LOCAL OPTION.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1943, 17 May 1880, Page 3

LOCAL OPTION.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sni —ln your leading article of Saturday last, in referring to Sir Wilfred Lawson’e local Option resolution, recently brought before the House of Commons, you have inadvertently fallen into one or two slight, but popular errors. Before alluding to those errors, I will, for general information, reproduce the resolution in question, which reads as follows “ That, inasmuch as the ancient and avowed object of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors is to supply a supposed public want, without detriment to the public welfare, this House is of opinion that a legal power restraining the issue or renewal of licenses should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected, namely, the inhabitants themselves—who are entitled to protection from lh> injurious consequences of the present system by some efficient measure of local option.” . , ITow, in the first place, it 18 not a faco to say that Sir Wilfred Lawson received leas support for the foregoing resolution than he did for his Permissive Bill—quite the reverse. On the occasion of the last introduction of the Permissive Bill, in 1878, the vote was 280 against and 86 for the Bill. In the year 18/9 the result of the voting, on the first introduction of the Local Option resolution, was 25-1 against and 166 for; and that too in the fullest House on any occasion in the history of the Permissive Bill movement. This year the vote was 248 against and 131 in favour of the resolution. The explanation of the falling off in the number of votes for the resolution is, that many of last year’s supporters (especially the Irish) were absent from the House at the late hour when the vote was taken. No case of backsliding occurred, while a batch of new votes was recorded for public liberty to extend public temperance. Secondly, your assertion that “he (Sir Wilfred) is enamoursed of the principle of the of the plebiscite,” is not borne out by anything that he said in moving the resolution. I have before me a report of the debate in question, and, in Sir Wilfred Lawson’s speech, I find him referring to the plesbiscite in the following terms:—“And don’t let bon. members run away with the idea that I am establishing a plebiscite. There is a great prejudice against the plebiscite, and I do not say you are to take the opinion of the neighbourhood by a vote of that kind. You may elect some one if you please ; I am not bigotted ; I leave out all the details and move the resolution.” Or, in other words, Sir Wilfred wants the House to recognise the principle of Local Option, before bringing in a Bill dealing with the details. In the division list this year are to be found the names of twelve members of the late Government of Mr Gladstone, who voted in favor of the resolution. The Right Hon. W. B. Gladstone, who took part in the debate, paid a genuine and well-deserved tribute of appreciation and commendation to the mover and seconder of the resolution. Whilst, in his speech, he ea : d much in favor of giving ‘a controlling power to the_ ratepayers on the liquor traffic, yet he himself could not see his way clear to vote for the resolution, but would not vote against it. The (Right Hon. John Bright, warmly defended Sir Wilfrid Lawson from the accusation of seeking to mystify the House, and very ably and eloquently pleaded on behalf of the L?cal Option Resolution, as a moderate and reasonable proposal. The Marquis of Hartington, whilst in favour of some measure of Local Option, was not able to go for the resolution, being afraid that if it wore carried, the Permissive Bill would follow in due course. Nearly everyone of the speakers throughout the debate admitted that “something ” required to be done to amend the present anomalous and pernicious system. And the “ Alliance News” regards it as “a source of much satisfaction to the friends of progress and the supporters of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, that not one member who last year supported the resolution has this time voted against it, though for various reasons a number failed to record their votes for the resolution.” Then, with regard to the “ compensation question.” Sir Wilfrid Lawson does not object to compensation. In his speech he says : ‘The right hon. gentlemen the member for Greenwich (Mr Gladstone), when he was in Midlothian, alluded to this subject, and said he did not object to the principle of local option, but he said, if it can be carried out, you will have carefully to consider the rights of those who are interested and involved in the matter, and they will have to have fair compensation aw'arded to them if it is proved to be necessary, I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman. I say let us have fair compensation, “if it is proved to be necessary.” The whole thing depends on what is fair compensation, and I shall wait nnf.il I have the bill sent in to me. Nobody pays a bill until it is sent in, and as soon as the Licensed Victuallers present their bill and say, “wo want compensation,” I am sure the House will hear fairly what they have to say on the subject.’ The “Alliance News ” considers it “ an encouraging sign of progress, that so many of the speakers in the debate were unable to avoid referring very pointedly to the question of compensation. This shsws that there is a growing feeling that the liquor traffic does not Btand secure on its foundations, and that preparation must be made for making its possible downfall as comfortable as possible to those whose wealth may otherwise bo involved in its ruin. Not very long ago, little was heard of the question of compensation, because few people supposed the occasion for its discussion could ever arise. When mattresses are being laid down in the street for inhabitants to break their fall upon, it may be taken for granted that the house is already dangerously on fire. I am, &0., 0. M. GRAY. May 17. [The question at issue is not tho introduction of a Permissive Bill. No vote was taken last March on such a measure, or the division would have been very different. We merely compared the result of this year’s division with that of last year. The size of the House but little affects our deduction for members really interested in a question seldom fail to vote on it. With regard to the plebiscite, what we alleged was that Sir W. Lawson did not show himself averse to it, and that this told against him. — Ed. Globe.] CROWDED RAILWAY CARRIAGES, To Editor of the the Globe. Sib, — I saw this morning in one of your contemporaries a complaint of the way in which the first-class carriages are crowded between here and Port, and suggesting that extra accommodation be provided. Now, sir, I happened to be in one of the carriages on Saturday at the time mentioned when there was such a scarcity of room for the public, and I noticed that of the thirty-one passengers in the carriage thirteen were deadheads ; that is, they had free passes. What they were or who they were I had no means of knowing, but I was informed they were “ deep sea skippers,” who pay us a visit once in two or three years, and, being strangers, are hospitably entertained in this manner by our wealthy Government. Not much wonder the railways are paying so well, and it is great presumption of the ordinary common taxpayer here to protest against this handsome treatment of the seafaring nabobs. By all means let several palace sleeping-cars be put on the line for their special benefit in addition to tho present ordinary first-class carriages now nearly monopolised by them. Yours, &0., FIRST-CLASS. Christchurch, May 17th, 1880.