New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4228, 8 October 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1874.

The trade of the liquor dealer has recently received a good deal of attention in several parts of the world. Strange to say, there is a remarkable amount of unanimity in the result that has followed. In this respect the liquor dealer may lay claim to a singularity for his profession that belongs to it and it only. It is always being legislated against, and it generally emerges-from the scene of conflict stronger than it was before. The Licensing Act of this session put, the publican in New Zealand in a far stronger position than ho was prior to its being passed. The permissive clause in Mr. Fox's Act had all the sting taken out of it—as, the good sense of the people would say, should be the case. Mr. Cross's Act of this session in the Imperial Parliament was a -step in tho same direction. The number of hours during which the public-houses of London may be kept open has been extended, and the local authorities can contract or extend it in country towns as they may. deem expedient. The publican may entertain his friends as he list, he may close his house at an early hour if he chooses, and he may take out a six days' license only, with a corresponding reduction of duty, should he prefer to do so. Lord Salisbury very well defined, in his place in the House of Lords, the principle of the Act." Ho went so far as to say that " he should be glad to see the law still more free and liberal, and he claimed for this Bill that it was an amendment of the existing law in the direction of freedom—a direction in which he hoped he might yet see further advanco made." If, said his Lordship, speaking of the desirability of opening shops of the liquor traders at an earlier hour, " people did not wish to go into public-houses before seven o'clock, they could abstain from doing so;" The Times put the whole matter clearly to the public when it said, commenting upon tho Act, "if Parliament interferes in the sale at all, it asserts the right and duty of establishing restrictions in the general interest of tho community, and of extending them as far as is practicable." In JKJngland, as in the recent whisky crusade of a number of. howling fanatics in America, which had to be restrained by the strong arm of the law just as any other nuisance would be, the fanatical party were said, by the majority of tho woll informed and ably conducted morning newspapers, to be "played out." Bung was victorious. He succeeded in upsetting the great Liberal majority of Mr. Gladstone, and he obtained some concessions from Mr. Disraeli. I

Sir Wilfrid Lawson was permitted, although the Government had a Licensing Bill in hand, to have his annual field-day over the Permissive Bill. In this, again, may he recognised a similar uniformity to events happening at the Antipodes. Sir Wilfrid, like Mr. Fox when speaking on the subject of barmaids, causes Parliament amusement. As the Morning Post said, "Though the Bill is absurd in principle and utterly hopeless of success, it gives the House of Commons the pleasure of listening to an admirable speech from its promoter. Sir Wilfrid Lawson cannot command the conviction of the House, but he is sure oflts attention. If he does not spread before it a feast of reason, he can be unfailingly reckoned on for a flow of wit. He has always some happy retort to make, as when he yesterday rebuked Mr. Julian. Goldsmid's indecorous allusion to the way in which he entertains his friends, by reminding him that the question before the House was public and not private houses ; or he has some story to tell, like that of the captain who, finding that some of his crew got drunk on the rations of spirits, which were sold to them by the sailors who drank nothing but water, put an end to the evil by flogging the teetotallers instead of the drunk-, ards. But when Sir Wilfrid Lawson'S' speeches are stripped of their ' fun,' there is nothing left. It is a fallacy to contend that the principle of the Permissive Bill is to empower the inhabitants of a district to decide for themselves whether tho liquor traffic should be continued or not. It proposes that the question should be left to the decision of two-thirds of the ratepayers, which is a very different thing from the inhabitants. But even if the question were to be decided by polling every adult in the district, the Bill would still be mischievous and unjust. Mr. Roebuck happily described its tendency when he said that, if it were passed, 'there would be no quiet in the land.'" And further, the-same journal remarked, "Prohibitive laws have been tried in America, and they have everywhere failed. At Boston, the head-quarters of the Maine Liquor Law, there are between three and four thousand places where intoxicating liquors can be purchased as freely as in a public-house in Fleet Street. There can be no doubt that prohibition would be attended here with no better results than have attended it in America. It cannot be for the dignity of Parliament or for the welfare of the country that it should pass a law which is directly calculated io excite feelings of the bitterest animosity, and which, if it were enforced, would create an illicit and secret traffic in liquor, without lessening, and probably at the risk of increasing, the intemperance of the country." Another London morning newspaper remarked, " Neither cant, nor repression, nor the total prohibition of drink, which when abused in its consumption intoxicates, as a gluttonous consumption of food will cause disease and even death, will make a people sober, nor even contribute to induce habits of temperance." The unanimity of opinion on this subject expressed by the most ably conducted journals in the world, is enough to stagger any one but an enthusiast. We do not claim for them any right or title to be considered authoritative exponents of what is the better or the worse form of legislation, or to be considered infallible, but they do, it cannot be questioned, usually represent the good sense of the community. Directly they cease to do this they fall from the position of leading journals. On the point in question Ihe 'limes in London, and the Argus in Melbourne, enunciate precisely the same views.

