THE BISHOP'S REPLY.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8789, 10 March 1894, Page 6

THE BISHOP'S REPLY.

tssTiSAD of feeling hurt by the criticism which we felt ib our duty to pass on his letter read at a recent meeting ou the liceusing question, the Bishop of Christchurch should be obliged to us for having given him another opportunity of defining his position. Ww, of course, frankly accept, his assurance thab the views expressed by him two years ago are his views today. Ib was unfortunate, however, that he did not take more care, iv writing the letter referred to, to express himself clearly. In that letter he did commit himself to the sentiment thab a majority, if aubstautial, has a right to force a miuority, however unwilliug. His words were—"On this subject " generally I may express my opinion " thab prohibition if carried and " backed by considerably more than ''■ a bare majority of the population " would be productive of great benefit, " and thab ib is not oub of accord with " the principles of the Gospel " for a community mora thau " for an individual to deny " himself a lawful indulgence for " the public good." We now learn thac what his Lordship really holds is different from this. " i oannob work "with them [the prohibitionists]," he says; " first because I cannot deny " liberty of conscience ani the right of " any mau, except a drunkard, to take " alcohol iv moderation if he chooses "to do so." In other words the Bishop of Christchurch is now nob prepared to back prohibition unless the minority to be prohibited consist exclusively of drunkards. This ia a very different thing from maintaining, as he did in his letter, thab prohibition is desirable if carried and backed by considerably more than a bare majority of the population.