THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1895.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9712, 7 January 1895, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1895.

From the floods of eloquence which in the last fifty years have passed the lips of Mr. Gladstone there will remain at least some three or four little phrases which men will not " willingly let die," so useful are they in summing up situations of frequent recurrence. " To march through rapine to the dismemberment of an empire" is perhaps hardly adapted to every-day use. It is fit to be trotted out only on great occasions, yet it will hardly be laid aside while Hibernian views of British politics are what they -were when the phrase was first uttered. But " to think twice and thrice" before taking an important step ; and to be " within measurable distance" of what only yesterday was not "within the scope of practical politics," are perfect windfalls to those who desire safe and sound utterances to fall back upon in political discussions. The latest saying with which Mr. Gladstone has enriched our colloquial vocabulary is that in which he declares that in respect to the liquor question—we are in a " miserable and almost contemptible predicament." The phrase is a taking one, and will be found applicable to the condition of many a public question besides the one which Mr. Gladstone had in his mind. It would perhaps be unkind to enquire how often the saying might have ' been used to describe positions in which the great orator has now and again found himself. Besides, we must remember the saving virtue of the word " almost.'' It is only situations which are almost, and not those which are quite, contemptible, to which these carefully selected words are strictly apf)ropriate. They certainly seem very lappily to describe the present state of the licensing question; although some may think the use of the qualifying adjective open to challenge. But it is better to err on the side or moderation, and we think there are few moderate politicians who are not of opinion that the question of the sale of liquors throughout the length and breadth of Anglo-Saxondom has worked itself into, a predicament which is " miserable and I

almost contemptible." To this unsatis j factory end many causes have con-! spired. The dogged attachment of the Briton to his accustomed stimulus ; the fanatical fervour of the reformer ; the Babel of controversy about the facts ; the positive assertions of the good or evil results of prohibition where it has been tried the theorising of medical experts who know more of the laboratory than of human nature as a whole ; the rooted distrust entertained by John Bull of any medical theory that forbids a glass of good beer with a man's dinner ; the ardent desire felt by some people to inspect and control the actions of others; the dislike and jealousy of such inspection and control which is felt, but we fear felt in a diminishing degree by the others ; the fanatical socialism which believes in no good that is not the result of government drill, and would destroy everything that is capable of any.abuse ; the almost equally fanatical anarchism which believes that Governments can do no good thing, and which would never meddle with an abuse because in some distant ages the process of evolution may be trusted to make things all right; and last, but not least, the insincerity of politicians, who take up any scheme of so-called reform, not because they believe in it, but because its promoters command votes: all these causes have brought about the present impasse, and most of those who have had to do with it must surely recognise the position as "miserable and almost contemptible." Mr. Gladstone has declared himself an adherent to the Bishop of Chester in his movement on behalf of what may be called for brevity the Gothenburg system, arid avows his conviction that local option as a remedy can only be " partial and occasional," and that limitation of licenses is " an imposture." The "selling of liquors for public profit alone," appears to Mr. Gladstone the only available remedy. This means, as our readers are aware, that the liquor trade should be made a monopoly, whether by the Government of the country, or the municipalities, or a company with powers created and limited by statute for the express purpose. The essential features of such a monopoly are that no officer or servant employed in the business should have any interest whatever in pushing or promoting the sale of liquor, and that the purity and sound quality of all liquors supplied should be guaranteed. These are certainly solid advantages, and would seem to appeal to the rational and moderate amongst reformers and drinkers alike. But we fear it will not recommend itself either to Sir Wilfred Lawson or the Rev. Mr. Isitt. And it will be opposed by all who detest State interference in every shape. But practical and moderate persons will be inclined to ask: Is there any better way 1 A very sanguine answer to this question can hardly be expected even by those whose knowledge of the matter is confined to the progress which the question has made during the present generation, or who perhaps think it was Father Matthew who first brought the liquor-question into public prominence. But any hopes of an intelligent solution of the liquor problem on present lines which may have survived the muddle which has resulted from the stir made about it during the last fifty years, must surely become 'still further attenuated in the light of the fact that a century and a half ago the British Parliament was making earnest and strenuous efforts to mitigate the evils of excessive drinking. In the pages of the Free Review for last October, Mr. T. Richardson tells the story of the Gin Act of 1736, and of the state of things which led to its introduction. This Act was no doubt "intended to annihilate the gin traffic entirely," for no other end can be supposed to have been aimed at by a measure which imposed a duty of £1 a gallon on all spirituous liquors, and a license fee of £50 a year on those who retailed them. The effect of legislation so much in advance of the public sentiment was somewhat alarming. London became " a scene of the wildest tumult. Riot and violence broke out on every side." The " Lying-in-State of Madame Geneva," was celebrated with ceremonies of mock mourning, "all the signs of the gin-shops were draped in black, and the public indignation at the passing of the Act was so great that the Government seriously feared a rebellion." It was impossible to enforce the Act. Informers were "hunted through the streets and murdered . . and in defiance of every authority the retailing of gin was carried on at every street corner and in every alley and by-way in London." Only two persons took out the new license, and others evaded the law by selling the forbidden spirit under such ingenious names as "Sangree, Tom Row, Cuckold's Comfort, Parliament Gin, The Last Shift, Ladies' Delight, King Theodore of Corsica, etc." The people "plunged deeper and deeper into the slavery of gin," and it is startling to read what Lord Lousdale said in describing the state of things at that time. " In every part of this great metropolis, whoever shall pass along its streets will find wretchedness stretched upon the ground insensible and motionless, and only removed by the charity of passengers from the danger of being crushed by carriages or trampled by horses, or strangled with filth in the common sewer. These vile liquors not only infatuate the mind but poison the body ; they not only fill our streets with madmen and our prisons with criminals, but our hospitals with cripples." But subsequent measures more reasonable and less drastic than the Gin Act were attended with remarkable success in reining in the drink demon. "Drinking to the limits of brutality became the exception instead of the rule amongst the poorer classes of the community. The population began once more to move onward, and diseases largely induced by drink diminished with surprising rapidity." From the facts which come under his review, Mr. Richardson draws the double inference that in regard to the liquor trade legislative inaction is disastrous, and that moderate regulation and control judiciously enforced have proved of efficacy. The former part of the proposition is supported by the fact that when in 1689 " Parliament prohibited the importation of foreign spirits to spite France, and threw open the distilling trade to all and sundry, spirit drinking began to take the place of ale," and as.the consequence in 1724 "drinking had infected the masses: had indeed become an epidemic, and for the first time in our history it was looked upon as a national vice and a new and terrible source of mortality." Such facts certainly seem to supply a valid answer to the laissez faire philosophers who advocate perfect free trade in liquor, and to justify a reasonable degree of State intervention and control. But the question which has now to be determined is whether mere regulation and control can with advantage be carried any further, and we think there is a very general consensus of opinion that it cannot. It remains therefore that either things must be now let alone, or the sale of liquor must be entirely prohibited, or the Government or local authorities must take the business into their own hands. Of these three courses we consider total prohibition by many degrees the worst and since we do not profess to be quite satisfied with things as they are, we regard the Gothenburg system, or some modification of it, as deserving to be carefully considered and thoroughly discussed. It will not find favour with extremists, but to .those practical and

i moderate persons ; who are, sick of \ cant and ineptitude and muddle, it may seem well worth examination whether < : the new system does not offer a moans of exit from a situation which is " miserable and almost contemptible."