the previous clause. Clause struck out. Clause 8, when proposal deemed to be carried, Mr Fibi.ni moved an amendment that no informality in a ballot-paper on one i»Bue should invalidate the whole pap6r. The Hon E. J. Seddon opposed the amendment, which was withdrawn after considerable discussion. Mr Lawkt moved that a three-fifths majority should decide for redaction •instead of an absolute majority. Lost on the voicea. Mr Montgiomkbt moved that the comxnittee, at its first meeting after the licensing poll, shall reduce licenses by 15 per cent instead of five. The Hon B. J. Seddon opposed the amendment, and said that it would defeat the object in view. Sir B. Stout suggested, as a fair compromise, that "lo per cent should be the minimum instead of five. Mr Montgomery's amendment was carried by 31 to 25. The Eon B. J. Seddon Baid that if 'fifteen were carried he should drop the Bill. . . Mr Montgomery withdrew fifteen in favour of ten, which was agreed to. ■ Mr Hall moved that the maximum be a 20 per cent reduction instead of 25. Lost on the voices. Mr Montgomery moved to add a proviso that where reduction had been carried the number of licenses should be reduced by one at least. Carried. Mr G. J. Smith moved that in the portion of the clause providing for no license it Bhould be a bare majority for prohibition instead of three-fifths. The Hon E. J. Seddon opposed the amendment. Local prohibition should be carried by a substantial majority, "tfhich h« believed was three-fifthe. Mr E. M'Kenzie moved that progress should be reported. Lost. Mr Smith's amendment for a bare majority was lost by 31 to 22. The following is the division list :— Ayes (22) : Messrs Bell, Buddo, Button; Carneli, Earnshaw, Flatman. Hall-Jones, W. Hutchison, J. W. Kelly, Maslin, Massey, M'Nab, Millar, Morrison, Newman, O'Eegan, Pinkerton, Pirani, Saunders, G. J. Smith and Tanner and Sir B. Stout. Noes (31) : Messrs Allen, Buick, Cadman, Carncross, Carroll, Collins, Crowther, Danoan, Duthie, Fraser, Green, Hall, Harris, Hogg, G. Hutchison, J. W. Kelly, Lang, Lawry, T. Maokenzie, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, M'Lachlan, Mills, Mitchelson, Montgomery, Beeves, G. W. Eussell, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Willis and T. Thompson. Paibs— Ayes : Mosara Wi Pere and Te Ao. Noei : Messrs Meredith and Parata. Clause 11, when the proposal that no licenses should be granted in the colony should be deemed carried, Sir Ri Stout moved that the threefifths majority for colonial prohibition should be struck oat in favour of a bare majority. The Hon E. J. Seddon said that the House had already affirmed the threefifths majority for local prohibition, and if Sir E. Stout's proposal were carried, it would mean a loss to the colony of half a million a year. j Sir E. Stout said that on the contrary j it would mean a gain to the colony oftwo ■ millions a year. Sir E. Stout'a amendment for a bare majority was loßt by 30 to 21, and the clause was carried. Mr Duthie moved to report progresa. . Carried by 31 to 20. The House rose at 1.25 a.m. |