The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, SEPT 1, 1896. TEETOTALISM IN POLITICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11051, 1 September 1896, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, SEPT 1, 1896. TEETOTALISM IN POLITICS.

Evidence of the important position which the temperance question has attained in Australasian politics is provided by the telegraphic news which we publish to-day. In South Australia, a Licensing Bill now before the popular branch of the Legislature, is receiving very full discussion in committee, and there seems to be a strong temperance party in the Assembly, as a clause has been added to the ” measure providing that a bare majority shall be sufficient to carry a local option vote. The drastic tendencies of South Australian opinion was shown by an attempt being made to legislate so as to prevent lodgers and travellers from obtaining liquor at hotels on Sundays. In New South Wales the temperance question has divided the Ministry, the majority being in favour of the local option principle, while a minority of two —the Premier and AttorneyGeneral — is opposed to it. If the

women, of the mother colony were enfranchised, like those of South Australia and New Zealand, there would doubtless be a sadden advance in parliamentary opinion on this question. In our own colony the current item of news regarding temperance in politics has reference to the resolution of the Temperance Political Committee at Dunedin, to the effect that the Government and the House would commit a grievous wrong if they failed to pass the Bill to amend the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act this session. We, of course, thoroughly agree with this expression of opinion; but we do not see that there is any occasion to snaps.. (as the wording of the resolution implies the Political Committee does) that the House or the Cabinet has any intention of shelving the Bill. The Premier has, doubtless, said that this measure is not to be given special precedence, but he is, we believe, firmly determined upon passing it into law, or at least of giving the Legislative Council another opportunity of approving of the proposed amendments. As these have formerly passed the Lower House, a few minutes should suffice to put the Bill through all its stages in that branch of the Legislature this session, and as for giving the Council time to consider the matter, the Council has had all the recess to reflect on the subject, and it ought to be iu a position now to decide promptly whether or not it will give way to the constitutionally expressed will of the people on the questions of the control of clubs and of the vote for national prohibition. While it is very gratifying to observe the prominence given in colonial Legislatures to this branch of social reform, we cannot close our eyes to the dangers incident to the accentuation of one particular movement. Our political life is narrow enough, owing to the insular position of New Zealand and the absence of a large population with community of interests; and it is of the greatestimportance to prevent afurther narrowing which would obscure the leading political issues and would tend to hinder general progress. That, we infer, was the idea that was in Mr Seddon’s mind ivhen, the other day, he informed the House of Representatives that there were matters more important than the liquor question that required the attention of Parliament.

There are other undesirable developments that are almost inseparable from the practice of making, or trying to make, one question the touchstone of all political and private excellence. In the present session our House of Representatives has provided two examples of what ought to be most strenuously avoided in this question of temperance in the political arena. We had the spectacle of a Canterbury prohibitionist pointedly directing attention to the weakness of a member of the House in the matter of indulgence in alcoholic stimulants ; and we had another Canterbury member (not a prohibitionist) making a coarse reference to the fact that a certain relative of a prominent temperance member was the victim of a similar lack of self-control. Wp hardly know which of these acts was the more objectionable—that of indirectly attacking an absent member of the House, or that of seeking to cast a stigma upon a member because of a relative’s failing. Both, we fear, showed a lack of that chai-ity which suffers much and is kind, though in the first - mentioned instance there was a slight justification for the action. We are far, indeed, from wishing to see a return to the bad old parliamentary rule of wiuking at free indulgence by members, and at misconduct arising out of it. The days are gone when “ a conspiracy of silence ” on such matters can succeed ; but there is, it seems to us, a necessity for uttering a word of caution, lest there should be a rush to the opposite extreme of over-censoriousness and uncharitableness.

Every right-minded friend of temperance must deplore the tendenc} r to import personalities into politics, and must deprecate the practice of magnifying a single vice into the sum of all the deadly sins, and of exalting mere compliance with the demands of a healthy nature as an epitome of the cardinal virtues. True temperance revolts at such procedure, and it cannot be that rancour and intolerance are necessary to the earnest prosecution of social reform, or that ' impertinent personalities may fitly he employed by way of retort on the part of the upholders of the status quo. There is a still greater danger arising to the whole community out of the divisions that are being created in almost every constituency over the licensing question. It is very natural, of course, that those enthusiasts who believe that prohibition should be made easy, should wish to ally themselves with the Liberal Party. They know well enough that they have nothing to hope for from the Conservatives. But their friendship is really a source of weakness. They seem bent upon dividing the Liberal forces, and providing the Opposition with its only possible chance of returning to power. As we write wo learn from Ashburton that three Liberal candidates will oppose one Conservative in that electorate, and this is probably an example of the reckless waste of voles that will occur all over the colony. If the Prohibitionists adhere to their present unreasonable demand for the immediate adoption of the whole of their programme they will probably retard the realisation of their wishes by half a century. It is to be hoped that themore temperate counsels of the moderate section of the party will prevail, and that divisions on mere matters of detail will &ot be allowed to imperil the fruits of six years of Liberal government.