In this country Mr. Fox takes care to_ keep the subject, as prominently as lie can, before the public. We qualify the remark thus because there is not the remotest probability that many of his best efforts are attended with anything resembling success. Even his gallant efforts on behalf of the barmaids may have their result written down in the one word— nil. Why, remarked one of the class he inveighed against, should he speak about us so ? '' I have a sick husband and a young child ; I get 355. per week clear, and I maintain them out of it." We should be glad to co-operate with Mr. Fox, or anyone else, to put down drunkenness, but we must be permitted to do so in a rational way, .and upon common sense principles. It is not intemperance that he fights against. He wars with the pub ican, who is a sinner in his eyes, and with the hotels. The great idol thai he has set up, and that he would wish to see the whole-world fall down and worship at the sound of his harp, sackbut, and dulcimer, is a Permissive Bill. Of such a measure the London limes remarked : "We need not recapitulate the reasons which compel the conclusion that the policy of prohibition is bad in principle, and that the form in which Sir Wilfrid Lawson proposes to embody it would deserve to be indicted under the Local Nuisance Acts. Few proposals could be worse than this, by which a parish or town would be fought year after year on the issue whether two-thirds of its ratepayers could be persuaded to vote the prohibition of public-houses within its limits." Sir Wilfrid did find seventy-five members who would havo allowed his Bill to go through the formality of a second reading, but the bulk of the speaking was decidedly against it. JSV amount of argument can upset the fact that the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland, and the .Maine Liquor Law of America, have been thorough failures.

The most sensible action that, wp have [yet seen notice of, calculated to bring about a reform in. the liquor trade, originated in Melbourne. In that city letters were addressed to the Licensed Victual lers' ' Association, the Permissive Bill Association, and the Temperance Societies' Central Committee, by the Liquor Law Amendment League, asking the consent of those bodies to a conference, for the purposo of considering what amendments upon the present liquor law would meet with the joint support of the various organisations. Representatives of each of these bodies, with the exception of the Permissives, who acted with, their usual intolerance, attended the conference, and a treaty was formed. The agreement arrived at provided for the amount and disposal of license fees, and for their issue of the contrary; and that no now license should be issued, excepting at the wish of the majority of the ratepayers. It was agreed that, no new house should be licensed unless it contained six rooms, built of brick or stone, each of 1.20 superficial feet,, and ten feet high ; or if it were within one-eighth of a mile of already licensed premises in cities of towns, or half a mile elsewhere. It was agreed that there should be inspectors who should causo liquors sold to' be analysed, and also that the powers of the police in respect to entering houses should be extended. Licensing Magistrates were to be elected, and any three ratepayers might oppose the issue of a license, costs to follow the decision. Penalties for slygrog selling should bo increased, and the vendors of adulterated liquor should be liable to a penalty of from £lO to £SO, or the forfeiture of the license. The sale

of liquor with a brand intended to deceive should be attended with a line of from £lO to £IOO, and forfeiture of the fictitious stock. No person under fourteen years of age should be allowed to buy liquor, and there should be heavy penalties for serving intoxicated persons with it. The disqualification of a licensee after repeated offences was also provided for. Drunken persons should be fined from 10s. to 405., and all public-houses should have a private entrance for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises. The Licensed Victuallers' Association reserved to itself the right, when the Bill, the draft of which—after an interchange of compliments upon the courtesy and spirit of fairness which had marked the discussion—should be before Parliament, to seek '' the insertion of clauses permitting five hours' Sunday trading, and for the issue of night licenses to houses in the vicinity of public markets, and to oppose permissive clauses. The Temperance Societies and Liquor Law Amendment League reserved to themselves the right of opposing Sunday trading and night licenses, and of seeking the abolition of colonial wine licenses, and the insertion of clauses throwing the onus of proof in certain cases upon the licensee; to raise the publicans' license fee to £SO ; also, that the ratepayers of any corporate district should have the right, byrecording a majority of votes thereon, to reduce the number of public-houses in their district, in five yearly reductions, to a maximum of one to every 500 inhabitants (present average, 147). In effecting these reductions those licenses to be refused where the licensee had evaded the law by Sunday trading, selling to intoxicated persons, or vending adulterated liquors; or where the house was not respectably conducted—to determine which the evidence of an inspector, police-constable, or three respectable householders would be conclusive ; where the houses afforded the least accommodation, or the applicant was not a bona fide proprietor. This clause the Licensed "Victuallers' Association reserved the right of opposing, on the ground of being a permissive principle, and an interference with vested rights." This brought to th<;. close a conference, of a somewhat unique character, that is likely to be of more virtue in checking intemperance than all the efforts of Mr. Fox and his friends.