Intemperance in the Legislature.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 80, 13 December 1884, Page 3

Intemperance in the Legislature.

Discussing the question of intemperance in the Legislature, the Wellington " Post " says: — "It has been suggested that the present Parliament has, in its first session, earned for itself the unenviable sobriquet of the Drunken Parliament. We wish that we could say briefly and at once that there was no foundation for the charges which have been made. A regard for the truth will not allow us to do this, but we must say that the facts have been considerably exaggerated, and so represented as to convey an entirely wrpng impression. From what has been written on the subject, people would naturally imagine that drunkenness was much more rife among members generally last session than in previous sessions, and that this was to some extent attributable to the new members. Both conclusions would be decidedly erroneous. There was unfortunately nothing exceptional (except in one respect, to which we shall allude further on) in the amount of intemperance among legislators last session. So long as we have known the New Zealand Parliament, it has contained members addicted to drunkenness. We need not recall the names of those who, in former years, have disgraced themselves, their constituents, and the colony by their conduct in this respect. Those who have been constant in their attendance on Parliament during the last eighteen years will readily recall many scandalous scenes? in the House resultingfrom overindulgence in drink on the part of certain members. There were no such scenes during the late session, and there were comparatively few exhibitions even of individual inebriety in the House itself. On a few occasions one or two members who had been dining out may have spoken a little excitedly at an early hour in the morning, but neither in the House itself nor in the Council did anything occur calling for special comment or condemnation, In the lobbies it was somewhat different. But before going further let us exonerate the new members individually and collectively of any participation in improper conduct, either in the House or outside it. It was not in their ranks that the offenders were to be found, and more than one of them replaced men who were noted for their excesses in the last Parliament. The real offenders were men who were not new to Parliament, and so far as those of the Lower House were concerned, whose fault and failing must have been known to the constituents who elected them. In the whole Parliament the flagrant offenders can bo counted on the fingers of one hand. In the Council there were but two —both men of good position and abilities, but who throughout the se&sion were literally soaked in liquor, and the worse of it morning, noon, and night. In the Lower House there were really only three who habitually exceeded the bounds of ' temperance ' so as to invite remark,"