BISHOP JULIUS AND THE PROHIBITIONISTS.

Evening Star, Issue 10932, 15 May 1899, Page 2

BISHOP JULIUS AND THE PROHIBITIONISTS.

To a representative of the 'Lyttelton Times' Bishop Julius explained fully his attitude on the question of Prohibition, and the recent action of the Canterbury diocese on the drink question Synod desired the appointment of a Public-house Reform League, and moved in that direction withput giving the League any guidance. Then the gentlemen who had been chiefly interested were unable, through business engagements, and from other causes, to take a leading part in the movement, and nothing was being .done* That was the position. Now, for myself, while I am inclined to believe that ;Some form of State or municipal control is the best ultimate method of dealing with the liquor traffic, I believe also that under present circumstances such a reform could not) be carried out. Just think of the State buying up all the public-houses in tho country, or even a municipality buying up the licensed houses in a town. The outlay would be prodigious unthinkable for a young colony like this. Then if only one house were acquired, and an experiment made with it, I believe it would be foredoomed to failure. It might succeed in some isolated spot, bub in a town it would have every other licensed house against it. There would be no hope for it, because it would have to refuse liquor to drunken men, and to many •sober men for that matter, while next door a man could get as much as he wanted. I could not oppose the Synod when it wished to make an experiment, but I had then, and have now, doubts as to the wisdom of Buch a step. As I have already said, the Publichouse Reform League movement is just now at a standstill."

Did you make a statement to the meeting on the Prohibition question?— Yes, that was another matter that had to be discussed. What vote were we to give at the approaching licensing poll? I have voted always for reduction, and have blamed the Prohibitionists bitterly at times because they would not , vote for reduction as well as for no license. I am, indeed, far from thinking that reduction is altogether advantageous. It certainly removes the more undesirable houses, but it • throws greater weight and power on those ■■- remaining. My own desire would be to vote for no license to hotels or public bars. The present Act obliges us to vote also for the removal of wholesale licenses, and for that reason I have a strong objection to the Act as it stands. If we don't want the ■ wholesale licenses abolished Ave are forced to leave things as they are, and I can't do it with a good conscience. If they won't let me vote for closing the public-houses then I must vote no license. Now, you see that there is still a great gulf between the Prohibitionists and myself, and I would be glad to have that made clear. My objection is to the present system of selling liquor; theirs to the liquor itself. I think that the system pan be reformed, and the licensed victuallers would do well to make the reform. The trade has been treated with infinite patience, and has been given unlimited warnings " home people and newspapers think that'it has taken notice of the warnings; I don't I think the whole groundwork of the retail trade is wrong, and it must be swept away i know moral suasion is disappointing work A,man who takes the pledge has every temptation thrown in his way to break it .One of the most curious pledges I can remember was intended to remove the drunkard !& temptation. Soon after I had left Oxford I was working near London, and I knew a man who used to walk into the Citv every morning to work. He had to pass fifty-two public-houses in about a mile. Thev were all faoing the road, too, so that therV was not much chance of escape. He used to say that he could pass three'or four of them, but then he fell. Well, I got him to promise that he would go to workX i longer route and so avoid the temptation, and he kept that pledge as long as I knew