on the subject, sufficiently strong to induce | the Government of the day to take it up. If he cannot get that, it was, he thought, somewhat presumptuous on the part of the honourable gentleman, or on the part of any other honourable gentleman, to try to alter great principles in our jurisprudence by such measures as these. There were other Bills on the Paper of exactly the same character, and he could understand the nervous ambition of the honourable member for Waitemata in this matter, because that honourable gentleman had also made an ambitious attempt to amend the law in one of the most important functions in our social system which he should not have dealt with.

Mr. PALMER.-You stonewall it; that is all you are doing now.

Mr. SPEAKER.-Order.

Mr. FISH asked if the honourable gentleman was in order in saying that he was stonewalling this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER said he was not in order. Mr. FISH asked if Mr. Speaker would direct the honourable member to withdraw the words. Mr. SPEAKER said the honourable gentleman was not in order in attributing ulterior motives to the honourable member for Dunedin City.

Mr. PALMER said he would withdraw the words.

Mr. FISH said that if the honourable member had been long a member of the House he would never have accused him of stonewalling any Bill. He pardoned him with the same good feeling with which Mr. Speaker pardoned him for making use of the expression. He thought this measure was so very important that it should not be brought in by a private member, and, if the Government thought it was worthy of receiving the attention of the House, they should do one of two things: they should say at once that it should not be considered by the House, or they should take it up as a Government measure.

Mr. EARNSHAW agreed with the honourable member for Dunedin City. He did not think measures of this kind should be brought in by private members. He thought the correct course was that they should test the opinion of the House by motion; and he felt sure that if that were done they would elucidate these questions far better, and the Bill brought in by Government would be in far better shape than they found many Bills in that aspiring members brought before the House. But he opposed this Bill for many reasons. He did not think there was any necessity in this country for an inebriates' home at all. He thought that as a whole they were a sober people. The number of persons who unfortunately had gone beyond the control of themselves and their friends through liquor was very small indeed ; and he would point out the enormous cost these establishments would involve the country in. The few cases there were, he thought, were very fairly dealt with by being placed in asylums. He would like to point out what the definition of an inebriate in this Bill was. This was set forth in clause 2 of the measure. When a pro

bation order was got, the first time the inebriate infringed that order he was then at the mercy of those persons who could put him in an asylum. That was altogether against any attempt being made by persuasive means to wean those people who were so unfortunate from their evil courses. He thought the Bill was altogether inopportune. At the present moment a colossal contest was taking place between those who did not take liquor and those who did. They could not possibly deal under this measure with persons against whom prohibition orders were obtained, and if they took the whole of the four centres they would not find sufficient inebriates to fill the homes and recompense the country. Although he had a strong personal belief in temperance, he certainly would vote against the Bill, as he did not think at present that it was wanted. He knew of several cases of inebriates who, unfortunately, had to be put in asylums. He felt sure in their cases they had been far better taken care of under the supervision at those asylums than they would be in any home specially designed for this purpose. The cases did not require any great specific treatment: the only thing necessary was that the inebriate should be kept in some place where he could not get liquor. That was all that was required to meet the greatest number

of cases.

Mr. HARKNESS entirely dissented from the views expressed by the honourable members for Dunedin City and the Peninsula that a measure of this kind should not be introduced by a private member unless the opinion of the House was first ascertained.

Mr. EARNSHAW did not say "should not be introduced." He said he thought it would be better to test the opinion of the House by motion.

Mr. HARKNESS said that the honourable gentleman had been sufficiently long in the House to know that, if a motion were put on the Paper, and the Government were opposed to it, or disliked taking up the responsibility, they could so prevent its coming up that the promoters could not get any opinion of the House expressed thereon.

Mr. BALLANCE said the Government could not prevent motions from coming up.

