ANGLICAN CHURCH SYNOD AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 410, 14 July 1908, Page 4

ANGLICAN CHURCH SYNOD AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

At Friday’s sitting of the Anglican Church Synod, the liquor question came in lor an animated discussion, and the following amended motion moved by the Rev. J. D. Russell, of Petone, was carried:—

“That this Synod is of the opinion that the elimination of pri- ■ vate profit in the licensed sale of intoxicating liquors will be of the greatest importance to the cause ot temperance in this country.” The mover sa ,- d that the present was a very critical moment in connection with the liquor question. He thought that the New Zealand Church had shown a lack of enthusiasm in regard to the temperance fight, but now people were looking to the Church to get off the fence, and show where it really stood. Some years ago the Synod had passed a motion in favour of State control of liquor traffic, but that issue was not now before them. The question lay between license and NoLicense. He praised the splendid dominant stand taken by the Church at Home upon this subject. He was glad to know that Bishop Julius, of Christchurch, had spoken with no uncertain sound upon this question. Bishop Julius had said that he would rather die than vote for continuance; the open-bar trade was a disgrace to our civilisation. The mover had written to all the clergy and synodsmen ot the No-License districts, asking for their opinions 011 the working of the system. Out of tea replies received eight were distinctly favomable to No-Li-cense. The Rev. J. G. Bartlett, formerly of Wellington, and now of Oamarn, wrote that that town had lost nothing but on the contrary had gained under No-Li-cense. While the system was not a complete remedy for present evils, he believed that it would be strongly beneficial to the rising generation. The Rev. E. Whitehouse, of Ashburton, had been converted to No-License by his observations of the effect of that system in Ashburton. The mover said he would not have credited the improvement at Ashburton if he had not seen it with his own eyes. At nights and on sale days there was no drinking ofc disorder, such as he had seen before. The padded cell reserved for sufferers from delirium tremens had been used only once in five years under No-License ; the lock was rusty, and grass bad overgrown the pathway of approach. Church charity funds had been put to other uses because of the diminished claims upon them. The removal of the private bars was the essential first reform. After Dunedin, the Wellington diocese had done more than any other in the Dominion towards carrying No-License, and if the Chinch would give its membership the required lead, they would carry the reform this year in electorates where it was almost gained three,years ago. The Rev. J. R. Cassell (Hawera) seconded the motion. He thought that the Church should express a definite opinion on the liquor question. Archdeacon Towgood (Marton) said he could not quite see that England and New Zealand were in the same position. He sympathised with a remark of Mr Balfour, that it would be a robbery of the widow and orphan to confiscate licenses without compensation. Here, however, there had been a growing tendency to No-License for several years. In his own district he had tried to induce the publicans to form an association of their own, take the public into their confidence, and make it clear that there were no infringements of the law as it stood. But he had never received any satisfaction from his attempts. He thought the people had suffered so much from abuses of the license system, that a growing number were now in favour of prohibition. He could not concede that wine and beer were evils in themselves, but the position was that the trade would not reform itself and could not be • controlled. Theie was no doubt but what the introduction of NoLicense into various electorates had been attended by very practical benefits. At the same time he thought that the gifts of God would be used again, when prohibition had had its day, and perhaps they would then be used properly. He had found from inquiries that the most unexpected people, men who were far from being teetotallers, bad voted for No-License, and would do so again, because ot the abuses which existed in the trade. It was a great pity that leadeis had not arisen to combine the forces of moderation, so that an attempt might have been made to retain the sale of liquor, shorn of those abuses. Meanwhile, he quoted the opinion of a friend, who said, “Reform? It’s too late to reform. Kick the whole thing out, and let it come back purified.” Mr A. H. Compton (Mangatainoka) was in favour of a modification of the Gothenburg system. Mr Wheeler (Feilding) quoted figures from the No-License Handbook, to the effect that in 1902, when that reform was carried, the number of charges heard in the Ashburton Police Court was 3091, and the number last year had decreased to 316. The number of offences in regard to liquor was 93 in 1902 and 103 last year. During the five years of No-License the population of Ashburton had increased from 2500 to 2563. As these had been the five most prosperous years which New Zealand had expei ienced, he thought that this very small increase was proof that No-License was not all that some people imagined. He did not suppose that the population of

any other town in New Zealand had increased so little. The Rev. G. H. Isaacson ( Fahialua) pointed out that at the present time No-License was the duly weapon they had to hand against the evils that existed. There were some things which No-License could not do, but it would remove a standing temptation from before the eyes of many people. He did not value the objection of injustice to licensees. During the last ten years nearly every public house in the country had changed hands, and every licensee who took possession knew that his license was liable to be taken from him within three years. The argument that NoLicense was opposed to the liberty of the subject could not be considered, because in New Zealand, especially, there were numerous laws infringing the same liberty. Mr E. Barton (Hawera) decried the endeavours to make men moral by removing all temptations from their path. There were hotels that were a credit to the men that kept them. If the Synod wanted to move in the matter, it should pass a motion urging that the magistracy should take care that licenses were not granted to unsuitable persons, or to hotels that were mere drinking saloons, and not inns. He held, however, that the office of the Church was to preach general principles, and that the political methods by which those principles were to be carried out were no part of the clergy’s business. If the license system was an evil, it was one to which the entire people of New Zealand had been a party, and they should bear the cost of compensating licensees, not all of whom had carried on their business in an improper manner. Mr T. Bland (Newtown) said the Church of England had hesitated too long to take a firm stand on the liquor question. He thought that Mr Russell deserved praise for his courage in bringing forward the motion.

The mover stated that the London Diocesan Conference had passed a similar motion, showing that it was not ultra vires. He had 110 hesitation in saying that what he wanted was that the Synod should affirm the desirability ol No-License, but No-License was a very different thing from prohibition. (Hear, hear.) No-License did away with the open bar, but allowed people who so wished to import their liquor iu certain fixed quantities registered by the State. He had no thought of committing the Synod to the principle of the bare majority ; he believed in the three-fifths majority. The figures which Mr Wheeler had quoted as from the No - License Handbook were taken from a Licensed Victuallers’ advertisement in the Dominion, which he read. The advertisement commenced with a quotation from the No-License Handbook, but the figures read by Mr Wheeler were not part of that quotation. He preferred to believe what he had seen in Ashburton himself, and been told by a great many meu, to statements of the liquor party. He hoped that the motion would be carried, though it did not go nearly so far as the Church shouldThe motion was carried without a division.