418 Importation &c. of Intoxicating [HOUSE.] Liquors Prohibition Bill. [JULY 11 IMPORTATION OR MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS PROHIBITION BILL. Mr. MCGUIRE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said this was the opportunity for those who were sincere to strike with this Bill at the root of the evil. They had been playing with this important question long enough. Session after session members came with petitions saying that a publichouse should be closed here, and another there. That, in his opinion, was not the proper way if they really wanted to put down intemperance. He considered it was of not the slightest use closing one publichouse here and another there, any more than it would be to cut a leaf off a tree and expect it not to grow. If honourable members were sincere and honest in the matter, if they were not hypocrites, they would go to the root of the evil, and the only way was to stop the importation and manufacture of drink. It was the fact of members coming year after year with petitions, and telling the House, and telling their constituents, that they were so much in favour of reform, that induced him to introduce this measure to ascertain if they were really sincere. Although he had introduced this Bill four times, he never was able to get more than the first reading. This was the first time he had got the Bill to its present stage. He had never had an opportunity before, and he now claimed the support of the honest and sincere. If they felt as they said, they ought every man to vote for the Bill, and honestly assist in carrying out that which they professed. He was told that many of those gentlemen were not sincere; he would, however, give them the opportunity of proving their sincerity. Mr. G. J. SMITH was not going to speak for more than a minute. His views were so well known that, as he intended to vote against the Bill, it might seem inconsistent if he did not explain his vote. The honourable gentleman who introduced it said he claimed the support of every man who was sincere and honest in his desire to suppress the liquor traffic. There were two parties who desired, or said they Major Steward desired, the suppression of the traffic-one party who wanted to get at it direct, without consulting the wishes of the electors at all, and the other party who desired to see prohibition brought about in a logical and legitimate way, by the expression of the will of the people at the ballot-box. He belonged to the latter class, and was therefore not at all in favour of this Bill. It would be a direct infringement of the rights of the electors were the House to proceed to pass a Bill putting an end to the traffic at once. He could only support a measure which gave the people the right to record at the ballot-box their wishes with reference to the matter; and, as this Bill did not go in that direction, but in the direction of closing up the business without reference to the wishes of the people, he would oppose it. If the honourable gentleman would insert in the Bill a clause to provide for consulting the people, and giving them power to express their opinion, he would have much pleasure in supporting him. At present he must oppose it. Mr. G. HUTCHISON would like to ask the Premier what effect this Bill, if passed, would have on the "strong finance" which the Government had so often said to be necessary. Mr. SEDDON said the honourable gentleman had evidently not given the matter that consideration he generally gave to most subjects in which finance was concerned, and he was sure he had not given good and sufficient reasons why the Legislature should pass the Bill. The honourable gentleman should know that it would mean the loss of about £400,000 a year direct through the Customs, and a loss of about £60,000 through no licenses being granted. The loss of revenue, general and local, would be about half a million a year. He should have told the House how he was going to provide for that loss of revenue. He felt sure that East Coast Road they heard so much about would be a long time before it was completed, and the New Plymouth bonds, or relief to the ratepayers of that part of the colony, would be a long way off. He did not think the matter was being treated by the honourable member or by the House seriously. The Bill would interfere with the trade with the Mother-country and the importations from the Mother - country, and would be a direct interference with property in the colony, without the slightest warning or preparation. It was a direct interference with the general and local finance of the colony; and, under these circumstances, the proper course to adopt would be to deal with the question under the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, and to take the people of the colony into the confidence of the House. The matter had not been before the people; they had never been consulted about it, nor had they come to any decision on it. He would ask the House to vote against the Bill. Sir R. STOUT said, if the honourable gentleman would insert a clause to the effect that it should not take effect until a vote of the people was taken, he would not object to it, because he believed the matter should be left to the The House divided. 