PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2711, 25 October 1871, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

(from our own correspondent.) Wellington, October 25. The University Act Amendment Bill was read a first time. Upon a division there voted—Ayes, 46 ; Noes, 17. Last night Mr Vogel moved the House into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the Brogden contracts. He made a statement, in the course of which he characterised the assertions of the Opposition Press as impudent fabrications, especially those having reference to the contractors’ profits, which he affirmed were limited to 5i per cent. He concluded by moving—- “ That this Committee, having before it the contracts entered into by the Messrs Brogden, recommends to the Government not to accept contract No. 1.” He explained that the Government recommended the allowance of No, 2 contract with modifications. The Treasurer was followed by Mr Shepherd, who said Mr Vogel had exceeded his powers ; that the contracts were preposterous, and moved an amendment “That the contracts are highly detrimental to the interests of the Colony, svnd that all contracts should be let by public tender.” Mr Stafford suggested the adjournment of the debate. The Government, he said, should bring down the Attorney. General’s opinion as to the validity of the contracts. Mr Vogel then rose and said that the Attorney-General and counsel in England were of opinion that he .possessed authority to enter into the contracts. Mr Rollestou urged the Government to state \yljethcr they would bring down an opinion as to how far the Cplppy wag bound by the contracts ; and his suggestion was supported by Mr Gillies, Mr Fox said the Govern, meat considered the Colony bound by the contracts ; and if a resolution to the contrary were proposed, they would treat it as one of no confidence. The debate was then adjourned. Mr Brogden was present during the debate.

LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr Creighton, in introducing the second reading of this bill, said it was generally complained that the publichouses of the country did not provide sufficient accoipmo, dation for travellers. The bill provided for this, and also that the hotels should provide stabling accommodation. The next provision was the taking of the powers out of the hands of the Justices. There could be no doubt that the powers of the Justices had been greatly abused. It would now be necessary to satisfy the magistrates that a fresh publichouse was wanted in the district before a fresh license should be issued. The next important clause was that the applicant should have the signatures of one-third of the male and female inhabitants of the district. There were provisions in the bill for licensing clubs, and for issuing packet licenses. This was necessary because it was found that the coasting steamers were no better than floating publichouses. There were powers for suppressing gambling in publichouses and Sunday trading. Another provision was the punishment of habitual drunkards. A most important provision was that the husband, wife, or guardian; should take aoti'pu against any publican who sold liquor to aperadp who nugjit lose his life through the cousumptidu of such liquor or frpm wjfich any other accident of damage arose. The persons sphering would have a lien on the property of the publican. The most important part of the b|ll [wag that ho might call the prohibitive clauses, by which it was provided that twenty persons might memoralise for tho taking ®f a vote as to whether the prohibitory clauses should be

brought into operation or not. If two-third 8 voted in favor of the clause no publichouses should be opened in that distiict. It would be competent, however, to take a vote in three years from the first vote. The bill also extended the right to vote to females as well as males. This was what he might call a woman’s question. There was no one who would be more affected by, or who suffered most from, the trade in intoxicating liquors than the female sex. He could not refrain from complimenting the Premier on the assistance he had given in the preparation of the b 11. Mr Clark spoke in favor ef the bill, pointing out that a great deal of the success attending the movement for the better regulation of the sale of liquors was due to the press in all parts of the world, particularly that of some portions of England. He was glad this question had been brought forward. He did not think it would receive the sanction of the House this session ; but if bon. members would give their attention to the subject they would come to the conclusion at which he had arrived, that some such measure was necessary for the salvation of the country. Mr Haughton hoped hon. members, before they voted for the second reading, would read the bill through. He must say that he never read a more tyrannical measure. If they had made some attempt to amend the Adulteration Act they would have done some good. He feared that more people were killed by adulteration than by drinking. He would vote against the second reading. Mr Bathgate desired to join with the mover of the motion in his thanks to the Premier for having had the courage to bring in a bill dealing with such a difficult measure. He combated the argument that the bill was a tyrannical one: on the contrary it proposed to put the power in the hands of the people. He had been engaged professionally in endeavoring to prevent the granting of licenses ; but owing to the inefficiency of the present system, and the objectionable ure made of their power by the Justices of the Peace, it was impossible to prevent the granting of licenses. The applicant simply tired out the objectors. They came up again and again until objections were futile. In one case in which he was concerned a license bad been granted much to the detriment of the inhabitants of the neighborhood, scenes of the most disgraceful character taking place daily. If this session produced no other result than the passing of this Act and the Contractors’ Debts Act, they would have done great work. Mr White hoped that for this session at all events this bill would share the fate of the Education Bill, because there would net be time to discuss the provisions of so great a measure. He was in favor of such a bill, but not one which went so far. He woulft throw out a hint which he hoped would be taken, that merchants, as well as publicans, would be answerable to the law for the sale of adu'terated drinks. Although the bill would not pass this session, he was glad it had reached such a stage as it had—that it had been printed; and he trusted the Gc? vernment would take care to circulate it throughout the country, so that there might be an expression of public opinion on this as well as the /• ducatiqn Bill. He might say at once that he did not think that he would ever vote for a bill which proposed to place iu the hands of two-thirds of the people the power to prevent the sale of drink. There was no doubt that to the crime of drunkenness—for it was a crime—was to be attributed many of the evils from which humanity suffered. He took such an in ten st in the bill, however, that he would procuie copies of it and fyaye them circulated. Me would vote fop the second reading,