Mr. HARKNESS said it was often done. Mr. BALLANCE said it was not done. Mr. HARKNESS said that some of the greatest reforms that had taken place in the Home-country, and in other countries, had been brought about by measures introduced by private members; and he maintained that in a question of this kind it was quite competent for any honourable member to carry that measure through the House and explain the provisions contained in the Bill. There was no question the measure they were called upon to discuss that night was one of very considerable importance. It dealt with a great social problem, which had been engaging the attention of many not only in this country but in all civilised countries for a considerable time; and he very much regretted that the honourable gentleman who introduced the Bill did not take

a little more time in explaining its provisions, which he believed the honourable gentleman had very much at heart, and he was very much inclined to think the honourable gentleman did not altogether understand the measure he had introduced. There could be no question that the evils which the honourable gentleman referred to that night, drunkenness and the results that flowed therefrom, were of a very serious nature, and had a very injurious effect upon the colonists even of New Zealand, however temperate they might be. But it appeared to him there was no provision made in this Bill for the expenses in connection with the working. The honourable member proposed to establish homes for the inebriates; but at whose expense were they to be maintained? Were these charges to be made on the consolidated revenue? He thought the honourable gentleman ought to have explained, at all events, the provisions of the Bill, and given the House a little more knowledge than he had given it. In clauses 5 and 12 there was some provision that near relatives of the inebriates should pay something towards the expense of their keep, and people who were not in a position to pay were called upon to work. In the case of men of this character they would not be able to defray the expenses of the homes. Whilst he agreed with the main principles of the Bill, and thought it ought to have a second reading, he was of opinion that the honourable member ought to have taken a little more time in explaining the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. McLEAN could not approve of the attitude adopted by the honourable member for Dunedin City in trying to throw cold water on the honourable member for Auckland City. He (Mr. McLean) thought that honourable gentleman was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing forward this measure, and whether he would be able to carry it or not was a matter he need not trouble himself much about now-he had done his duty. Somebody else had prepared the Bill for him, and it was a measure which he (Mr. McLean) approved of very much. At the same time, he thought it was a measure which the Government ought to take in hand; and, instead of the House throwing cold water on any private member who brought forward measures dealing with social questions affecting his fellow-men, he ought to be entitled to the thanks of the House. He hoped that the House would, if not now, some time in the future, help the honourable member to carry this Bill. For his own part, he thanked him heartily, and he hoped honourable members generally would look at the Bill in that light, and not throw cold water upon it.

Mr. R. H. J. REEVES heartily sympathized with the honourable gentleman who had moved the second reading of this Bill. There was no doubt he had introduced it with the most philanthropic ideas, and there was no doubt that a Bill of this nature, if it were placed on the statute-book, would be, without exception, one of the most beneficial Acts that could be passed through the Legislature. The honourable gentleman who had just sat down stated

that the honourable member for Dunedin City (Mr. Fish) was trying to throw cold water on the honourable member for Auckland City. If cold water was all that was the matter, there would be no occasion for the Bill. The honourable member for Dunedin City not only tried to throw cold water upon the measure, but endeavoured, to a great extent, to bring the measure into ridicule. It was one of those measures which should not be ridiculed. As the honourable member for Dunedin City previously said, this was one of the most important measures ever brought before any Legislature by any private member. It did not always follow that a Government, however powerful or however clever, could grasp everything that it was right to do in the interests of the country, and he thought, therefore, that the Government ought to be thankful and pleased when any private member came forward and introduced a measure of a truly beneficial nature like this. Any one travelling through the country, any one visiting the asylums, any one who studied the Police Court reports, knew perfectly well there was a demand from the whole country for a Bill of this description. They knew that drunkenness in many instances was not a crime. It was all well enough for some of them there men of strong mind and strong constitution, men who could withstand temptation-to talk on the subject, but throughout the world there were a number of men who were carried away, he regretted to say, by the influence of liquor. He had not had the pleasure of hearing the senior member for Auckland City speaking on this very important question; and he regretted it very much, for he was perfectly certain he would have been edified, and would have had a large amount of information that he had not now. Any one who took the melancholy task of going through the lunatic asylums in our towns, and found that fully 25 per cent. of the male lunatics confined there were there through drink, must be convinced that this Bill would be of a very beneficial nature. If honourable gentlemen would read the report of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums they would see that it was one of the saddest papers that any man could read. He did not think any member in the House had greater respect for the female sex than himself, and he regretted to see by this report that a very large percentage of the women in the lunatic asylums were there through drink. If any measure could be brought before the House which would alleviate the sufferings of these unfortunate people, he could say that the measure brought in by the honourable member for Auckland City was that one. He trusted the good sense of the House would cause the measure to be carried; and he would vote for it, believing that the Bill had been brought in with the sanction of the Government, and with the feeling on the part of the honourable gentleman himself that it would be beneficial to the people of the colony.

