MR FOX ON THE LICENSING BILL.

Waikato Times, Volume IV, Issue 219, 4 October 1873, Page 2

MR FOX ON THE LICENSING BILL.

We reprint from Hansard portions of the very able address of Mr Fox in introducing %he Licensing Bill, during the present session of Parliament : — I have heard it argued with a great deal of eloquence and flnene\ of speech, that this liquor trado is a noble tiling for the country ; that it produces a splendid revenue i that the Goyerr lneiit ought to bo proud to collect it j that without it we shall not be nble to pay the interest on that enormous debt which we are now incurring for public works. I have heard bentinients of that kind given expression to not long ago. When I hear such statements from persons of mature years and with grey heads I must confess it awakens in my "mind the idea of second childhood. A more puerile argument could not be advanced, and it is one which displays utter ignoianccoi the real iaets of the case. If men do not put their money into the till of the public-house, will they tie it up in a stocking foot, or bury it in the garden, or throw it into the ditch ? ISo ; if men have money they will spend it, and it is possible to spend it in suoli a wa> as to bring in more revenue to the country. He would be but a poor Chaueellor of the Exchequer— not such an one as the honorable gentleman sitting opposite, whose ability and whose financial ingenuity are beyond all doubt— he would be a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the old school if he could not devise some other means of taking nionej out of the pockets of the people than b\ putting it into the till of the publicun; it would be, in fact, recognising the publican to be what the publican of old was, the national ta\:gntherer. I have never heard am argument, no puerilo in my lifeYou can get more out of a man whose pockets are full than from a pauper reeling out of the public-house, even if he has left some money behind him. It is the same with the nation as n}th the individual. I may mention the case of a manufacturer in Lancashire, who had a large manufactory there. The men m his employment lelt oft' drinking lor a year, and during that twelve month* they had earned £5,000 more than they were able to do during the previqus year. They bec.ime drinkers again, and they earned £5,000 less than they had done during the pre\ious jear. They repented, and afterwards reverted to the teetotal* sybtem, when the increase m their earnings again occurred. The Chancellor of the Exohequer need not be afraid that he will not find plenty of money in our pockets when lie wants to bleed us. But besides this he would not require to tax us so hcavilj, The 1 sum of £80,000 a year is spent in the suppression and regulation of crime in this colony. Sweep away the great -ource of crime, and you sine that £80,000 to the revenue of the country, and you get rid of much destitution and all the Q^ber evils, which mnv be counted by millions and not by thousands, which flow from it. Another argument which is uiually thrown at us is. that this is a tj rannioal measure j that it is an interference with private liberty, and so on ; that it is the tjrnnin of the miijonty. But we live under the tyranny of the majority. Every member of this House who has been sent here after a contested election, sits by virtue of a tyrannical majority. We have passed the most important meusures in thin House by a majority of on\ The only supposed tyianny under this Permissive Bill is that of two-thirds of the people in any distriot. Is there an} tiling tyrannical in that ? It one-third of the people of a district say tlioy will have a public house, is it not tyrannical to insist that that the two-thirds of the people shall have to submit to it? Are two-tlurdi of the population to be asked to submit to the existence of public-houses, because the remaining one-third say they do not wish to do »w»y with them? Would not that be tyranny, not of a majority, but of a minority ? We do not seek merely the moral reformation of our fellow-oountrymen in our advocacy of this inensure. We stand upon our rights in this matter. We say that we will not submit to be taxed or injured in a hundred ways by the drinking habits of the country. If twoi thirds of the population cay they do not want public houses, the li jnority of one-third have no right to dictate to them, and insist upon public houses being allowed. I say you have no right to impose taxation upon me, in order that you may have your drink. What right have you to force these public houses upon me ? None whatever. ... I cannot conceive a greater inconsistency than this — that you should hesitate to put such a power into the hands of the people as this, and hand it over to a nominee. Are these nominees more worthy to exercise this power than we are ourselves P Are we afraid to trust ourselves with such a power? I have not the smallest fear of putting this power — either the licencing or vetoing power — into the hands of the people, What are you afraid of ? A.V? you afraid that the people should put down public homes ? Are you afi aid that thoy should lessen the amount of drunkenness in the colony ? Are you afraid that the) should lessen the number of lunatics or depopulate your gaols ? Are you afraid that they would prevent brawls and broken heads? Are you afraid that they would enable j,p.u to dispense with the policeman ? Are jou afraid that they will securo peace and domestic happiness among families now wretched and destitute ? Aro jou afraid of these, things ? If not, and if twothirds of the people say we not have public houses among u§, then let this law come, into force. The only thing the people oan do if this law pnsses, is to endeavor to reform the drinking habits of the people of the country of al\ classep, the very thing winch the honorable member at the head of the Government has ad*ocated. Let the people b,P at liberty to exercise the power in that direction. If they have the power and do no* excrciso it, then they do not do any good p,r harm. If the law is put in operation, it can only operate lor good. If not put into operation, jou will only be where you were. This is a dilemma from which the opponents of the measure cannot e»eupe.

Theodore Hook once said to a man nt whose tfiMe a publisher got very tipri : " You nppenr to have cinpticiT \our \yine cpllur into juur bookseller."