PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 446, 18 April 1865, Page 5

PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Hebald. Sib,—Permit me to (fi'er a few remarks in reply to the letter of "A Fcmilv Man," contained in your issue of to-day. Until I come to the Parliamentary returns, which are intended a* once to overwhelm anything that can be said in favour of extended hotel accommodation, there is little to notice.- The remark, however, which runs thus—"l must candidly confo-s that T finished the peiusal of that article* with feelings akin to anger"—is worth a passing notice. This shows the spirit with which too many total abstainers are actuated. Anger, indeed '. what right has " A Family M n" or any one else to " feel jmger" because another man entertains opinions opposite to his own ? It is because such men are only too anxious to coerce, and are not satisfied to persuade, that the cause of temperance is injured. Had some of them the power, they would lord it ever their fellow citizens with a "tyranny far stronger then that of strong drink itself. And now for the figures. " A Famih- Msn " says :— The Parliamentary Committee on publichouses in 1853 had submil(ed*to it the following return., which proved that the rumber of convictions arising from drunkenness in Preston and Blackburn variul according to the number of the licenses granted :— rBESTON. Year Houses Committed Summary Licensed. to Sessions. Convictions. 1848 177 13 51 1849 183 20 74 1850 188 34 105 1851 224 55 116 BLACKBT/BN. 1848 165 13 58 184<J 170 9 157 ISSO 176 27 191 1851 196 23 198 but he does not tell us whether the population of Preston and Blackburn increased in a similar ratio with the increase of publichouses and of convictions. Nor docs he tell us what other conflicting '•auses. such as the rise or depression of wages, &t;., occurred from time to time to upset the regular average. Now, to aualvse the statistics above, it will be seen at a glance that it was not the increased number of public houses that led to the increased number of convictions. In Preston, in 1848, there were 177 licensed houses and 64 convictions: an additional six houses, as is alleged, produced in 1849, 94 convictions —that is 30 additional convictions for the six additional houses opened ; and in 1850, in consequence of five more houses being opened, a further increase of 45 convictions ensued. It is evident that this increase of drunkenness was attributable to some other cause than the small increase of first six and then five additional houses, when there were already »s many as 177 in existence to begin with. In all probability the increase both in new houses and drunkenness grew with the increased population, which was in those years rapidlyrising in such manufacturing towns as Preston and Blackburn, but our compiler of statistics carefully keeps that fact out of view, for it would entirely overthrow the conclusion to which he wishes his readers to arrive at. But if it is w«nted to reduce this statistical table to its real worth, in this respect, let us try back, and suppose in 1847 there were only 170 licensed houses in Preston, and then we shall of course reduce the convictions from 64 in 184S to something like 35 in 1847, and again, taking the number of licensed houses in 1846 as, say six lesss, or 164, we shall hare, by a similar reduction, hardly any convictions at all—till before we have reduced the number of houses to 100 in number wo shall have ceased to find such a thing as drunkenness existing in Preston!

The oral evidence talcen before the Parliamentary committee is about as one-sided aa any evidence could be. Mr. Dawson who represented the Liverpool publicans, and Mr. Ald-rman Wire, the Solicitor to the Liecmcd Victuallers Company, both gave as their opinion that the issue of nn increased number of licenses would be injudicious. Of course they did. It was their duty to their clients, the holders of the existing monopoly, to do so. With equal simplicity " A Family Man " tells us that " the publicans of Birmingham put on record at a public meeting of their body, the following as their matured opinion . — ' That it is clearly shown by parlimentary returns that vice and drunkenness are in proportion to the number of public houses and the facilities of obtaining intoxicating drinks.' " Of course the Birmingham publicans would look with jealousy on the issue of more licenses, the breaking up of their nice little monopoly. The public must have stronger evidence than this, ere they will bo convinced that the spread of drunkenness will bo increased with.the number of houses licensed. I have resided, sir, for many years in America where the sale of liquor is unrestricted, and I defy "A family Man " or any one else, to say that one half as much drunkenness exists in American as there does in British society. In Franco and in other Continental states where wine and brandy are both cheap and easily obtained, there is less drunkenness than undet the restrictive law of Britain.

In conclusion I would say that if the temperance paTty wish to bo respected, and to forward the cause of temperance, they must cease to oppose a hostile front to the wish of'those who differ in opinion from them. Their proper weapon is persuasion, not coercion, nnd if they wish to be allowed to hold their own singular opinions, they must allow those who differ from them to hold theirs. No man can be made moral by Act of Parliament. Wire was given us, the Scriptures tell us, " to make glad the heart of man." Who and what are they who in defianco of this, dare to say "We will prevent you from obtaining it by swaying the law to interfere." I am, &c, A MoDEJUTi: Deinkeb. Auckland, April 17th,

NO MONOPOLY. To the Editor of the New Zealand Hebaxd. Srn, —I have noticed with, attention the correspondence that lias arisen on the prolmMe augmentation of licensed public-houses in this city. Pome of your correspondents a r e, no doubt, sincere in wishing "the enle of intoxicating diiuliß restricted ; but the majority of lliose who now make such a noise are proprietors*of " grog shanties " totnlly unworlliy of even the name of public-house. "What is wanting in Auckland is Family Hotels. 1 am now writing from conclusions drawn by my own experience. Some few months sinco I arrived in town with my fimily. I made application at several inns (as their sign-board i indicated), but was told thoy had no accommodation for families, thoy only took in Binglc gentlemen. The same answer was received by my fellow-passengers at tlio boardinghouses —they did not want married people. So that, Mr. Editor, a respectable visitor coming to this land of promise, who has the misfortune to bo married, hns to bring; his tent with him,_ as a fellow paßfenger of mine did, and who got permission from the Superintendent to erect it on a patch of Government land, until he removed his family to Drury. As for myself, I had recourse to the usual and now common expedient cf renting rooms, three families in one houso. In a sanatory point of view it spoaks volumes. I now however enjoy clear air in the country, and deem it a duty I owq to society as one of its members, to raise my voico against monopoly of any kind, more particularly whon Hint opposition comes from 1 eoplo who havo neither the spirit or good taste to meet the requirements of our every day increasing population. Another want is very' much felt, namely, the want of stabling attached to public-houses. When a traveller from the interior comes to town ho has to be separated from the companion of his journeying. In tho neighbouring colonies even- applicant for a licensed houfo is obliged to ha"ve at least a five-stalled stablo; with few exceptions, our hostehies do not boast of such a nceestary des deratum. I trust rested interests will bo ignored when the public good is at stake. Thanking you for jour advocacy in endeavouring (by vour powerful pen) to mitigate the evil tho public complain of—want of respectablo family and commercial hotel accommodation in Auckland, I am, yours, &c, A VOICE I'KOM THE BISH. Airil 17th, 1865.