CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 247, 11 July 1908, Page 7

CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

; ' 4 , VIEWS OF THE AMCLIGAN SYNOD. • : AN ANIMATED DISCUSSION. i An animated discussion took place at t-h« ■ Anglican Synod yesterday in connection witl: J the liquor question.. .The .Rev. J. D. Bus- ; sell (l'otono) moved:— "That this Synod is of tho opinion that tho elimination of pn'vato profit in tho ; licensed. sale of intoxicating liquors is tho first step in tho direction of hecosi sary teniperanco reform, aiid. trusts that tho Legislature will provide every facil lity to give effect to tho expressed *de- • siro of tne-mnjority of tho people of New' Zealand in this direction." -*..:•: • • • :- "GET' OFF THE" FENCE."" '• Tho mover said'that tho. present was a very critical moment in' connection with the liquor 'question;- He had- aii 'excellent : example for his action in tho Bishop.of Lon-don,-to-whom, the .bishopric! of this diocesc had onco been offered. Ho thought that .the New Zealand Church had shown a lack of enthusiasm in regard to the temperance .fight,; but now people were looking to the Church'to get oft the fence, and show where it rea.lly stood. Some years ago the Synod had passed a motion in favour'of State control of tho. liquor traffic, but'that issue was not. ndw before them. Tho' question* lay between' license rtnd No-Licerise. Ho-praised ' the Splendid, dominant stand :taken by "the Church.'at Home upon this subject. . He. had worded'tjie motion so .as . not . to injure the susceptibilities of .those who did not support straight-out prohibition,* while'showing* that tho "Clnirch was on'the side of' tho -people in *this inatter; .Ho 'was glad to know, that Bishop Julius, of Ghristchurcli, ,had spoken with' no uncertain sound upon this question. Bishop Julius'had said that hp would rather die than; voto for' continuance ;' the - open-bar trado was a disgraco to our civilisation. The mover, had writton to all the; clergy and_ syriodsnieii .of tho No-License districts, asking for their opinions on the working of the system. Out of ten replies, received night were distinctly favourable to NoLicense. The Rev. J. G. Bartlett, formerly n and now of Oam.mi, wrote that that'town had lost nothing, but oil tho contrary had ■ gained under No-License. Vi hilo the system was not a complete refor present evils, lie believed that it would bo strongly beneficial to the rising generation. Tho Rev. E. of Ashburton, had been converted- to NoLicense by his observations of tho effect of that system in Ashburton.' Tho niovcr said ? Y°" ld have credited the improvement at Ashburton if ho had-'not seen it with'his own eyes. _ At nights and on salo days there was no drinking or disorder, such as he. had seen before. The padded "cell reserved-for sufferers from delirium tremens, had .been used only onco in five years undor NoLiconso; the lock was rusty, and grass had overgrown tho pathway of approach. Church charity funds been put to other uses because of the diminished claims upon them. *, '• F. l'erriman, a No-License advocate of tho town, had ofFored to accommodate and pay tho expenses' of anyone who wished to mako an independent study of conditions. Iho removal of tho private bars was the essential first reform. After Dunedin, the \\ cJhngton diocese had done more than any. other m the Dominion towards carrying NoLiccnso, and if tho Church would give its membership the required lead, they would carry tho reform this year in electorates im™ -n ,Tn t a L most Rained threo years a'eo/ Tho Rev. J. R. Cassell (Hawcra) seconded: tho motion. Ho thought that tho Cliurch' should express a definite • opinion on tho' liquor question. A MODERATE VIEW.

