THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1893. THE LIQUOR BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2551, 5 September 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1893. THE LIQUOR BILL.

We are inclined to think that the Temperance Party are getting unnecessarily excited over the Government Liquor Bill. Much as we respect Sir Robert Stout, and great as the weight we attach to his utterances, we cannot believe that he is correct in saying that the cause of temperance has been thrown back 20 years. On the contrary, we think the temperance cause has been advanced. The principle of the Direct Veto has been affirmed; we shall have, if the Bill becomes law, the Direct Veto with the break on, and that is a great step forward. Of course, as a fixed principle, a bare majority is the correct thing. Members of Parliament are elected by a bare majority; Ministries stand or fall by a bare majority, and the most important laws are made by a bare majority. For instance, the Female Franchise, which is the greatest and most momentous reform of our time, has been carried by a bare majority of the Legislative Council, and no one objects on that ground. No one has suggested a threefitths majority, aud if it becomes law, as it is almost certain to, we shall all settle down and accept it. We have thus grown up accustomed to be governed by a bare majority, and any deviation from that principle is repugnant to our conception of what is right. But while insisting on the righteousness of government by a bare majority, we must not forget that fixed principles are not always adhered to in politics. ' All policies are made up of compromises, and if the Government in dealing with the liquor question deviated from the bare-majority principle they have not, we think, gone very far wrong. Let anyone reflect upon it, and ask himself : Supposing the public-houses were shut up by a bare majority, what would be the result '( This is the all-important point. To shut up public-houses now, only to have them opened again very soon, would do more harm than good, for if they were once reopened after having been closed, the present generation need not hope to deal with them again. This is a point which temperance reformers ought to keep in view. If they shut up public-houses before a substantial majority of the people are ready to do without them, a reaction will set in, and temperance will suiter by it. Let us, for instance, suppose that the public-houses of any district had been shut up by a majority of one, what would be the result 1 Would ihe defeated party accept duch a verdict 1 Most undoubtedly they would not. Practically, all the wealth of the country is on the side of the liquor traffic; it is a matter, not of sentiment, but of £s. d.: that party is fighting, not for principles, but for the means of making money, and they will fight to the death to maintain their -privileges. Something more than s» bare majority is absolutely necessary to combat successfully so rich, so powerful, and so influential an institution, and auyone who shuts his eyes to this fact makes a mistake. Our opinion, therefore, is that it is not safe, from a temperance point of view, to take away licenses until the three-fifths majority are in favor of doing so. When three-fifths of the people have made up their minds to do without public-houses all the wealth of the big brewers and distillers, and all their power and influence, will not suffice to counteract the action of so great a majority, but we Uiink that until that number can be got to vote on the temperance side no permanent good need be expected from the Direct Veto. The suppression of the liquor traffic by a bare majority would give rise to a fierce, aggressive agitation in favour of a change iu the law that, with the aid of money, would undoubtedly be successful, and the cause of temperance would be hopeless d;iring the lifetime of the present generation. Much as we dislike to violate the principle, we believe, therefore, that it is not safe to shut up public-houses until three lifchs of the people are prepared to vote that way, and consequently we do not find any great fault with the Liquor Bill in that respect. But we do object strongly to the provision which renders the poll void unless one-half of the electors on the roll vote. If the temperance party would take our advice this is the point to which they would direct their attention. They would accept the three-fifths/majority, provided it is threefifths of the number who record thenvotes, and if they succeeded in getting this aud the female franchise they would need no more. It is, therefore, in our opiuion, unnecessary for the temperance people to feel disheartened. It is far easier to amend the obnoxious clauses in the present Bill than frame a new Bill and carry it through the House, so that really the position of temperance is improved. The present Electoral Bill provides that after each election the names of those who do not vote must bo struck off tie"roik That is what is callecl Puraling the rolb. This will the dead and gone electors, and if care is taken to prevent roll-stuffing things will not be so bad as they appear after all. The only other objection we have to the measure is that the districts are too large, but as time goes on these defects will be remedied. ♦ HOME RULE. I The Home Rule Bill has at last passed House of Commons, and has been the - 4.v, e £ rs t time in the House of read for i:. . } ia( j a terrible passage Lords. It has -.„ but its friends through the lower chamucM., *-^«4_ have stuck bravely to it, and the thim iv,..

I ing was carried by as large a majority as tho second The Bill was first introduced on the 6th of last April, and it has been practically before the House ever since. All business has been blocked by it, but now that is out of the way we expect that the radical progamme which the Government in the. beginning of the present Parliament proposed will be gone on with. ►Still very little can be done, for without a doubt the lords will throw out the Bill, and a general election must take place immediately afterwards. Tho struggle has therefore only commenced; for even if the Liberals get back to power the Bill must pa?s through its stages again in the next Parliament. The chances are, however, in favor of the next Parliament passing Uomo Pule, for it is very probable that both parties will be so evenly balanced that neither side will be able to carry on without the assistance of the Irish members. In such a contingency the Irish members would be masters of the situation, and they would get Homo Rule as the price of their support. To is not at all improbable that the Tories will yet take up the Home Uule question, and grant a separate legislature to Ireland. On several occasions before the same thing has happened. As soon as the Liberal

party had worked up reforms the Tories seeing they could no longer resist, have come in and carried them, and it is very likely the same thing will happen to Home Rule. At any rate another election must take place before Home Rule is granted, and on the result everything depends. If the Tories are so strong that they can do without the support of the Irish members they will not touch Home Rule ; if, on the other hand, they find that they cannot do without them, Home Rule will be granted.