The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 4. 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10107, 4 August 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 4. 1893.

The debate in the House of Representatives on Wednesday night opened in real earnest the battle for the direct control of the liquor trade by the people of the Colony. Sir Robert Stout’s Licensing Act Amendment Bill, although not drawn on the same lines as the Direct Veto Bill, bears a very strong resemblance to that measure, and it should, if passed into law, satisfy every reasonable member of the temperance party. It seeks simply to drive home the wedge of direct control. The thin end of that wedge was inserted when the local option clauses were added to the present Licensing Act, and public opinion has been pressing it forward ever since. The ratepayers now have power to veto any proposed increase of licensed houses, and their right to control the liquor trade is thus established. Between this and the extension to all electors of the right to determine the number of licensed houses that shall exist in their districts there is simply a difference of degree. There is absolutely no new principle introduced in the proposals now before the House, as the law already recognises the right of the people to control the trade. It hardly requires to be argued that public-houses exist, as their very name implies, not for the sake of the revenue they contribute, .or for the employment they provide, bat for the convenience of the public. The people are surely the best judges of their own requirements, 'and the extension of local option and of the licensing franchise, is the logical sequence of the present law. There remain, then, only the questions of form and expediency. It may be objected that the time is not yet ripe for the change, that the constitutional requirements have not been complied with, or that the will of the people has not been clearly enough expressed. But these, we repeat, are merely questions of form and expediency. Parliament has, of course, a perfect right to deal with the subject on its merits without an express mandate from the people. We do not expect that at will during the present session pass the Bill introduced by Sir Robert Stout, but it was guilty of no rash innovation yesterday morning when it affirmed the main principle of the measure by passing the second reading. We do not contend for a moment that Sir Robert Stout has discovered an entirely satisfactory solution of this difficult question, or that his Bill is the very best measure that could be devised. Indeed we hope that, if the Bill should go further during the present session of Parliament, several important amendments will be effected in Committee. The licensing districts, for instance, should be greatly enlarged. A vote obtained from a small district and influenced by purely local considerations might inflict great inconvenience and hardship upon individuals without conferring any advantage upon, the community. This is noft, the temperance reformers should remember, merely a question between themselves and the proprietors of the licensed houses. The public must be considered, and a majority of the public is not seeking to sweep away the trade. The people, recognising that the present system has broken down—has, in fact, proved to be no system at all—demand that there shall be a change, and that the change shall be in the direction of extending their own powers. Nothing could he in closer keeping with the Liberal spirit of the age, and the temperance party, as well as the opponents of the “ direct vote,” must have a very poor opinion of the people whea they suppose that the majority will be

power, to ignore the just claims o£ thffl minority and disregard the bestj interests of the country. There are, we know, many people —exemplary citizens who have nq pecuniary interest in the liquor trade; —who deny that the popular wiU| ought to rule in regulating thsl number of licensed houses; but wcj fail to see how a Government that trusts the people in large concerns! can logically withhold this privilege and responsibility. At the saracj time we would impress upon those, who favour the reform the importance of proceeding along the lines of broadj public policy, and carefully avoiding, the narrow path so well worn by the feet of the extremists. The title of} the Direct Veto Bill, the measure; specially favoured by the intemperate section of the temperance party, is in, itself objectionable. It signifies a predetermination to use the extended, powers for the purpose of totally suppressing the trade. It is on every ground undesirable that an important extension of the principle of local, government should be pressed with aU| ulterior end in view. If the reform is sound in itself, as we believe it to! be, it does not need the aid of appeals to prejudice and enthusiasm to ensure its realisation. Popular control is the end aimed at by the proposed legisla* tiou, not prohibition of all licenses, and misguided enthusiasm and rigid adherence to extreme views can only tend to defeat the object.