419 1894.] Importation &c. of Intoxicating [HOUSE.] Liquors Prohibition Bill. people to determine by direct vote. The Bill | call for a division, in order to see exactly how did not proceed on that platform, and he did members voted upon it, and let the country not think they should proceed with such legis- judge. lation till the people had had an opportunity of saying at the poll what they wished done. That being so, he could not support the Bill. But, if the honourable gentleman would put in local-option machinery to take a poll throughout the colony as to whether there should be importation and manufacture of liquor or not, he would have no objection to it. Mr. WILLIS thought the honourable member who had introduced the Bill had not the slightest belief that it would ever be carried by the House, because he must have known what the sudden loss of Customs revenue would be. Only that afternoon the honourable gentleman asked the Premier, "Whether he was prepared to take the oppressive duties off sugar, tea, coffee, rice, boots, and woollen goods of all kinds." He could hardly think that this Bill had been introduced in all seriousness, when, in addition to the heavy loss we should sustain in Customs duties, the honourable gentleman was asking the House also to take off the duties on other articles. He was satisfied that the Bill was not going to be carried by the House, and he thought it hardly worth while to speak further on the subject. Mr. MCGUIRE said it was quite evident that many honourable members were not sincere. They were always talking of temperance, but there was no sincerity whatever about it. Some honourable members appeared to think their occupation might be gone if these reforms were agreed to, and they desired to keep these questions to play upon, in order to play themselves into the House. He thought honourable members ought to be sincere, and try to settle this question once and for ever; and the only way to settle it was the way he proposed in the Bill now before the House. Regarding the taking-off of duties from certain articles much used by the people, the honourable member for Wanganui need not be alarmed that the Ministry was going to accept everything suggested. He would like to see certain duties which pressed heavily upon the people removed. He feared that members were not ripe-except in words-for the Bill; they were not ripe in sincerity. He must confess that he was rather surprised at the attitude taken by the senior member for Wellington City (Sir R. Stout), who, he thought, would have been only too glad to support the measure. Drink was the cause of great evils when carried to excess. In the interests of the people, and especially of the rising generation, he thought the House should try and stop the whole traffic, and to do so they should deal with the question at the fountainhead. He was thoroughly sincere in this matter, and he felt convinced that the present Bill was the only possible way of dealing effectively with it. They had seen Bellamy's closed for one day, and then opened the next, which all went to prove that honourable members were not sincere. He would leave the question to the decision of the House; but he intended to Carnell Buddo Cadman Duthie Hall-Jones Harris Heke AYES, 12. Thompson. Tellers. McGowan McGuire Saunders Newman. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, 12th July, 1894. Journal of the Department of Labour-Juries Bill. The Hon. the SPEAKER took the chair at half-past two o'clock. PRAYERS. JOURNAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON asked the Government, Whether they have received any copies of a pamphlet, by I. Stephens Jeans, entitled "The Eight-hours Day in British Engineering Industries"; and, if so, will they cause the same to be printed in the next issue of the Labour Journal, as it is a reply to an article published in the June number of that journal, headed "A Year's Trial of the Eighthours Day in England by Messrs. Mather and Platt, at the Salford Ironworks"? On the previous day the Hon. Mr. Montgomery had to reply to a question on the subject of the publication by the Department of Labour of the Journal, and he had stated that the Government held themselves responsible for all that appeared in that Journal. He also stated that it was the wish of the Government to publish as much information as was possible interesting to those engaged in labour throughout the colony. In No. 16, of the 21st June, which he held in his hand, there was, on the sixty-ninth page, a paper headed "A Year's Trial of the Eight-hours Day in England," which was written by Mr. Mather, a member of the firm of Mather and Platt, of the Salford Ironworks. It was published in England, and had a large circulation, and had since been published in the Labour Journal in New Zealand. At Home a reply had been published to that article; and the object of his question was now to ask that that reply should be published in the next number of the Journal, so that it might have as much publicity given to it as the article which had appeared in the number he had referred to. The Hon. Mr. MONTGOMERY said the Government had not received a copy of this pamphlet until the honourable gentleman handed one to him on the previous evening, after having given notice of his