; Archdeacon Towgood (Marton) said lie ■' could not quite soo that England and New Zealand were in tho same position. Ho sympathised with a remark of Mr. Balfour, that it would bo a robbery of the widow and orphan- to confiscate licenses,.. .without . compensation. /Here, however, ..thero had ■ been, a growing tendonoy.to Ao-Liconso,for•Bevefar'^eaisi^ln, bis own district he bad-tried' to induco' the publicans to'form an" association of their own, take-the. public into thoir confidcnce. and make it clear that thero were- no •'infringements of tho law. as it • stood.'-But he haU . ; never.received. any . satisfaction- 'from his i attempts.Ho thought -that the poople had ; suffered so much from abuses' of tho license system, that a growing number were now determined upon prohibition. Ho could not concede that wiiio and beer were evils in themsolves, but the position was that the trade .would not reform itself and could not' uo controlled. Thero was no doubt but what tho introduction of No-Licenso into varibus electorates had been, attended by'very practical benefits, At the samo time lie thought that tho gifts of God would bo used a<*airi when prohibition had had its day, and perhaps they would then bo used properly. He had found from inquiries that tho most unexpected people, men who were far from boinc teetotallers, had voted for No-License, and would .do so again, because of th<> abuses which existed; m the trade.'' It was a great pity that leaders had not' arisen to combine the forces of moderation, so that an attempt rnight have been made to retain the sale of liquor, shorn of those, abuses, jileaiiwhile ( i Uote Z • * t G , °P iuion 'of a. friend who said . ReformP It s. too late .to reforhi. Kick the ..whole .thing out, and .let it come back punucd.

Ml '' f Novins (Tinui) urged that it was of littlo value to carry prohibition in single electorates, because liquor would be imported from surrounding districts. i ll ' P om Pt°n (Mangatainoka) thought that previous speakers had got . away j from tho motion, which was equally in favour of total prohibition, reduction. State control, and municipal control. Ho was in favour himself of, a modification of " tho Gothenburg system, but' tlio' motion was sumciontly general to cover a variety of detailed views. . ■" AN AMENDMENT. ' - The Rev. C. Harpor (Palmerston North) wanted to know what was meant by tho last sentenco of tho motion. It seemed like an endeavour to ontrap tlio .Synod into an expression of opinion in favour of the absolute majority in No-Liconso, when it thought that it was voting for the elimination of private profit.' It that was . intended, he very strongly , disapproved. He bolioved that there were not six members present who did not support; the first half 'of tho motion, but ho did not like- squeezing in, in an ambiguous' statement,, something ..that was moving this land from .ono. end. to tho' other. . Ho moved as an amendments

■ '"That, .tho words-, after- liquor-shall bo omitted, and that thoir.placo be taken . by. tho words, 'will ; bo. of--.tho. greatest importance to the cause of 'temperance in'this country.'". Captain Hewitt (Palmerston North) seconded 'the amendment. Tho -afternoon adjournment took' place at this stage. ,• •. . AGAINST NO-LICENSE. When the Synod resumed at 7.30 p.'m., Mr.' Wheeler (tfeilding) suggests that the motion had been drafted bv ■ someone other than-'tho mover, and' that 'Mr.' Russell- had moved sfc-in all.guilelessness. As regards the results of No-License, he quoted figures from the No-Licenso Handbook, to the effect .that in 1902, when that reform was carried, tho number of'charges heard" in the Ashburto'n Police. Court was 3091, and" tho number- last year had increased to 316. Tho , number of offonccs in'regard to liquor was 93 in 1902, and 103 last year. During the five years of No-Licenso tho population of Ashburton had increased from 2500 to 2563. As'theso had bcori tho 'five most prosperous years which New Zealand had experienced, ho thought that this very small increaso was proof that No-Licenso .was not all that somo pcoplo imaginod. He did not suppose that tho population of any other town in New Zealand had increased so little. THE OTHER SIDE. . The Rev. G. H. Isaacson (Pahiatua) expressed regret that Mr. Russell had worded his motion as lie had. In supporting tho amendment, ho pointed out that at tho present time N6-LICOUS9 was the only weapon they had to hand against tho evils that oxistcd. .There woro some things which NoLicenso could not do, but it would remove a standing temptation from before tho eyes of many people. Ho did not yalue the objection

