PARLIAMENT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8245, 10 August 1893, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

House of Representatives. (Per United Prees Association.) Wellington, August 9. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The Premier introduced the Alcoholic Liquors Control Bill. Replying to Mr Mitchelson, the Premier said the Public Woiks Statement would be brought down, as soon as certain necessary legislation was passed by the House. Mr Buckland moved that in the opinion of the House the time has arrived when with a view of effectively coping with the rabbit pest Inspectors should be abolished and the whole system of dealing with the question be re-organised. A. long debate ensued which was inter* rupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7.80 p.m. Sir Robert Stout moved that the House go into Committee on the Licensing Act Amendment Bill. He pointed out that the Premier and the Minister of Lands had both voted for the Bill, but it was not to be expected that the Cabinet could make it a Ministerial question, as it was only on very rare occasions that matters of social reform were made Ministerial question. Tho Premier had laid ha would introduce a Bill that would satisfy all parties, but he (Sir Robert) held that it was impossible. The position now was that if the amount of local control fixed in his Bill were notagreed to there was no neoessity for bring* ing in any Bill. If the Government would consent to take up his Bill he should hand it over to them, as he oared not who carried it provided the question were dealt -with. He would therefore suggest that the Government should allow the Bill to go through Committee, and afterwards they could make any amendments in it they deemed fit. The present Bill only asked for local control, not prohibition, and the country demanded that the question should be settled. If the Government, therefore, decided to take this question, they should adopt his Bill and amend it where they thought necessary. The Premier said he had voted for the seoond reading of the Bill at he believed reform wag necessary in this direction, and this had been his opinion for years past. In accordance with the promise given last Wednesday evening the Government had that afternoon introduced a Licensing Bill. Sir Robert Stout had s»id it was impossible to please both parties, but if he had said it was impossible to please extremists of both parties of the House it would be nearer the mark. He (Mr Seddciu) held it would not be wise to attempt to. do so. Sirßoburt Stout's B^ll did not provide for direct veco, and nothing but that would please extremist*. Hie Government could not tako up j Sir Robert Stout's Bdl after promising that they would brin^ down their own Bill. He agreed, however, that Sir Sohart Stout's Bill should go into Committee, and he also admitted with Sir Robert Stout that the electors wished this question to be settled, and he though the time was opportune for dealing with it. The Government felt it would bebetter to bring in a Bill this session instead of leaving it to the first session of the new Parliament. The publio mind was at present comparatively calm on this sub* jeot, and he believed if they made an attempt to bring in & «wo,abl» and now

ticable measure they would succeed. (They had, however, to consider the question from a revenue point of view, and when ho pointed out that the license feei of tha colony alone amounted to £60,000 per annum it would be seen how much wai involved ib the question if Sir Bobeit Stoutfi Bill was carried. Thore was not a local body in Nelson and Westland but would have to come on the colony for funds neoessary to carry on their functions. It would therefore be necessary to give local bodies extra paying powers or to make up the required funds in some other way. He would suggest that Sir Robert Stout should let the Bill go into Committee, past one clause, and then report progress and wait until the Go* vernmont Bill came down. If thii course was not agreed to he feared there would b* a long debate, and he hoped that Bir Robert Stoat would agree to the suggestion, whidß he believed, would meet with the approver of the House. Mr E. M. Smith hoped the honorabla member for Inangahua would fall in with the Premier's suggestion, for if he attempted to carry the Bill through he would find that his large majority had disappeared. Mr Fergus also advised Sir Bobert Stout to accept the Premier's proposition. A Mr G. Hutchison said he should vote for any extension of the principle of local option because he believed it would result in better accommodation and better control of the traffic. Mr Fish thought there could be no question as to the propriety of dropping