question. He had read the article since, and had handed it to the Minister of Labour that morning, with a request that after reading it he would inform him whether he thought it advisable that it should be published in the Labour Journal. The Minister of Labour was so occupied with other business of his office that he had been unable to peruse the pamphlet, and was not therefore able to give him a definite reply that day. He could not, therefore, say whether it would be published by the Labour Department or not. He, however, hoped to receive a reply from the Minister of Labour shortly. With regard to the statement of the honourable gentleman that the Government was responsible for what appeared in the Labour Journal, it was perfectly true that they were responsible; but the Government did not, by publishing these articles, imply in any way that they meant to adopt them, or to show that they approved of everything that was written in those articles. They were published for the information of the people. The pros and cons on the different questions were given, so that employers and employed should have each question before them in all its phases, and should be able to form a correct opinion. His honourable friend would understand that neither he nor the Government held with many of the opinions expressed in those articles; nor did they mean to adopt them. In fact, the Government held quite contrary opinions to some of the arguments used in the Journal. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN thought there should not be editorial notes to the articles. The Hon. Mr. MONTGOMERY was not quite sure that an addition to the article in the shape of an editorial note was a good thing. It might, in all probability, be better to let the articles stand on their own merits altogether. However, as he had said, the Government simply published the articles for information, and with no intention of adopting their recommendations. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON asked whether the honourable gentleman would say on a future occasion whether the article would be published or not. The Hon. Mr. MONTGOMERY said he would inform the Council when he had received a reply from the Minister of Labour. JURIES BILL. The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY.-Sir, I am aware that this Bill has been subjected to rather severe criticism. In fact, it has been said on more than one occasion that the Bill is dangerous, and that it will prevent a certain class of litigants from having their cases tried by men of intelligence and character, to which they are entitled. Now, in framing this Bill I had no such intention, and there is nothing in it which would deprive a litigant of the benefit of any intelligence which a jury could possibly bring to bear on the subject-matter before it. When I speak of intelligence, it is a poor thing indeed to suppose that because a man has not a good coat on his back he is not so intelligent as а man who happens to possess fine garments; and it says very little for our present boasted system of education if people who are not in good circumstances of life are not able to bring as much intelligence to bear on any question before them as those who may be in a better position. My experience of intelligence is somewhat different, and probably a little explanation of my views will not weary the Council. I have known what are called jurymen with long hair who are generally addressed by the learned counsel especially in criminal cases as most intelligent men, and I have found as much intelligence in these rough-coated men as in those who are in easier circumstances, list that a man must be an esquire, a gentleman, a merchant, a manager of a bank, and so on, and I should like to know which of those gentlemen would not like to be estimated as a gentleman. He would be rather angry, I think, if he were not addressed as "esquire." In fact, in these days, I think there are very few people who do not consider themselves entitled to be addressed " esquire." For my own part, I almost always address a man as an esquire, because I look upon one man as being as good as another. And I say, Sir, the sooner that anomaly is done away with the better, and we should endeavour to bring to bear upon any question which a litigant may bring before a jury as much intelligence as possible. I hope I have sufficiently explained to this Council my views. At any rate, my opinion is that all the intelligence should be brought to bear upon a case that can possibly be brought to bear. Having said that much with regard to the 5th section, the rest is merely machinery. I may say that it occurred to me that jurymen should all take their fair share, and that no jury should be confined to any special individuals; not only that every man should have a right to be on the jury, but that every juryman should be obliged to serve; and, having that in view, I thought it necessary to frame a law having special reference to this subject. If the Council will listen to me I will tell a story of a countryman of mine who could not agree with the remaining members of the jury, and who afterwards, in addressing the Court, said the rest of the jury were the most stubborn men he ever did see in his life. It is often