NO-LICENSE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13888, 24 October 1905, Page 3

NO-LICENSE.

DISCUSSION BY THE SYNOD. SPEECHES BY BISHOP JULIUS AND SIR JOHN HALL. The discussion on the No-license question, begun on Friday at the meeting of the Anglican Synod and adjourned •with the Rev C. H. Gossct in possession, was resumed at yesterday’s session. The motion before the Synod was that moved by the Rev Harold Purchas, namely—“ That, in view of the coming licensing poll, this Synod commends to Church people the adoption of the No-license system as the best available remedy for existing evils.” Mr Cosset said that the experience of no-lioense was a failure in the larger towns of other countries. The police in some places in America had found themselves in such a position under no-1 icons® that they reinstated certain houses of which they approved; and had them fined a stated amount halfyearly for selling liquor without a license. That was the subterfuge adopted by the police in some parts of America, and the people of _ Christchurch did hot want to put their liquor l laws into the hands of the police, to be administered according to their own imaginings. If no-license was carried in Christchurch all the wholesale houses would be closed, but those people who wished to keep liquor would still have it. He hoped that the Synod would net be led away by any mob oratory, but would realise the necessity for considering the motion carefully. They would bo doing a most unfair thing if they advised church people to shut up respectable houses ana allow suppliers outside to reap the benefit. It was not a matter only of shutting up the open bar. He wanted to say very strongly that the question before them was not one for the personal views of each member. The question they had to decide was whether they, as the representative body of the Church in the diocese, were prepared to abandon the great principle set forth by the Church of temperance as a , Christian grace and to induce the people to do something that was not at all fair. Ho trusted that the Synod would never Like such a course, and that the motion would he withdrawn. Mr S. S. Blackburne said that anyone listening to the debate must have been impressed with the apparent change of opinion since the subject ,was last under discussion. Be believed that they were inclined to go too fast. He went a long way with what Mr Cosset had said, for he had stated forcibly what were the facts of the case. It was a fact that no-lioense had • failed in thickly-populated districts. They should bear in mind that it had been tried only in thinly-populated districts in New Zealand. The latest statistics given by Messrs Rowntree and Sherwell showed that neither State nor local prohibition had been successful in America and Canada. He could not support the motion, though he wished tha.t he could see in no-license an effective remedy for the cursed drink traffic. He would move, as an amendment ■ —‘'That this Synod gladly recognises that, so far as it has been tried in New Zealand, no-license has been on the whole beneficial, and on that account regards the movement with sympathetic interest, and considers that it may be made serviceable in promoting the cause of temperance in small towns and country districts, where alone it has, as yet, been tried in this country. In view, however, of the fact that when adopted in other countries by a whole State or in large towns it has usually failed and been subsequently abandoned, this Synod cannot recommend nolicense as a national system, or as one suited for our principal towns.” Mr H. D. Andrews said that he could not agree either with the motion or the amendment. ,H 0 agreed very largely with Mr Gossct. The 'motion put before the Synod proposed a course which the Synod had no right to taka. Tire matter was one for each individual’s conscience, and the Synod, as a Synod representing the Churches, could uot vote on it. The Church was above such matters of detail of policy, and it was the Church’s business to inculcate 'great principles which could be applied to details. Ho believed that no-license was uot only not the best available remedy, but no remedy whatever. That so-called remedy was not to bring about, an amendment of an existing system, but to put an end to the traffic altogether. The Synod was asked to advise that the traffic should wholly cease in Now Zealand. Ho had never been able to bring his mind to the attitude taken by prohibitionists. He had groat respect for many probibitionists, and he believed that the colony owed thorn a debt for their conscientious efforts to amend the laws. He felt that there was much more behind the matter than merely the open bar. It was not fair, and it was not wise to make the sweeping-out proposed, by nolioense. Ho could not support such a move, but ho believed that it was their duty to bring homo to each individual the seriousness of his responsibility as a voter. Ho would move that the motion should be amended to read as follows “ That, in view of the coming licensing poll, this Synod urges each churchman and cliurchwomau entitled to vote to bake into most careful consideration the issues involved, so that each may decide according to the dictates of his or her own conscience how he or she shall vote at such poll.” The amendment was seconded by the ..Rear J. R. Wilford.

