LICENSE OR NO-LICENSE?

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 215, 10 September 1908, Page 2

LICENSE OR NO-LICENSE?

(By Frank Morton.) I admire thoroughness. Shrewdness appeals to me. It is abundantly plain that in their organisation in view of the approaching election, the advocates of No4lcSßSfe in Wellington have., been and. are wonderfully thorough and shrewd. Evidence of their work and fervour is everywhere. They are, in view of their reputation, extremely moderate and cautious m their utterances. They are leaving #no stone unturned. If honest pertinacity and strong devotion to an espoused cause count for anything, the No-license party is going to be very effective at the polls this year. Ihe License party seems to be heavily asleep. A few oddly futile advertisements are appearing occasionally in the daily papers, and that is all., it there is a principle involved m the fight for License (and I think that there is a very grave and vital principle involved), surely never was a fight for a principle more stupidly and apathetically fought. This idea that the battle in opposition is a brewers battles nauseates and disgusts me. In m> far as it is a battle for the brewers, it is not worth fighting. -, All arguments based on the gratuitously^ assumed blessedness ,of beer are idiotic and preposterous arguments.* I sometimes think that- every true advocate of License must despise and detest the whole brewing faction. My own position is clear enough, I frankly admit that alcohol, as a rule, is the devil in solution. I never dream of denying that the abuse of alcohol is a fount for'many miseries. 1 have little' doubt that' the ".world would be better without alcohol. The curse of the thing has caused misery in my own family, as in millions of' other families. Upon • - ocoasion, it has brought wretchedness "and humiliation into my own life, as into untold millions of other lives. But I never have voted No-License, and at present I am utterly" unable to see how I ever can. In such a matter no plea of expediency can ever persuade me. If I wanted to drink, no restriction of sale would ever prevent #me from drinking. Though I continue teetotal to the day of my death, jl shall never willingly live in a prohibit- j ed area. I refuse to buttress, my own j convictions by the restriction of any | other man's liberty; just as rrefuse t to believe that in any matter where individual liberty is concerned, mere expediency should have a voice. I hold, that it is fully time that civilised man got out of leading-strings. When the Temperance Party can save any man from drunkenness, I rejoice. When any moderate drinker gives up drinking, I am pleased; because my owh experience induces the opinion that alcohol taken regularly is always in some degree positively harmful. But the power that is hehind the NoLicense vote is a power that I am greatly afraid to see entrusted to the hands of any mob or majority. In most matters I prefer to be protected by my own intelligence; and in such matters, where 1 am personally concerned, I prefer that the crowd should mind its own business, however honest its intention. The use of alcohol is emphatically one of these matters. Do you know, I have actually met good prohibitionists who have told me, -that they would prohibit the use of tobacco if they could. There is no reason why they shouldn't,' if they can justly prohibit beer. At the back of all these later efflorescences of the democratic movements, there is a principle that is either positively good \ or positively vicious. Thoughtful men', before they vote in the matter of License, have to consider the underlying principle. Outside the area of the strict necessities of. government, I am no lover of majorities. The great achievements of history have been the achievements of minorities.. The wise and. prudent / have been a small minority in every nation and in every j race, since ever the world was. I find no stimulus in tHe- spectacle of your roaring political huddles. I dio-n't "believe that Jack is as good as his master. I am strongly of the opinion that every man has his j natural superiors, say what you will. When a man has a better knowledge than I have of any_ specialised subject, I will accept his guidance without reference to my own opinion. Just the other day a man who reads these letters wrote me a letter in which he was pleased to say kind

things, about them; but he.still complained that I am what he i-a'led ;-.n instinctive aristocrat. The darii.irig accusation amused me. I come of a long line of yeomen: lam the first of all my folk to earn my living by anything more than manual labour. My forebears farmed the stubborn glebe, and I farm nothing but my meacje revenues. I find your average wharflumper vastly'more iti terming t.rid congenial than your average rafu about town. But I know that Uitre is an aristocracy of intellect, and of those ■ aristocrats ■ I am the cheerful and devoted henchman. Whan Demos says that Hodge's vote should, have exactly the same value as Herbert Spencer's; I pity Demos nvd am sorry for Hodge. 1 distrust this prohibitive legislation because I think it must^do Demos great harm to admi i:ste'r it. All the same, you know, when T ho;usome brewers' tout mumbling twaddle about St. Paul telling St. T»mothy to take f little wine for the stomach's sake, v have an"""instinctive desire to hit the tout in the neck. ' * It would be an-exceil-y.it thing, I think, if ihfiS (using the \vot«i in the good old senSe) were not allowed to ; do any bar-trade; aot allowed,' I Jriean, to serve any but their gut-sis and their guests' guests. What you call a good ,bar trade is a groat destroyer of comfort in your inn. When mine host depends for his chief x-rofit on the guzzling cro>vds that come like swine to the trough, he has Iri tie time i or inclinatioirto care for the comfort \ and well-being of his jcuosts. A house ' of entertainment should not be per- ; mitted to deteriorate into a house of swill. If inn? were pr-rmitted no casual bar trade, the c":iss of innkeepers would greatly improve ;inri the travelling public would bo assured ;of decent comfort. Fynes jVloryson, I in his "Itinerary" gives a do%htf:>i • picture of the inns of his time. "As soone as a passenger oomes to an inne, the servants run to h>jii, and one takes his horse and v. u lkes him about till he be cool j then rubs him down, and gives him rneaU; another servant, gives the passenger his private chamber and kindles his fire; the .third pulls off his tobies, and makes them cleane; lli(;u_the host and hostess visit him, and if he will eate with the hoste or at a common table with the other"?, his meale will cost him sixpence, or in some places four pence.; but if lie will eat in his chamber,, \ he commands what meat he will, according to his appetite ; yea, the isilohcn is open to. Trim to order his meale to be dressed as he likes beste. After having eaten what he please*;, he may with credit set by a part for next day's # breakfast. His bill will then be written for him, and. should he object to any charge theTiost is ready to alter it." Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis! We don't find inns like lhat now: Our houses of entertainment have lost the excellent quality of homeliness. We are no longer guests, but numbers jin a book. Phyllis, no longer very neat of hand, belongs to a union and sniffs at our timid requests for attention. At the table, things are not always what they seem. The tired man wants an inn without a bar;, but an inn that still does not smell o| the boarding-house. Is it asking too much? I suppose so.