the case that a jury are locked up for a long time on account of one man, and this Bill provides that they shall be locked up for such time as the Judge may think expedient, and that they can then go about their business. The old practice was, I believe, and, probably, they give as much satisfaction | best condition," and it is provided on the jury in the discharge of their duties as bankers or any of those gentlemen to whom reference is made in the section of the Act to which I shall refer. I have noticed that the position of our jury law is a perfect anomaly. Why, even a Grand- Juryman is sometimes summoned upon a common jury, after he has had the same question before him in another capacity, and no objection seems to have been taken to him. If we had this man bringing his intelligence to bear upon the jury the chances are that he could bring that jury to any decision he liked. He could sometimes turn them inside out. I have not had the pleasure of sitting in a jury-room myself, but I have heard of cases of this kind, and I believe the lawyers in this Chamber, who have had experience in the matter, will bear me out in what I say. I have known of cases of what is called "a shake in the hat," and I will undertake to say that there is not much intelligence in the way in which that is arranged. I would, in the first place, before referring to the Act itself, call attention to the peculiar wording of the Juries Act of 1880. I need scarcely call attention to the peculiar way in which jury-lists are made out in several parts of the country, or say that they are not as they ought to be. The whole thing rests with the Sheriff, whoever he may be, to select people for these juries just as he likes; and the sooner this distinction between a common jury and a special jury is done away with the better, because I have seen quite as much intelligence amongst those people who are called a common jury as amongst those on the list as a special jury. And it stands to reason that they have the same sense, and much more experience. Take the ordinary case of a mechanic: I undertake to say that such a man has more intelligence than a man who does nothing all day but sit at his ease and wear good clothes. The ordinary mechanic is constantly exercising his mind, and would therefore be better fitted to judge of questions than the gentlemen to whom I have referred. Of course, while I attach some importance to the clauses of the Act to which I am about to refer, there was one principle which struck me particularly when framing this Bill. If honourable members are not acquainted with the position, I may call their attention to section 35 of the Juries Act, which says this: "The Sheriff shall keep the lists so sent and delivered to him by the Jury Officers in his office, and shall take from such lists consecutively and enter in a book consecutively the names, in the order in which they stand therein, of all men who shall be described in such lists as 'esquires, gentlemen, merchants, managers of banks, civil engineers, and architects, and also such other persons whose names appear on such lists as shall be known to him to be of the best condition, so as to make up such a number of special-jurymen as he shall consider to be necessary." That is the position. They are called" of the to take them round in a cart and shoot them into a ditch. The Hon. Mr. SHRIMSKI.-A good job too. The Hon. Sir P. A. BUCKLEY.-Well, I do not think it was a good job. But that was the practice, there is no doubt about it. It seems to me that after the jurymen have been locked up a certain time, sufficient in the opinion of the Judge, they should be discharged, but they should not be coerced into coming to a decision against their consciences. I am therefore strongly of opinion that the amendment in that direction contained in this Bill is a desirable one, and I am quite sure that when the Bill comes before the Statutes Revision Committee it will be amended to the satisfaction of the Council. I move, That the Bill be now read the second time. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN.-Sir, I saw this notice of motion for the second reading of the Juries Bill put upon our Order Paper with very great regret. It has been there for so long, under circumstances which we all regret-the illness of my honourable friend the Colonial Secretary- that I have been more than once tempted, even in his absence, to their avocations, would be the best judges of matters of a complex business character. Such matters have not come before many of those jurors in the course of their every-day vocations, and it is notorious that in such cases there is frequently a very gross miscarriage of justice. It is well known that in complex cases, involving large business interests, people are naturally only too glad to go to the extra expense involved in a special move that the Bill be discharged from the Order Paper, in the hope that it might not be proceeded with further. I hope it will not be allowed to be proceeded with this session. I have heard nothing advanced by my honourable friend in charge of the Bill which would induce me, for one at least, to consent to deprive litigants in our Courts of law of the moderate chances which our present jury system affords them of obtaining