the Bill, as it was very carelessly drawn, and would not effect the object Sir Bobert Stout had in view. Mr Earnshaw said the figures quoted hj MrJFish were entirely fallaoioui, as under the Bill no district in New Zealand would be deprived of a license. He thought Bi* Bobert Stout was justified in going on with the Bill in the face of the fact that he had no assurance that the principle of hit meaBure would be contained in the Bill introduced by the Hon. Mr Seddon. Mr James Mills would like to see the Bill go into Committee, where, however, it would have to be greatly amended. Mr McLean agreed with the principle of the Bill, but he thought the districts were too small, and if the Bill got into Committee he should support any proposal for making them larger. Sir Bobert Stout, in replying, said there; must always be open questions in Cabinet, and they only became public questions when the Government thought proper. The conduct of public business required them to be treated In that manner. The Government had no right to treat this as » party question, and they should not conaider their party in the matter. If the Government were to put the question to the people, " laoense or no license ? " ha would withdraw his Bill. Opponents of the Bill urged that if it were carried there would be no licenses left. If that were io what right had Parliament to refuse the will of the people being carried out, for if those members who opposed this Bill were correct there was ah absolute majority of the people) favourable to no licenses being granted. They were told that if the Bill were carried the colony would lose £60,000 a year ia license fees, but two and a quarter millions were absolutely watted ever/ year in the degradation of the people. If prohibition were granted, there would be more labour, more economy, and more health, wealth, and prosperity. y The motion foe the committal of the Bilso was agreed to on the voices. After further diaonssion, Mr BuckJand obtained leave to withdraw his motion to report progress. Mr Duthie urged that progress be reported. He objected to going on for aa hour or two and then hearing nothingmore of the matter. Sir Boberb Stout said they would hear more of the matter j if not that sight, on another occasion. The Hon. B. J. Seddon moved that progress be reported, in order that the Hoosa might wait for the Government BilL Sir Bobert Btoufc could not agree to progress being reported, but he would leave it in the handa of the Committee. The Hon. Mr Beddon'a motion was carried on a division by 30 to 28, and progress was reported, leare being given to sit again on Thursday, 17th inst. The following is the division list on Mr Seddon' s motion to report progress on Sir? B. Stout's Licensing Bill: « At " (80X— Blake, Buckland, Oarnoros», Carroll, Dawson, Duncan, Duthie, Fish, Fraser, Hamlin, Hogg, W. Kelly, Lake, Lawry, Mackintosh. McGuire, MoGowan J. MoKenzie, 0. H. Mills, Mitobelson Parato, Beeves, Bhodes, Beddon, Shera, Be M. Smith, Swan, Taylor, T. Thompson, and Valentine. <- Noes (28)— Allen, Bruce, Buchanan, Earnshaw, Fisher, Hall, Hall- Jones, Harkness, Houston, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. Kelly, M. J. 3. Mackenzie, T. Mackenzie, McLean, Meredith, Moore, Newman, Pinkerton, Bolleston, Sandford, Saunden, Stout, Taipua, Tanner, B. Thompson. Willis, and Wright. Pairs— Ayes— Bussell G. Hutchison, Hall, and Ward. Noes— Buiok, Richardson, M. J. S. Mackenzie, and Fergus. Messrs Cadman and McGowan. the newlyeleoted members for Au6kland City and Thames respectively, were sworn in and took their seats. Sir John Hall moved the second rdadisg of the Women's Suffrage BilL He said that as a large majority of the House had' affirmed the olause in the Electoral Bill giving franchise to the women of the colony, he should ask the House to read thi» Bill a. second time. He spoke strongly of the, necessity of women obtaining the franchise. Mr Taylor supported the Bill. Mr Fiih, in a vigorous speech, condemned the principle of woman suffrage and characterised the Bill as a waste Bill. , Mr Bolteston regretted having to support the Bill, but hoped a division would b» oalled for, in that it might be seen who. were really supporting female franchise. Mr Blake opposed the BilL " ™. The Hon. W. P. Beeves could not support the Bill because Sir John Hall implied that the Government- were dishonest in their advocacy of extending the franchise to women. There was no necessity of passing ihe present Bill, as the House had already affirmed the principle it contained. Mews T. MoKenrie, Buokland, Allen, and Sir Bobert; Stout also spoke. The second reading was then earned on a division by SO to 8, and its committal set flown for Thursday, 24th inst. The Hoase rose at 12.40 p.m.