PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2590, 9 July 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OP EEPEESENTATIVES. Wellington, July 7. AFFIRMATION in lieu of oaths. Sir George Grey moved the second reading of the Affirmation in Lieu of Oaths Bill. He said that he merely desired that the concession made to Quakers and others in England be extended to the whole of Her Majesty’s subjects. Looking at the difficulties which had arisen in Great Britain on this point, he hoped no objection would be made to the Bill.

Mr Hall said Government would offer no objection, and suggested that the words “on conscientious grounds’* should be added.

Sir George Grey hoped that the proviso would not be insisted upon, so as not to interfere with a free exercise of opinion in a matter of this kind. The motion was pnt and carried. THE LICENSING BILL. MrDeLautonr moved the addition of the following clauselt shall not be lawful for any person whomsoever either to sell or supply or give wine or fermented liquor, or mixed liquor part whereof is fermented, in any quantity respectively, which shall produce intoxication to a person of the native race within a Native Licensing District.’’— Passed. It was farther resolved that the penalty of supplying drink should be any sam not exceeding £2O, except in oases where it was satisfactorily proved that the drink had been supplied to the Natives for medicinal purposes. The Governor was also empowered to declare that no publican’s license shall be issued in any block owned by natives if the owners so requested. A clause proposed by Sir William Fox that signatures of natives for or against a license should be vouched for on oath or declaration, was opposed by the Government, and was lost by 27 to 15. Sir William Fox then notified that he would withdraw his clause making publicans liable for damages for injuries traceable to the spirituous liquors they supplied.

Mr Hurathouse moved as an additional clause—“ That no contract .entered into by any licensee binding him to take intoxicating liquors from any persons shall be valid.” He explained that the clause aimed at the pernicious system of what was designated " bound houses.” A division was called for—Ayes, 23 ; Noes, 26. FIRB PREVENTION BILL. After some discussion the above Bill was thrown out.