The Rev H. H. Mathias said that the first objection brought by a member against no-liceueo was that it would do away with a desirable temptation. He thought that no member woni-d_ really hold that it was right to do evil that good might oorne or to put temptation in another’s way. It was open to argument whether one could call whisky a creature of God, but even if it was, it did not follow that one of its proper uses was as a general beverage. The onited States had been.exuded, and it was true That twelve States had gone bade on prohibition, but it was a fact that there was a larger district under no-liccnse to-day in the United States than when the seventeen prohibition States were still prohibition. It was true that noli conso had not succeeded in large towns in America, but tho'ditlercnco America and New Zealand was that tnc big towns of the former wore punch bigger, and the majority originally required for no-license in America was only a bare majority. Mith a threefifths majority there would bo a public opinion behind the system, and ho believed that the police and the magistrates could carry it out very fairly. Sly grog-eclling war, a growth or license, and could not bo fairly debited to nolioenso, for it was the. fruits of the license system that made fclio lawbreakers. The illegal trade would decrease and would disappear as a generation glow up that, had not known the license system. It was said that to vote no-license was a confession of weakness, but he believed that it was wisest to confess a weakness that- was proved over and over again to exist. The judges and magistrates told them of the results of drink, the asylums wore filled very largely by drinkj and there was nothing to bo gained by getting away from the facts. As to the right of the Synod to pass the motion, he would remind the members that some years ago the Synod had departed from Mr Andrews’s ideal of inculcating great principles, j and advised the people .to ask for the | Gothenburg system. That system was 1 not available,! and he urged that the remedy that was available should bo adopted. Public opinion had made a great advance in favour of no-license, for people had had their eyes opened to the fact that there was no necessity for tlie traffic. The Rev P. H. Pritchett said that he had never been able to agree with prohibition, but ho believed in the good of no-licon.se. Those- engaged in the liquor trade had made no attempt to put their houses in order, and they were forcing the people to uso such powers as they had. The Rev H. B. Ensor said that many temperance workers had to take advantage of the no-license vote as the only available method of securing reform. The duty of tho Synod was a matter for careful thought. He knew many of their nonconformist brethren who deplored tho introduction of fads into tho pulpit, and he believed that it was not tho duty of the Church to preach and advocate uo-licenso. He was chairman of the Lin wood No-license Committee, and he used the power that was given him in favour of no-license, but he had never preached it from his pulpit, and he would not do so. The Rev'S. Hinson said that he hoped that the Synod would not pass tho motion, which' was confessedly a makeshift. The case of Ashburton had been a good deal spoken of, but it was acknowledged that tho experiment had been going on too short a time to bo really valuable. Those who advocated no-license drew their , arguments not from any Christian ethics, but from something they thought advisable. The strongest argument against prohibition was that it was not supported in the teachings of Christ. He had taught deep-lying principles. No-license was utterly unsound in principle, and it was, moreover, a very qualified success, for it induced deceit, and evasion of the law. Ho believed that a State control League in Nelson was a fairly strong body, and he would like to see tho Synod commend State control to the chnrchpeople of tho diocese. Sir John Hall said that he thought that after a considerable debate of the kind they had had, it would bo a piece of impertinence for tho Synod to tell chnrchpeople to vote according to their consciences, as Mr Andrews proposed. He had lived a very long tip©, and had- watched the liquor question very closely, and he was bound to- say that his conscience would not allow him to vote ip the case before them against no-license. Many : remedies had been suggested for the evils of drink. Some people were in favour of moral suasion, but had moral suasion decreased drunkenness? Had those engaged in the liquor trade put a stop to the evils as they had been expected to do over and over again? The mind of the people had changed in regard to remedies, and another change had taken place. In the early days of the settlement it was not the young men that drank, but the old men, who had brought their drinking habits with them to the country. They could say tenth pride that the young people were temperate in the young days, but now 7 , whether from the effects of the South African war or from some other causes, they must admit that tho young men took more to drink nowadays. Was, then, the Synod to do nothing more than give to tho people that impertinent advice proposed by Mr Andrews? He was bound to admit_ the force of Mr Blackburne’s contentions that the nolicense system would do better in small than in large centres, and it would be hard for him to say how _ he would vote, if he wore situated in a large town. In a place like Christchurch, the actual experience of no-hcenso might cause a dangerous reversion of feeling that would result in disorder. The question was one to be decided by each voter according to the conditions of his district. So far as he was concerned, he thought that a conference between Mr Bia-clcburne and the movei might have resulted in a motion that would be acceptable. 'As a Magistrate, h© had- known what poverty and degradation were duo to drink, and he knew what need there was for _ a remedy. A «remedy had been tried in New Zealand for some six years, and in all the districts tho reports were favourable. That should weigh with, them in their decision, and, for his part, he felt bound to vote for the motion. • Mr C. H. Bridge said that no-hcenso was practically national prohibition, for if it was good for one district, it was good for all, and those who voted for iTo-lioens© in one district should hope for it in all. The Rev E. Whitehouso said that he was moing to vote for the motion, but if he^thought that the motion implied the absolute fr-ced-om of the colony from liquor lie could not vote for it. The Bishop said that he desired toexpress his extreme thankfulness for the change of attitude adopted by the Synod in recent'' years. Bo could remember the time when he -had stood almost -alone on the question of nolicense, but be thanked_ God that many members were now with him. He

