KNOWING NO PARTY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10537, 12 August 1912, Page 4

KNOWING NO PARTY.

BARE MAJORITY MOVEMENT.

DECISION OF MASS MEETING LAST NIGHT.

Though His Majesty's Theatre was but half-filled last night, there was no half-heartedness about the people who were present to "protest against the action of Parliament in refusing to reduce the iniquitous three-fifths requirement on the licensing question." The Rev S. .Henderson was chairman. In opening the meeting, Mr Henderson said that it was not called merely because the 55 per cent Bill had not been passed in its second reading, but because Parliament nad not been willing to grant any reduction of the iniquitous' three-fifths majority. The temperance party would not support and buttress the 55,' per cent proposal, but was out for the bare majority. It was disappointing, however, to find that Parliament was not, prepared to give any measure, of justice. For twenty-one years tho party had worked under the three-fifths burden, but now it was in a position to sway the vote of the majority of the people, and, now that democracy had. vindicated itself, the party had expected that a meed of justice would be given. The party had asked for bread, and had been 'given a stone; it had asked for a meed of justice, and had had its request flung back in its face. The party had risen in its might, and was determined to banish the iniquity that had been thrust upon it. The party had treated the members of the House generously, even those to whom Mr L. M. Isitt had ascribed tender consciences, when it had asked only for a reduction of the three-fifths majority. When Mr A. S. Malcolm had introduced his Bill, lie had probably been under tho impression that it would be accepted by the House. If that had not been so, an effort would have been made to carry a bare majority measure. Mr Henderson then read the division list on the measure, remarking that the Prime Minister had voted for Mr Malcolm's Bill—(applause)—and that Sir Joseph Ward, the great Liberal leader, had cast his vote against it. (Groans.) As an elector of Christ-church East, the .chairman continued, ho protested against the action of Mr T. H. Davey in voting with the "notes." Mr Davey had bes'n elected on the understanding that he would support the introduction of the 55 per cent proposal on the national prohibition issut. Mr Davey would probably excuse himself by saying that the Bill provided for both the local option and the national issue, but his right course would have been to vote for the second reading of the Bill and then secure the elimination of the local option when the measure was in committee. The meeting should pledge itself before God not to support any man who w...s not prepared to give the people justice in connection with the liquor question. (Applause.) Mr T>. G. Sullivan said that he counted it an honour to be able to add his voice to the chorus of protest that had ri-cn as a result of the defeat of Mr Malcolm's Bill. When he had opened the newspaper on Friday morning he had expected, as others had, to find that the Bill had passed its second reading because the majority of the House had been pledged to the principle contained in it. The division list showed that the Labour Party was wise in asking for written pledge. He was delighted to notice that the Labour members had voted solidly for the Bill. He had always believed that a gentleman's word was his bond. It seemed, however, that if all gentlemen were not politicians, all politicians were not gentlemen. (Applause.) During the discussion he had noted that the old bogey of the for the three-fifths majority to give stability had been introduced. The only partv to whom.it gave stability was the. liquor party. The only thing required to give prohibition stability was a fair trial. He believed that the public did not fully appreciate the enormity of the handicap placed on the prohibition party. He quoted figures to show the difficulty of increasing a majority of 100 in 1000 votes, so as to secure "a three-fifths majority, when the minority vote was not decreased. In a constituency of 1000, he said, where 550 voted prohibition and 450 for continuance, the prohibition vote was 50 short of the required majority, but when 50 votes were added to its total, the aggregate was increased and the vote was still 30 short of the required number. The prohibition party should set out to educate the people in the evils of the three-fifths system and show them what an enormous barrier to reform it was. The Rev Knowles-SmiUi said, that the blame for the present position was not so much with Parliament as with thepeople, the Christian citizen who had returned the men to the House. The people had to reckon up what their position would be in the future of the great moral question. Christianity did not mean merely getting to heaven; it meant making a heaven on earth as well, and that could be done by purifying the national life, the national government and the municipalities. He knew something of British politics, but he could not understand the lines of .division in the politics of the dominion. There were men who followed Mr Massey. others who followed Sir Joseph Ward,' and a third party who wished to follow Mr George Fowlds. Ho would know what to do when he knew what thoso parties were, after. At present most of the members of Parliamentseemed to be looking out for themselves rather than the nation. A man had a perfect right to ally himself with any party, but there came questions affocting the moral well-being of tho nation which transcended all party matters, and a man found that he had to go outside his party. Hie last census had shown thai an overwhelming majority of the people of the dominion were Christian citizens, and-that meant that they wished to sweep out of tho country the drink traffic with its damnable ruin to Christian men and women and to the children who were tho Christian citizens of to-morrow. The people had to sweep away a traffic that degraded, defrauded and demoralised the whole nation. It was clear, there.fore, that as Christian citizens they had to vote on the question without any party ties. The traffic had to go, party or no party. The only way to make the •members of the House realise tho position was at the ballot-box. They should be shc>'-n that the people were the masters, it was useless reasoning. When a member of Parliament had made up his mind, all the spectacles in the world would not enable him to see cleariy. In the future the question was to be pub above party matters, and the people should vote solidly on the point. Ho moved: "That this meeting affirms its c.pinion that the only true principle on which to settle all questions that are decided by the vote of the people is that the majority should carry the day, aj*d j its indignation and clisapf>o:&:nuent that ! the majority of the members of Parliament should have voted against even the reduction to 55 per cent of this iniquitous requirement on the licensing question; that it pledges itself to do all it can in the future to return_members of Parliament pledged in writing to' repeal the three-fifths requirement." Mr J. M'Combs said that the meeting did not require to make excuses for its protest. Ihe Prohibition party desired to take the question out; of'politics, but Parliament had refused to take it out and leave the question to an unfettered judgment of the people of the dominion. Tho three-fifths majority was in favour of vested, interests. iie was pleased to see that the Prime Minister had voted for the-Bill, and he noticed at. the same time that 29 members of' the Reform party had voted against, while only 9 Liberals had supported the Bill. The Labour members nad voted solidly in its favour. The ' temnerance party had been In the fight for 2-3 years, but it was not going to continue for another period of the same length. Mr M'Combs. with the aid of.