The Liquor Bill.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 391, 5 November 1903, Page 5

The Liquor Bill.

A RECORD FOR DISGRACEFUL PERSONALITIES. (" Evening Star " Correspondent.) ' Wellington, Nov 2. A few additional particulars of the final hour's proceedings in connection with the Licensing Bill debate on Saturday morning may not prove devoid of interest. The discussion had been deadly dull for some hours till Mr T E Taylor took the floor at halfpast five and delivered one of his characteristically incisive indictments concerning the liquor traific, the flesh of Mr Jackson Palmer, and the "devil" of the Premier. If the Bill went through, he said, it was common property that Mr Jackson Palmer, as a reward for his services as a lobbyist on behalf of the Auckland brewers, was to be rewarded by the gift of an appointment to the magisterial bench. This gentleman has been using the place for weeks past as if he were a member. His insolence has been so marked that actually, during the sitting hours of the House, he had openly used both the lobbies and the lavatory, {En passant, I may observe that Mr Palmer was member for Ohinemuri in the last Parliament, and had previously sat for another Auckland seat). Continuing, Mr Taylor insinuated that Mr Jackson Palmer had been consulted regarding the terms of the Liquor Bill, which was positively denied by the Premier, who, adopting the forms of the House characterised the statement as "absolutely incorrect." At this stage cross interruptions between the members for Ashburton and Motueka interrupted the debate, and Mr M'Lachlan rose to a point of order. " Sir," he said, " the member for Motueka (Mr B M'Kenzie) says 'I never proved anything.' At least I've endeavored to prove him an ass." The exchange of some amenities between the pair and a sharp reprimand from Mr Speaker found Mr Taylor continuing his speech. The Premier, he said in his peroration, had roared like a wounded bull. There was not even a trace of dignity about him—not even a veneer upon him on this question. He was on the liquor question to-day what he was twenty years ago, when he was engaged on the West Coast in the liquor business himself. On the previous day he had made a disgraceful exhibition of himself.

At this stage, amid some uproar, the member for Ohristchurch was compelled to withdraw and he substituted " amusing exhibition " for the objectionable phrase. The member for Motueka, who was constantly firing interjections into the debate, was next sharply touched up by Mr Taylor, who, whipping round on him, remarked: " I presume the hon member is sober; if so, he ought to know better." Continuing, he said that the Premier was almost as destitute of courage as he was of accuracy. Clause 11 of the present Bill was exactly the same as clause 21 of the Act of 1893 under a different guise. That clause had been drafted and put into the Bill by one of the biggest brewery shareholders in Chnstchurch. The Premier was the bulwark of the " trade " in this colony, but before he could sneak the clause through the whole colony would be called upon to inquire into its provisions. The House and the country, after that day, would be roused to a realisation of what the Premier intended.

Mr M'Lachan, who had been continuously lending Mr Taylor the moral support of more or less relevant interjections, was here again taunted by Mr R M'Kenzie, to whom he responded promptly: " By God ! I'll tumble you about directly, my boy." The member for Motueka, rising to a point of order, drew the attention of the House to the nose of the member for Ashburton. He taunted him with changing his policy on the liquor question, and said that everybody knew how the member for Ashburton had cultivated that nose. Now he was trying to cut it off to spite his face. Mr M'Lachlau responded with a reference to " a dirty black eye " which he associated with a previous appearance of Mr M'Kenzie's in the House. An interjection by Mr Taylor brougnc from Mr M'Kenzie the expression : " The member for Christchurch is not responsible for what he says." Being called upon peremptorily to withdraw both remarks, the member for Motueka complacently replied : " I'll withdraw anything," Mr M'lachlan, who was on his feet during the withdrawal, further precipitated the inevitable crisis by interpolating : " Anyway, I never required a female relative to come crying for me to the House." The Speaker ordered the withdrawal of the remark, but despite the hurried interposing and entreaties of the members around him the member for Ashburton,flatty;declined to withdraw or to modifytes remark, and remained persistejjrfrn his attitude. The Piemier regretfully moved that the member for Ashburton was guilty of disorderly conduct, and on being further quickly appealed to to submit to the Chair Mr M'Laughlan defiantly refused, observing : "I am the custodian of my own honor." The Speaker having " named " the member for Ashburton, read the Standing Orders dealing with contumacy, and again called upon Mr M'Lachlan to withdraw, but the member for Ashburton, remarking " I shall take the penalty, sir," turned and left the Chamber. While the House was considering a " censure" resolution, Sir Joseph Ward and other members were endeavoring in the lobbies to bring the member for Ashburton to a reasonable

frame of mind, and on his return to the Chamber, and being afforded a further opportunity to explain, he expressed unreservedly his regret at his conduct, adding that in the excitement of debate he supposed he had got " a little bit too Hielan'."

The debate shortly afterwards col« lapsed, members being pleased to see the qnestion put without further trouble. Unfortunately, however, the sitting did not close without further recriminations, for immediately on the question of adjournment being carried the member for Buller, who complained that he was insulted by Mr Taylor, crossed the floor, and a heated change of words ensued, culminating in Mr Colvin audibly threatening to " wring " Mr Taylor's neck. There were further disturbances in the lobby, but these were outside the Press Gallery, and it is stated that in one instance a blow was actually struck. The debate in the House, which occupied from 2 30 p.m. on Friday till 7 a.m. on Saturday, is stated by the " Hansard" staff to have been the longest unbroken by committee proceedings or other interludes ever recorded in the House. As to the scene in the Chamber itself, I have no hesitation in saying that it was the most disgraceful I have ever witnessed, extending over a period of a decade's occupation of a seat in the Press Gallery, *

SOME PLAIN SPEAKING. Be the scenes in the House early on Saturday morning the " New Zealand Times" remarks editorially: "The final test of a man's fitness to represent -a constituency in Parliament may be said to aiise when the atmosphere of the House becomes heated, when members are exhausted by late sittings, and when feeling runs high over some important public question. Judged by this standard, Mr Taylor, the rabid Prohibitionist member, and Mr M'Lachlan, the Prohibitionist delegate, are not worthy of the confidence of the electors. The debate had proceeded most decorously until Mr Taylor took a hand at it, and by his Billingsgate manner and vile insinuations imported an undesirable tone to the proceedings. It has always been a matter of wonder why Christchurch choses to be represented in Parliament by such a man. But those who know the city and its fads are not surprised at its devotion to a man of Mr Taylor's stamp. . . . Our Parliament this session has been lowered to the level of that of New South Wales, and has been brought into contempt and contumely. Mr Taylor must be held solely responsible for the regrettable scenes which culminated in actual personal violence on the floor of the House."