MR. COLENSO ON TEE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 970, 17 March 1871, Page 2

MR. COLENSO ON TEE PERMISSIVE BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OH THE HAWKE's BAY TIMES. Sir, —In glancing recently over tbe report in your columns of a speech by Mr Colenso, 1 noticed some remarks regarding the Permissive Bill, which call for a few comments.

Mr Colenso supposes the case of the population of Port Ahuriri calling upon the Government to shut up the public bouse*, and asks whether this would be fair. Now, the best reply to this cniery is simply to ask in return, whether it would be fair to expect that the large majority of the population should, for the sake of the convenience of a small minority, and that of a few sailors visiting the port, submit, to the continuance amongst them of what they consider an intolerable evil and nuisance. Mr Colenso then goes on in an exceedingly vague and general way to say, that while something must be done to stem the tide of intemperance, it must be something which will not interfere with existing interests, which means, J presume, that while affording a man every facility for getting drunk as often as he pleases, he is simply to be told that his conduct is very reprehensible. I am altogether unable to see how there could be any injustice or interference with national liberty in according to a district or community the right of the large majority of the population to "veto the establishment or the continuance amongst them of what is generally known as a public house. I have had sufficient experience of the world to show me that it is the numerous facilities and opportunities afforded for the indulgence in strong drink, which lead men on from stage to stage. Very few men arrive per saltum at the condition of a confirmed dipsomaniac; it is the open door of the public house, and the difficulty of saying "no " to the urgent solicitations of social acquaintances and neighbors, much more than the actual love of the drink, that makes the descent so easy and so rapid; why therefore should it be deemed unreasonable that the better disposed inhabitants of a district should desire the removal from their midst of such a continual source of temptation to themselves and their families 1 Mr Colenso remarks, further', that the effect of closing public houses in one district would simply be to send those inclined to drink to another where the Act was not in force. This would doubtless be the case with a certain number of inveterate topers, but of such only, and the blame would rest wi'h the inhabitants of such other district or districts for not taking similar advantage of the Act,

And now, what is the nature of the vested interests on the value of which Mr Colenso lays so much stress ] Is it the interests of the publicans 1 How many of these commence business without a sixpence so to speak of capital, and what would be the extent of their loss in the event of the stoppage of the traffic ?t—why little more than an array of empty bottles and a few empty spirit and beer casks. 1& it the interest oi the proprietor of the house, which demands such consideration ? Does he not in entering into the speculation of investing in such property, do so in full view of the risk even as the law now stands of the licence being withheld or withdrawn ? Could he in such a contingency receive anything in the way of compensation? The fact is, that the operation of the Permissive Bill would not be the introducing of a new principle at all, but simply the popularizing of powers now vested in the licensing courts. Mr Colenso seems greatly to deprecate anything in the shape of coercion, but does not the law, in the old country at least, rigorously suppress all gaming, betting, and disreputable houses generally, wherever they are known to exist ? and why should not the majority of a district have, if they choose, the right to place public houses in the same category ? No one, any more than Mr Colenso, imagines that drunkeness in a community could be entirely eradicated by Act of Parliament; still a great deal can be done by judicious legislation in the way of repression or prevention. Besides, should the majority of a community make a stand against the present system of vending strong drink, the mere fact of their doing so places the habit of drinking, as it were, under the ban of popular opinion, and this of itself would have a powerfully deteiring influence with considerable numbers.

As to the opinion expressed by Mr Colenso that the publicans would, on principle, be entitled to compensation, equally with the Jamaica slaveholders ; the comparison is so manifestly irrelevant and absurd that words would be wasted in showing it to be so. Tam sorry to learn on the authority of Mr Colenso that the advocates of temperance are so impervious to logic. Howfar this is true I know not; in any case, however, it may be some consolation for them to reflect, that in view of the style of argument Mr Colenso has brought to bear against the introduction of the Permissive Bill, they are amply warranted in making use of the well known retort— et tu quoque. —Yours, &c, Civis.