Occasional Notes.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 90, 30 March 1876, Page 6

Occasional Notes.

By Colonus. . THE HON. MP* FOX ON TEMPERANCE.' I observe our great apostle of temperance, the Hon. W. Fox, has lately delivered an address nt a meeting of the 1 Auxiliary Alliance, held in LondonJ Of course Mr Fox spoke in his usual enthusiastic style, but I do not see much new, whatever there may be of true, in his speech. He has a cut at several of the leading London newspapers, finding fault with such papers, because, although they deplore the evils of intemperance, they do not advocate the passing of an Act, to prohibit absolutely the sale of alcohol. Apparently the task Mr Fox has set himself -is to obtain a prohibitive Act of Parliament, but I expect his labors in this direction is not unlike that of Sisyphus, who, according to ancient mythology, was condemned to roll a huge stone up a mountain, the stone always rolling down again when be had got it to the top. The prospect of a general prohibitive liquor law being passed in ' Great Britain, or in any of the British Colonies, is extremely remote, and I am afraid Mr Fox's labors in this especial direction are doomed to be utterly vain and useless. Mr Fox referred to Magna jCharta and the Habeas Corpus Act, and would apparently class a prohibitive liquor law with these two noble defences against State tyranny ; but there is a wide distinction between these two laws and a prohibitive Act such as Mr Fox wants. Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus Act were made to secure personal -liberty. Mr Fox's law would on the contrary interfere with personal liberty ; in other Words, would be an exceedingly arbitrary and. unjust measure. It would seem, however, a waste of time to argue on this subject, the chance of a prohibitive law being | made in Great Britain or the Colonies, being very small, and Mr Fox and others who are engaged in a crusade against drunkenness would clo well to employ their energies in attempting to stay the evil by some other means than tby a prohibitive law. There is a law I already which regulates the consumption of alcohol, though a law not of man's making. No man can take an excessive amount of .alcohol without paying a penalty for so doing, and to each individual it is left to discover i what amount of alcohol he may consume within a certain period, or whether he may take any at all. The fiat of the Almighty has gone forth, that all men must be careful in the use of this commodity, granted for the preservation and not destruction cf humanity. The law of God will probably be more effective in actually staying intemperance than any law of man. This providential law is continually obliging almost every 1 individual and every community to wrestle with and subdue the evil. Except in special cases, it is not wrong for any man to consume alcohol, and if certain enthusiasts tell us it is so, we know they talk nonsense. Even slightly to exceed, is no very great sin, and though drunkenness may be considered immorality, it is not the business of the State to force people to be moral. What Mr Fox and other temperance people mean by the law lending its sanction to the sale of alcoholic liquDrs, is quite incomprehensible. If the law had not stepped in and regulated the sale of spirituous lipuors, why of course every person so disposed could distil or sell spirits, and instead of the sale being conducted iu houses under' the superintendence of the police, spirituous liquors might be sold in every shop and at every street corner. This would be the effect of withdrawing what Mr Fox calls the sanction of the law. And now a word for the abstainers. Awhile since, I read an article from a London newspaper which attacked the temperance movement with considerable ferocity, and called temperance people some disagreeable names. The fact, however, is that Societies like the Good Templars do a considerable, amount of good, because, probably by joining such societies, a man may find his powers of resisting a temptation considerably increased, and people who abstain entirely from the use of alcohol, from a feeling of duty or necessity, are more deserving of honor than scorn and ridicule. Alcohol is a most seductive fluid, and taking of a little frequently involves an inclination, or strong craving, to take to excess. An inability to take alcohol without getting unduly excited by it, is certainly no proof of the weakness of character; it is merely a matter of temperament, and it is utterly unjustifiable for people who are able to take one or several glasses with ' impunity, to call people who exercise a large amount of self-denial in becoming total abstainers, weak fools, and such like opprobrious names.