LEGISLATION TO SUPPRESS INTEMPERANCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 390, 12 September 1874, Page 3

LEGISLATION TO SUPPRESS INTEMPERANCE.

Legislation in a free country cannot be far in advance of public opinion. Such is the dictum of Mr. John Bright, in reference to the proposed attempt to control the appetite of the English people for intoxicating drinks by Act of Parliament. In a speech delivered at a recent meeting of the Society of Friends Mr. Bright said that there were people who were always crying to Parliament for the cure of the evil of drunkenness ; and they revealed an amount of simplicity which he could not understand, by asking for things to be done which in the present state of public opinion were impossible. We have always maintained that in reference to the liquor traffic it is the function of the Legislature to protect society against the individual, and not to protect the individual against himself. And to the same effect Mr. Bright says '* it is for Parliament to make such changes as are necessary for the public good, and for the proper administration of police regulations," No man understands his countrymen better than Mr. Bright does. If he makes the most of their good qualities he is not blind to their failings ; and he is of opinion that "If the public-houses were closed on Sundays, if the hours of sale were shortened, if the licenses were taken from the grocers, the amount of drinking is so absolutely appalling that it would still be lessened bufc to a small degree." After referring to the operation of the liquor laws in the United States, Mr. Bright averred that if the English Parliament " were to pass such laws as those proposed by many of the friends of temperance legislation, they would soon have to repeal them, for the whole city of London would be in riot, revolt, and insurrection. Againat public opinion Parliament can have no more power than the meanest citizen." Whilst holding, however, that it does not come within the province of Parliament to determine how much a man shall drink, Mr. Bright would not leave the evil of drunkeness without a remedy. As a teetotaller of thirty-four years' standing he cannot be suspected of favouring the pretensions of the publicans, and therefore, when he deprecates undue legislative interference with the liquor traffic, it is not for the benefit of the parties concerned in it, but in order that the cause of temperance may be advanced by the use of none but legitimate means. Now for Mr. Bright's remedy. He believes that the evil of intemperance will never be touched " unless the thoughtful serious men, beginning with the ministers of the gospel, and all those who go to places of worship, for other reasons than fashion, should regard this question us ona o£ tho great evils they have to overcome. If the ministers of the churches drink, a good many of their congregations will favour this evil in consequence." Mr. Bright's only hope is in the "religious portion of the country," who must take up the question, or there is no chance for it whatever. We have no doubt that many other members of Parliament are of the same opinion as Mr. Bright, who, we believe, is also at one with the public on this great subject. There is no virtue in sobriety when it is the result of compulsion, any more than there is in the honesty of a thief when he is under restraint.