of injustice to licensees. ' During■•'the'oTast. ten years nearly every public houße in- the: country, had changed! hands, and . eV'6ry : licensee who took possessloiv- fcnoV .that 7 his' license was liable to fife,.taken'.'from.' - Win; within three years. The -- iimiment. that, NoLiconso was opposed to the liberty "of the subject could not be considered,. because in-New. Zealand, especially, there wero numerous laws infringing the samcliberty. Mr. E. Barton (Hawera) decried•• the 'eh--deavours to mako men moral :by removing - all temptations from their: path.' Those - wero hotels that wero a credit-to- the men" thatkept them. Those who laughed- wero pe'oplo ™° never went insido an hotel. (Laughter.) If-the Synod, panted to move" in;,tho'matter;,; it should, pass a motion., urging; that.-the magistracy should take, caro that-llicense's wero not granted to unsuitable hotels that were mere drinking- saloons,-.and' not He - held; how.ever, that; tho; office; ot tho, Church was' to preach. general _'.prinCI P. ?> j.> a political methods by which those principles were ts be carried , oilt wero no part of the'clergy's, business!':' If- , . license system was an evil,-, it- was-one:;te-wJnch tho entiro people of NowrZealahd';had been a party ,and they should I 'Boar tho* cost of compensating .licensees;; not, all of., whom had carried on their business - , in aii impropermanner.' -p- -' other. . opinion's. •Mr.-J- H. Reynoldsi:(Wadestownj ,:sun.PPrJi ■. amendment, because ho stron fr ly objected to an -attempt being /made- to-en-;'' gmeer the support of-the Synod-for the tcni-' perance party at thergfeneral election; Mr. Russell willingly 'accepted 'the .amende in cut, explaining that he.had- sijiistcr motive'.m proposing tho: motion! 1. Sir. W. H Quick (Wellington) objected' to the bynod being made .* s. ;catspawor l expressing an opinion: on a-matter which it did not.come within thrSyno'd's'fuilctions to discuss.

Mr. -T.- Bland (Newtown);-censrire'd-the-sug-gestion that Mr. Russell-..h'adu Brought:-for,' ward tho motion with' ail,-ulterior > motive,The Church of England lad -hesitated.".too, .long to take a firm stand on the liquor question. He thought that "M». Russell deserved 1 praise for his courage in motion. 'Mr. P. 7. -Waters (Karori)-thought-that Mr. Bland had ignored "the 'distinction tween the Synod and the Glitirch .of -Eng-'-land.' ...-v-.-I i-.i,-. J[R. RUSSELL IN^ItEPLYU^;'t The!mover stated that the London Diocesan Conference had passed', a .similar '.motion, showing that it was-not ultra vires."Ho had drawn un tho motion himself, 4 and : saw now that he liad.worded:ifc faultily. 1 '-Ho liad. no .hesitation in'/sayirig: that':what W wanted was;that the- Synod-should:affinn the: desirability of plause)—but, No-License.::Was r a very thing from-prohibition.-. "(Heir;'.heak)"'Na-' License did- aivay. bar,- .but allowed peoplo. wlio so-,wislle(l i'o impp,rt, theii; - liquor in -certain fixed quantities - registered tby tho State. He had iio. tKough't of- : "com-' mit-ting the- - Synod- to tt'd^prihcipr6y-of^t¥o, bare majority: he believed,.in tlie,,threerfifths.-' majority. The., figures. which"' Mi\f had quoted as from the No-L"iceiisc Handbook'' were taken from a Licensed Yictuallers' advertisement in Tip Dohinjqn,.. . h(j read. The advertisemerit--'commenced- With a quotation from - tho No:L%nso , ; Handbook, ; but the figures read by £ Slr v Unieeler wero not part of - that quotatwn,';Hp preferredto believe what he in Ashburton himself, and been told many, men, ;to statements" of the liqudT partyi-' He hoped :that tho motion would though it •did not go nearly. s6;'far* ; as '-the- Church 'should. ' s . • ; ! v'The motion, as amelided, ( out' a division. ' i ".i-rvr; s: tiaa