wished to say only a few words in reference to the debate. A suggestion of great importance had been mads by Mr Ensor. His lordship had hold opinions in favour of no-lioense and had voted for it for some years, but no one had ever, heard Mm preach a word about that subject and no one ever would. He voted no-lioense as a public citizen, but as a minister of the Gospel he could-not preach it. Mr Hinson had given himself away in say-, ing that the Gospels contained no word of Christ in favour of proMbitdon. Christ did not come.as a social reformer, but He came to found a new earth, and He laid down principles that were to be worked out. Ho laid down the principles that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery, and on the question of prohibition He' laid down principles that had been operating for years. Mr Andrews bad said that nolieense was not a remedy for existing evils, because a remedy should bet a j moans for making an amendment in j the liquor traffic. His lordship wanted I to amend the country, not the drink traffic, and, seeing a cancer eating into the country, be wished to cut out | the cancer, in order to save the country’s life. The ‘country was suffering from a very severe cancer, and no-, license was a remedy, and a very powerful one. . He must do his best for the health of the country, and ho intended to promote the cause of nolicense in so far as lie w r as able. He might be charged with having spoken little and not gone to meetings, but that was because his days were getting shorter, and he felt that all his time and his power must he given to the furtherance of the Gospel.. The Gospel must. come first, though there were many social questions of great importance to be considered. So far as nolicense was concerned, ho must always vote to put temptation out of the way of his brothers and sisters. Mr W. H. Hargreaves said that h© w-as going to veto against the motion. Ho wanted to know whether the condition of Christchurch was _ such as to be singled out as a hard-drinking city. That seemed to him to be the meaning of the motion. So far as ho could see the drink traffic was no wmiso than, forty years ago. Hia experience was not that the number of drinkers had increased, and that young men, as a body, were a drinking body. There had, been a great change, so far as ,ho could see, in hotels and on board 'steamers, for tea and coffee had largely taken the place of alcoholic liquor. The persistency of the prohibition party for so many years had had a very good effect, and ho held them responsible

for the decreased drinking. They all deplored the effects of drink in those who were affected by what was ■ a disease, the craving for drink. Ho objected to be classed with the patients suffering from the disease, for they were in a minority. The majority should endeavour to improve the condition or the one, hut not hy such a drastic tilling as prohibition. No-license for Christchurch meant absolute prohiDition. There was a very, great deal of misconception” about the matter, but he was assured that xxc-hcense would mean prohibition. These who couja afford it would bo able to get their liquor from other places, but that was a poor way of getting a useful and valuable remedy. Many medical men still gave alcohol to patients, and there was not the general outcry against alcohol that many prohibitionists ascribed to the doctors. He could not curso drink. It was a good gift of Cod, but like other gifts it was misused. They should then restrain those nho misused it. _ ~ ~ Mr 0. E. Bevan-Brown said that a gift might ho a good girt of Gcd ana at the same time a stumbling-block and an offence. It ivould, theiimoie, come under the principle that. xr t'ny bawl offend cut it off. It was just a question ■whether the offence bad reached a point at whidlx toe remedy should be used. The Synod had previously gene into the matter ot eliminating profit from the saie 0,. liquor, hut it had got no further. He thought that it was time that drey should do something in the way of helping each other to vote. The amendment proposed by Mr Andrews was a renige for the undecided, and he did mot Jiite Mr Blaokbnrneh amendment, in so tar as it was negative. . -Ho would like to cut out the negative portion and move an amendment, but if none or x.io amendments was accepted ho wonv<i vote for the motion. The question ot compensation had been little spoken or, biit it needed careful thought. He felt that something must, be said m favour of the wholesale licensees, for their position was different from that of the hotelkeepers, and, though he would have no hesitation in voting nolicenso in the country, he 'could not quite see his way in a city district. Mr G. M’Tntyrc said that any member of tlie Synpd who voted fop the motion should he a total abstainer, though the no-license voter at the polls was not hound to be a total abstainer. Archdeacon Harper said that the question turned on the position of the Synod. If, as representing the Church of the diocese and giving it an author - itativo lead, the Synod carried the motion, it would he doing what any clergyman would bo doing by pr-ea cuing nolioense in bis pulpit. Ho was, theiefor very slow to give a vote in favour cf u. syst-ODi that ivas only cxpoi imoutal. Tho iio-liocna-e system in itself had nothing moral in it; it was a political expedient, and that was all. He believed that th© system would never do good in largo centres. The question of voting was one purely for the individual, and ho could not help the Synod to put it upon anyone’s conscience. Ho was very jealous of tlie position that the Synod ought to occupy, and though l be was

fully aware of the evils of the license system, he could not support the motion. ■■■■:■ Tli© Rev A. S. Fox said that ho sup-, ported Mr Andrews’s amendment. He believed that the proper course v. as to ask the people to exercise tha powers which they possessed. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment of the Synod,_ and was not resumed during the evening. : . _, At the same session of the Synod, Mr Blackburn© gave notice that he would move the following _ motion—‘‘That this Synod is of opinion that the cause of temperance 'would he much advanced if a careful system were ro treduced which would effect the elimination from the liquor trade of proho used for the benefit of those who own and control public-houses; and this Synod considers that the opportunity of introducing such a system in any locality ought to he given by means of an option to be voted upon at,the polls in addition to the present options of continuance, reduction and no-lioense. That the Standing Committee he requested to consider what would he the best lines upon which such a system could ha devised, and to take such steps , asi it may deem desirable to promoter the adoption of the system _ upon the lines which it recommends.”