LIQUOR AND PARLIAMENT.

Evening Post, Volume LII, Issue 1170, 9 December 1896, Page 2

LIQUOR AND PARLIAMENT.

TO THB EDITOR. SlB — You published some short time ago an article entitled " Ought Drunkards to be Chosen Members of Parliament ? " I did not venture to reply to it at the time, as if I had done so it might have been thought the question had some local reference. The election is now past, and therefore we may approach the consideration of the subject free from any bias. I contend that occasional intoxication should not be a disqualification for a Member of the House. I think you will agree with me, for you are a Democrat, and are always praising the Democracy. Its basis is, I understand, that a majority must rule, and what the majority does must, therefore, be right. Thousands of electors have voted for men who were seen in the last Parliament under the influence of drink. Being a Democrat, you must bow to their decision. If you do not do go you cannot be a Democrat, for the majority must rule. But even if you wish to protest against the decision of the majority, I think I can prove to every Democrat, that drunkards should not be excluded from the House, and occasional drunkenness should not be a bar. My thesis will be ;— l. A Democracy should be representative of the people. 2. Great men have occasionally been drunk. 1. Representatives should represent the idiosyncrasies of the people. This is, I presume, why you support special Labour representation. The mere fact that a man can make a coat or a pair of boots should not entitle him to be put into the House if we did not live under a Democracy. But for the power of our Government we would select the ablest, wisest, and host educated men for our Parliament, and not listen to special or Labour

representation. A man may be able to do manual labour, and yet know nothing of politics. In a Democrac}', however, ability and wisdom must take second or third place, for representatives should be of a class the3 r represent, and you as a Democrat must admit the Parliament should be the reflex of all classes. This is why you advocate labour representation. We spend about £120,000 per annum on liquor in Wellington and suburbs. Why, then, should the people who consume liquor not be represented ? And who so well able to do so as those who enjoy liquor ? There can be no enjoyment unless the senses are affected, and that is partial intoxication. The drinker must feel the influence of the drink. Then, there are many drunkards in the city. If 3'ou had been in the streets on Friday night you would have seen scores of them, and all true Liberals too, who had voted our great Liberal ticket. Representation, therefore, demands that those who know what drink is — how it gives enjoyment, a sensuous feeling of peace and happiness — should be elected to the House. Deny this, and we would have no special Labour representation, and become at once Conservatives by having only educated and able men of character in the House; and what a calamity that would be to Democracy ! 2. My second argument is that many great men have been drunk. Burns, Fox, Pitt, &c, &0., not to mention many members of our own Parliament, have all indulged in the cup that inebriates ; and are the talents of great men to be lost to this colony limply because they take too much alcohol ? This question has been remitted to several electorate, and to my certain knowledge six members at least have been returned at the general election who have been seen drunk in the precincts of Parliament. As a Democrat you must accept the decision of the voters. They are the best judges of who can worthily represent them. You cannot surely say that a constituency has disgraced itself by having elected a drunkard. It can never do so, for the drunkard properly represents those who vote for him, and those I referred to are Seddonites, all Liberals, all eminent statesmen, and all Democrats; and is it likely that any harm can come to Parliament when they belong to the Party of Progress? I trust, without taking up more of your space, I have said enough to convince you that drunkards should be elected to the House, and you must remember there are thousands of electors of my opinion, whilst you are only supported by a few Prohibition fanatics, who ought not to be considered of much consequence in any country where freedom dwells. I am, &.c, LIBEBAL.