BUSHMEN’S HOMES v. PUBLIC HOUSES.

Evening Star, Issue 3265, 7 August 1873, Page 3

BUSHMEN’S HOMES v. PUBLIC HOUSES.

The Wanganui Chronicle recently had an article advocating the establishment of “ Bushmen’s Homes,” to which men who have been at work up the country might resort, instead of going to public houses. The Hon. Mr Fox writes to the editor a long letter on this subject, from which the following is an extract: —“ As regards your benevolent suggestion of ‘ Bushmen’s Homes,’ the idea appears somewhat analogous to that which originated the British Workman public-houses in the old country. lam afraid, however, that in a district like this there is not material enough to ensure success. Such institutions must be self-supporting, and with the small number of ‘ Bushmen’ which we have about us I fear there would be no chance of their being so. I fully concur with you in your feelings of commiseration for the poor bushman, who having worked hard for months at the saw-pit or on the station, is subject to the process of what Mr Trollope described as being known in Australia by the title of ‘ lambing down,’ which we know by the more intelligent expression of ‘'knocking down a cheque.’ As far as we have men of this class to be victimised, their fate is just as certain in one of our villages as in Queensland and in New South Wales. A bill was placed in my hands a short time ago, which affords a good illustration of the way the thing is done in one of our own most ‘ respectable hotels,’ situate in a village not over one hundred miles from Wanganui. As 1 have no wish to he personal, I have suppressed the names, but with that exception the copy below is literally correct, ft runs thus; — Fuddleton, October 19. Mr Crosscut Dr. to Jonathan Bang, £ s. d.

To Board and Lodging from Oct.

£6 4 0 The ‘ Fuddleton Arms ’ is, 1 need not say, a most ‘respectable hotel/ the landlord a most respectable man, ‘ who hates nothing so much ns a drunkard,’ as the publicans’ advocates tell us all respectable publicans do ; but, nevertheless, that is how poor Crosscut the sawyer was ‘ lambed down ’ at Fuddleton ; and perhaps it would have been a good thing for him if there had been a Bushman’s Home handy when ho was sucked into the vortex of the ‘ FucldletoiV Arms.’

‘I But my conviction is that so long as the ‘ Fuddleton Anns’ opens its arms tq Air Crosscut and other fellows like him, it would be of very little use to

establish a Bushman’s Home on the other side of th« street. The glitter of the well-lighted bar, the voice of the jolly companions, the inviting smile of the bland landlord, perhaps the pretty barmaid tricked out with pinchbeck jewelry, will hold out attractions for Mr Crosscut which will prove far more irresistible than the clean fireside and cup of tea at the 1 Bushman’s Home. You must get rid of the ‘Fuddleton Arms,’ and then, if there be any need for Bushmen’s Homes, you need not fear but you will have them. Give the bushman and the rest of the people the power to deal with the publichouse question themselves, and they’ll soon do it. Political charlatans, calling themselves the friends of the workingman, are always shouting themselves hoarse about the poor man’s rights and public liberty. But they dare not trust him with the power of deciding whether a public-house should be set up at the door to demoralise his family, and bring all sorts of nuisances into his neighborhood. This our patriots are content to leave in the hands of two Justices of the Peace, over whom ‘ the people’ and the ‘ working man’ have no control. The advocates of the Permissive Bill demand- this right for the working men; the Brummagen patriots who claim to be his friends and political guides dare not and will not give him it.

9th 2 0 0 9 9 Oct. 11th—To 97 glasses 2 8 6 99 li tb—,, 28 glasses and half-pint brandy 0 16 0 ) 9 9 > 13th—„ 20 glasses 0 10 0 9) ) 9 14th— ,, 14 glasses 0 7 0 9 9 9 9 15th—„ I glass 0 0 6 n >9 16th— „ 4 glasses 0 2 0