THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 214, 15 June 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1872.

No one can deny to the advocates of the “Permissive Movement,” persistency. They endeavour to make themselves heard in our midst. But unless we are greatly mistaken they do not carry the voice of, the majority with them, and unless we are much mistaken the proposed Bill will*not be carried by the Legislature. The present Ministry is not very likely to make this a Government question. Mr. Fox, the - nominal premier, will probably vote for it, and Mr. Vogel, the Treasurer and real prime minister for the time being, will vote against it, and as it will be declared an “open question,” and the members therefore left at liberty to vote as they think fit without ministerial co-ercion, the Permissive Bill is pretty sure to be shelved. The gentlemen here who mount the stump in support of this measure usually commence by stating that all crime is due to drunkenness, a very doubtful proposition, and considering the very small amount of crime at the Thames, we doubt if there would be less if every public house was closed to-morrow. iSome of the advocates of this panacea for all evils say that they only desire to have the principle established without attempting to carry it into practice. This was broadly stated at a meeting a few nights ago at the Home Institute; and a very specious argument it is, but if these gentlemen don’t intend to carry out their principles into practice, what is the use of their airing them continually? Everybody knows that the Government cannot afford to lose the revenue derived from the sale of alcoholic liquors, and therefore that, whatever may be the merits of - the question, the Bill will not be allowed to pass. Apart from the financial question, we look upon the proposed enactment as one totally unsuited, to the colony. If it were passed it would never be carried out, which is one great argument against it, for to pass laws against the will of the majority of the people is certainly not sound statesmanship. In another part of our columns will be found an excellent letter addressed to the editor of the “ Herald,” from Mr Rees, in reference to the action of the Auckland Licensing Bench on a recent occasion, which has been much commented upon, upon the legal aspect of which we desire to offer no opinion, but the fact is quite patent that the licensed victuallers and the public generally are alive to their own interests in the matter, and don’t intend that any small section of self-elected dictators should assume to themselves an authority in this matter which they really do not possess. It is only charitable to believe that the advocates of the Perm:sslve Bill mean well, but they certainly have not a happy way of carrying out their views by wholesale and ridiculous attacks upon those who differ from them. Everybody admits that drunkenness is an evil, and that the cause of temperance is a good one ; but we cannot help feeling that were the views of the “ United Kingdom Alliance Branch” carried out here to their fullest extent, it would have the effect of closing up a number of respectable houses, and opening a larger quantity of sly grog-shops —a consummation by' no means to be desired; As a rule, we believe the licensed victuallers to be neither better nor worse than anj other class of tradesmen, and to attempt to brand them as vendors of wholesale poisons is an insult to the good sense of the cpmraunity. There may be a few rogues amongst them, and possibly the same may be said on the other side. If the “ Permissive” agitators would confine themselves to advocating temperance and sobriety as virtues to be imitated by us all, without attempting to set themselves up as dictators to say whether this house or that house should be closed, we. think they would be acting with more wisdom. The police and magistrates, as a rule, are far better judges of these matters than the “ Permissive Bill Committee” at the Ihames, who, despite of their respectability, are the sort of men to look at one side of the question alone. At the recent meeting, all the speakers spoke on one side, every resolution was passed “ nem con,” and doubtless they will say this was strong testimony to the merits of their case. But let anyone who was there say conscientiously whether or not that meeting fairly represented public feeling at the Thames. We feel sure it did not. That this will be one of the questions to be debated next session at Wellington there is very little doubt, and we have none as to' the result. At the same time we should be glad to see the subject fully ventilated, so that tlie opinions of the majority may be ascertained beyond all doubt. We believe that the advocates of the Permissive movement are in a great minority, and are likely to be, but we are not infallible, and are open to conviction if we are mistaken. We believe the community of the Thames to be one of the most honest, sober, industrious, and law-abiding communities in the world, and the criminal statistics of the Police Court will bear us out in this assertion. We do not believe that there would be any improvement under the Permissive Bill, and we feel perfectly sure that the Government will treat it, should it come forward, as an “open question,” and “dawn it with faint praise,” if they don’t oppose it, with the exception, perhaps, of the nominal Premier, who may possibly vote for it.