LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5688, 6 October 1896, Page 1

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Monday, Oct. 5. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. HOKOWHENUA. The Hon J. Macgreqor presented a petition from Major Kemp, asking that he should be heard at the Bar of the Council in reference to Horowhenua. The Hon J. Macgeeqor then gave notice that he would move on Tuesday that Major Kemp should ,b_e heard at the Bar at 3 p.m. that day (Oct. 6.) THIHD READINGS. The Land for Settlements Act Amendment Bill and Shipping and Seamen Act Amendment Bill were read a third time and passed. LOANS TO LOCAL BODIES. { .The Speaker, whose ruling had been asked for as to whether .the clause inserted in the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act Amendment Bill, with a view to prevent the seizure of sinking funds, was a money clause, which it was nob in the power of the Council to insert, delivered his ruling to the following effect: —The clause might be held to affect the appropriation of public money, and therefore could only be introduced by the Crown.. The clause was not one which it was in thepower of the Council to make. The Bill was then recommitted, and the clause objected to was struck out. . The Bill was reported with amendments, and the third reading was made an order of the day for Tuesday. CHATTELS TRANSFER. The Chattels Transfer Act Amendment Bill was further considered in committee, when the Hon J. Macgregor moved a new clause repealing section 26 of the Chattels Transfer Act Amendment, 1889, known as the defeasance clause. After some legal discussion, progress was reported; and the Bill was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS. In moving. the second reading of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment Bill, the Minister of Education said that he had not departed from the principles which led him to oppose the Bill last' session. Last year he thought that the time had not come to put this question of national prohibition into the hands of the people, but he had accepted the principle of local option, and was then of opinion* that the vote of the people should be taken on the day of the general election, in order .that: the voice of the- people 'should' be. given in "the most .complete manner, and the question settled once for all. He did not think that the Council had any reason to change its mind, a3 evinced by its action twelve months ago. If the Bill gave the people full control of the question of the liquor traffic that would be a great thing. It would be unwise to allow such a drastic change as national prohibition to come into operation unless supported by a large majority. As to clubs he thought that it was only fair and wise that clubs should be subject to the same hours and restrictions as licensed houses within the district. Modern sentiment on this subjectfwould not be satisfied with the fiction that a club was a private house.. The Bill represented a fair consensus of the opinion of the other Chamber. To those who believed that this agitation was undesirable and unnecessary in a sober community like New Zealand he appealed to put this measure on the Statute Book and settle the question altogether. ' Tho Hon T. Kelly could not give his assent to the clauses in the Bill referring to colonial option and to clubs. There were, however, other clauses for which he would vote, and, therefore, he would agree to the second reading. Strike out the first fifteen clauses and the schedule, he concluded, and we would have a good Bill. The Hon S. E. Shrimski asked why the. •Council should waste time in discussing the measure when, if it were materially amended, it would be dropped by the other House. He, therefore, movfld that the measure should be read a second time tfhree months hence. The Hon J. Kerr said that though •opposed to the convictijns of prohibitionists he thought it but fair that clubs should be brought under the operation of the Act. He thought that the prohibitionists were imbued with the feelings of those fanatics of olden times who burned heretics at the stake for the love of God. had slandered, borne false witness,, and done everything in their spower to keep forward the question of prohibition at the expense of their neighbours. At this point the lion J. Macgkegob raised a point of order whether a section of the community could be called slanderous, but the Speaker ruled that he understood the honourable Councillor to be speaking of what he believed to be facts. The Hon J. Kerb went on to say that there were, no doubt, some good men who were prohibitionists. He regretted that Ministers of religion had descended from their pulpits to play iipon the one string of prohibition to the exclusion of all else. We might as well ask that the ocean should be fenced in, so that men might not get •drowned, as pass such legislation to make men temperate. He supported the amendment to kill the Bill. The Hon G. M'Lean did not see any necessity for any change of opinion on this question. Since last session this subject had been kept before the public by one set of men only. Instead of leading public opinion in this country we had our politicians running-,. after it. He would go a considerable length in putting down drinking shops. He hoped that the Council would keep to its position of last year. The Hon W. M. Bolt said that if the Bill were amended! A3 proposed there would be no reform left. This Bill did not provide for prohibition, indeed he considered that if it ware passed there would be considerable difficulty in getting prohibition carried. He quoted figures to prove thai there was a very marked decrease oi .arrests in the Clutha electorate under evei partial prohibition. • The Hon" 0. C. Bowen said* that th< -compromise arrived at between the tw< Houses waa supposed to &ati3fy those whe were most advanced on this question The Minister of Education had done n< more in moving tho second reading of th< •measure than state his embarrassment ii having to do so. They all desired to sei a temperate people, but tKat < coul< not be managed by getting rid o licenses. No morality was ever promote! by tyrannical means. Until lately ni Englishmen had ever tolerated a desire t> crush the individual liberty of a minorit; .and make them subservient to the will o the majority. There was no more grindin* tyranny than the indiscriminate control o a, majority. Against Oriental despotism there was one remedy, as the actions of ai •individual might be checked, but a countr; under the tyranny of a majority would b ■saved only by. a revolution. {Coercion was i danger that stood in the way of the Tcmpei .anceref or m that was now going on so success fully in this country. Why should we no wait and see the effect of the laws wliic" ■we had passed ? Legislation in temperanc matters was carried on in a very differeu way from that in which the great reform of history had been guided, to success. H did not like this system of coercion an this style of speaking, as if they had gc for the first time in the world the on! -truth that was ever known. He though that people did'not realise how like tin Bill in "the matter of coercion of tli individual were many other Bills whic

had come before the Council. He concluded j with a wish that New Zealand should grow year by year more temperate. The Hon J. A. Bonar asked the Council not to commit itself to voting for the principle unless it approved of the Bill. On a division the amendment was carried by 18 to 10. The voting was as follows : — Ayes (for the Bill) 10— Hons Baillie, Barnicoat, Smith, Kelly, Jones, Jenkinson, Jennings, Bolt, Montgomery and W. C. Walker. Noe3 (against the Bill) 18 — Hons Reynold?, L. Walker, Stewart, Acland, Shrimski, Kerr, Eigg, Taiaroa, Reeves, Feldwick, Kenny, Morris, Bonar, Bowon, Johnston, Grace, M'Lcan and Peacock. The Bill was thus rejected, and at 4.30 p.m. the Council rose.