Mr. BUCKLAND said that, while he congratulated the honourable gentleman on the size of the Bill, he could not congratulate him

on the subject of it. He dared to say that the | honourable gentleman meant very well, and that such a measure would be useful, but the Bill now before them was not the sort of measure required. Before they voted for this Bill they should see what they were voting for. It was all very well to make speeches and express sympathy with the honourable gentleman; but honourable members should see that they were not trifling with legislation. If the useless

parts of the Bill were cut out it could all be put into half a sheet, and would then be workable. The only drunkards it would affect were those who were drunk in public places. Now, those were not the persons who filled the lunatic asylums. The honourable gentleman was wrong altogether, for it was the continual drinking of liquor in private and away from public places that filled the lunatic asylums. The unfortunate man who happened to come off a ship, or came down from the country for a day and got drunk, would, under this Bill, be put into an inebriates' home; and yet he was not an inebriate. The honourable gentleman did not seem to know what an inebriate was. The definition of inebriate in the Bill was entirely wrong:

"Inebriate' means a person convicted in any competent Court of the offence of drunkenness in a public place, or a person against whom a prohibition order has been obtained under the licensing law for the time being in force in New Zealand, or a person committed as an inebriate by any Resident Magistrate according to the provisions of this Act."

He would, before he was done, show to the honourable gentleman that the provisions he had got in the Bill were the most unfair that had ever been put before any Assembly, and would lead to all kinds of trouble. At the present time the Magistrate fined a man who got drunk in a public place 5s. and costs for the first offence, and that was generally paid by the man himself, or a friend, and he could go away and get to work again; but under this Bill a man would be fined £1 and put into the inebriate home for a time. It might be the means of losing him his billet, and he would have the name attaching to him of having been in a lunatic asylum. The Bill, he submitted, was not one that should apply to first offenders. Then, again, the definition of the Proclamation of inebriates' homes was long and cumbrous. Clause 9 said, "Section nineteen of The Police Offences Act, 1884,' to wit," and then there came twenty-one lines simply repeating the words of the statute, and then it finished up by saying "is hereby repealed." The whole of that clause might have been left out, and simply "Section nineteen of The Police Offences Act, 1884,' is hereby repealed" inserted. The honourable gentleman would then certainly not have had so much writing in his Bill, but the section of the Act would have been repealed. Then, he told them how he was going to punish these individuals. At the present time if a person was convicted a second time he was fined a little more, and so on; but under this Bill he was to be sent into an inebriates' home

Therefore, when the honourable gentleman was getting his money he had to collect it from the stepfather and stepmother, and all the rest of the parties mentioned, and it was to be applied to paying for any other inebriate. The Bill was very peculiar in that respect. The whole of this clause, including all these various people, was only a repetition of the term near relative" in the Destitute Persons Act, and the honourable gentleman need not have put it in his Bill at all. He had gone out of his way to further swell the Bill to undue dimensions.

Mr. SHERA.-I made the Bill complete so that we could do without lawyers.

Mr. BUCKLAND said it was too complete altogether; it was extremely full. Clause 18 was a remarkable clause. They would understand that drunkards might not be inebriates at all.. Supposing a man had been committed to this home, if able to work he ought to work to earn his living. Now, clause 18 said,——

"If any inebriate shall refuse to perform any work which he may be lawfully ordered to perform within any inebriates' home, the Visiting Justices may order such inebriate to do such work; and, in the event of a second refusal, such Justice may by warrant order the offender to be imprisoned in any gaol for any period not exceeding four days. At the expiration of any such period of imprisonment the offender shall be returned to the inebriates' home."

So that all a person had to go through if he was put in for twelve months, if he wanted to avoid working, was to refuse to work the first time. It did not say a second demand could be made upon him, but simply that if he refused a second time he would be committed to gaol for four days, and afterwards sent back to the home. For the rest of the twelve months he could stay idle without doing anything else. Four days' punishment was supposed to be enough for him. This was an altogether useless clause. He ventured to say that the inebriates' home would be full of these persons. Clause 20-indeed, the whole of the last page-might have been left out, and the provision intended to be made put into about four lines. Clause 20 merely