Mr Swanson would vote for the secord reading. He was sorry to find that some of those members who should have strongly supported the bill were most lukewarm. He hoped when the bill Went iuto committee it would be supported in a hearty manner by those who were favorable to it. Such a bill had done a great deal of good in the province of Auckland, and he considered the present one might do good too. But he would warn the House against one danger—that of interfering with vested interests. There we e persons who had invested large sums of money in hotels, and it would not do to destroy their property without making some meg,ns < f compensating then} for jt. Mr Macandbew would vote against t}re second reading, partly because it was a matter which could be dealt with by the provinces in a more satisfactory manner than hy them. He did not consider this was the correct rabde to crush the evil. . He would like to see au asylum for inebriates similar to that for lunatics. He would prefer to see free trade in the sale of liquors by abolishing all restrictions. He would vote against the second reading. Colder supported the bill, as also djfl Mr Steward, who thought it desirable that every effort should be made to suppress their national, or at any rate their colonial, vice. He did not agree with the prohibitory clauses. If it was promised to give the fiower to be exercised on the granting of icenses for new houses, he would not object, but it was not right to say that there should be no houses where there were already a good number established. It would be placing iu the hands of an agitator, whether political or otherwise, the power to get up an outcry against an individual, and, by obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the residents, absolutely deprive him of a living and ruin his property. A deputation of teetotalers in hjs district bud stated to him that thev did not wish to interfere with houses if they were properly conducted.

Mr O’Conor thought if the bill received the support of auy members of the House it should receive that of the representatives of mining districts, because it provided not only for the prevention of the sale of adulterated and intoxicating drinks, but for the suppression of gambling and singing and dancing in publichouses. He was astonished to hear two mining representatives oppose the bill; He would support it, and do all in his power to force it forward. Mr Williamson said the House would commit a great mistake if it did not read the bill a second time, LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr O’Rokke, in moving the second reading of this bill, said it was not his intention to go over the painful circumstances connected with the necessity for the introduction of such a measure. He would not hhye' presumption ‘ tp ask the House to pass'ij pleasure whicfy ipould have the aspect of at* tempting id reverse tbe decisipn in fhp course taken by tpe courts. It would be rpmembefed that the House by passing the Act of iB6O did a cruel wrong tp a gentleman who b»d bepn admitted to the ranks of the legal profession after mature consideration on the part of the judges, wbo were the pro. per custodians of the honor, of the bar, and they bad travelled beyond (heir legitimate

nations bv passing an ea: post facto law. HeWM» member o? tbe House at the time Viill was passed, but was not aware, nor “her member, o! the H«». th.t binwas intended to affect ' r Smythios The bill now before the House simply put Mr Smythies in the same position in which the judges put him, and he hoped the House would not act so cruelly as to keep that gentleman in the position of being unable to obtain the means of subsistence. . Mr G M‘Lean said the reason why he intended to oppose the bill was not on account of the manner in which the hon. member who had moved the second reading had put forward the claims of Mr Smythies. He was not going into the merits of the question why, twenty-five years after the commission M a crime, Mr Smythies should be allowed to prSToc <» not His for the second reading was on account of Mr Smythies’ objectionable conduct after he was admitted to practice in New Mr Kolleston opposed the bill. He was extremely grieved that such a painful case had come before the House, but he the hill because he considered it would be committing an act of discredit on the proCe |?r n VoGE?saS o he e should support the bill, because there was no reason why m considering tbe justice of the present case they should punish Mr Smythies for some other offence He doubted whether it was competetent for them to review the decision of an English court by referring to Mi Smythies’ former offence the prosecution m which case, he had no doubt at all was a vindictive one. The published facts very clearly proved that. He supported the second reading on the ground that the judges were well aware of all the circumstances of his case at the time they admitted him, and that the members at the bar m New, Zealand were also privy to all the circumstances, and had plenty of opportunity of opposing his admission if they desired to do so. He would state fearlessly that the clause disbarring Mr Smythies was introduced in the bill in a surreptitious way during ita passage through the Upper House. As a member of the Lower House, although he had taken an interest in the case at the time the hill was before them, he would say that he never heard anything of the clause by which Mr Smythies was disbarred, nor, he believed, were the members of the Upper House themselves. The case came before them not as an untried case ; itw«» case which had been tried and settled by the Judges The hon member who introduced thebili now before the House deserved the highest approbation for having done so, and had earned the right to their sincere thanks. Mr Gillies opposed the motion, denying that the bar ever had any opportunity of opposing Mr Smythies’ admission. Ihe only “opportunity” the profession had, which was . mere play upon words, was when they were told by the Judges they might express an opinion, hut that their decision was already arrived at. . , Mr Bathgate, as a member or the bar, would support the second reading. Whatever crime had been committed by Mr Smythies had been atoned for by a long series of per Gisborne supported the second reading on the ground that it was repugnant to English law that they should legislate in an ex post facto direction. The facts of the case were that Mr Smythies had been admitted hv the Judges with all the circumstances of the case before' them ; the profession had every opportunity of objecting to his admission- that after his admission he made himself obnoxious to the profession who then became suddenly virtuous and procured the insertion of a clause into the bill of 18G6, daring its passage through the Upper House, the effect of which was not known to memhers at the time, or there was no doubt it would have been rejected. , Mr Fox denied the statement of Mr \ ogel that the c’ause under which Mr Smythies was disbarred was inserted in a surreptitious manner, or that the members of the House ever had any opportunity of protesting against his admission As to the Judges bavin" admitted Mr Smythies to practice, after careful investigation, they did nothing of the kind ; they took no pains to procure evidence of the circumstances connected with Mr Sfnythies’. tiial at the Old Bailey, which evidence was procured, after his admission, by a member of the bar, but was, of courre, too late, the mischief having been done. He objected to the passing of a bill which would permit tbe throwing into society of a man whoso presence among them would be worse than that of a wolf in a sheep-fold. Mr Shepherd supported the bill, and Mr Pearce opposed it.