men of character, intelligence, and business know-jury. The argument of the honourable gentleledge for the consideration of cases in which man when he told the Council that at the they are particularly interested. We have present time a gentleman might be on the more than once had occasion to note that special-jury list when he happened to be on the Judges in our Courts of law have found the common jury, and that he would be able it necessary to complain of a failure of justice to turn the rest of the jury to his views with because of the want of intelligence, or some- the greatest ease, seems to me to point to the thing worse, on the part of common jurors. fact that there is a great deal of intelligence That the evil has not been very much greater in the special jurors-much more than we can than it is is a matter of surprise to me, or expect to find among common jurors. I am to any one who has occasion now and then not prepared to contest the assertion that to look into our law-courts and see the rows mechanics and others might be quite as inof stolid faces and small heads of men in telligent as any other class of the community, the jury-box painfully endeavouring to master but their experience is limited to matters of the details of cases which are outside the another kind, and they have not generally that scope of their ordinary businesses, and upon wider knowledge which men of business and which they are intellectually incapable of others are expected to have. No doubt there forming any judgment that is worth relying are many cases where men lead a mere life of upon. It is a subject for congratulation that pleasure, and are very incompetent to form a very much more mischief has not been done in judgment on any complex matter. They so that way than has been done up to the pre-seldom exercise their brains that probably they sent. I think we should be only intensifying the possibilities of evil if we took away from litigants in our law-courts the very moderate chance which they have even in our special juries of obtaining the necessary intelligence to consider fairly such cases as come before them, and forced them to trust to find it in a fortuitous concourse of atoms, the result of a ballot from the common-jury roll. I move, Sir, That the Bill be ordered to be read the second time this day six months. The Hon. Mr. PHARAZYN.-I should be sorry to see the amendment of the honourable gentleman carried, because I think there are some things in the Bill which it would be as well to adopt. There is one clause, in fact, which I think would be a distinct improvement on the present system. I refer to clause 4, with regard to the locking-up of jurymen. That does seem to me, as the honourable gentleman said, a very bad practice, and when I asked a question with reference to it some time ago I was very glad to hear that the honourable gentleman was prepared to bring in a Bill to amend the law in that respect. Possibly he might have gone further in the direction of amending the present law. An amendment in the Juries Act which would allow a majority of three-fourths to deliver the verdict would, I think, be an improvement. It is done in the case of civil actions, but in the case of criminal business the jury is locked up. With regard to the other portions of the Bill, I confess I am opposed to them. I quite agree with the Hon. Dr. Pollen in the remarks he made as to the inefficiency of common juries in dealing with cases which require men who, from their intelligence, and from the nature of Hon. Dr. Pollen are less able to exercise a proper judgment in a case than an ordinary hard-working mechanic would be. But, still, we must take the general experience, and I think the general experience is that the special-jurymen are more competent to form an opinion on a complex question than a common-juryman is. I think there is one drawback in the existing law, and that is, that there are so many exceptions to the persons who are bound to serve on the jury, so that we lose an intelligent class of the community, who are exempted, and for no other reason, so far as I can see, than that they have been able to persuade the Legislature to let them off. The intelligence on the juries is therefore less than it ought to be. It is a notorious fact that in criminal cases lately juries have shown a remarkable unwillingness to convict. During last sessions a very small number of convictions were obtained, and I believe the Judges felt that the juries were not doing their duty. Whether there was a sort of sympathy with the criminal classes, or whether it was due to a want of intelligence on their part, I do not know; but it is certain that in many cases, where the Judge was clear that a conviction ought to follow, the prisoners were let off. I remember one case when the counsel saw the jury were an exceedingly mixed lot, and, in speaking in defence of the criminal who was on his trial, he said to the jury when the charge was made, "Well, it is quite true; but it is only what one of you gentlemen might have done." And, Sir, it is quite possible some of those jurymen might have done the same thing. That is certainly a very unsatisfactory state of things, and I fear this Bill is in the direction of letting criminals off very easily, |