THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1290, 19 November 1896, Page 41

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

LIBERTY V. PROHIBITION.

MR BAGNALL’S ADDRESS AT THE OPERA HOUSE.

The Opera House Avas crowded on Monday, Avhen Mr J. J. Bagnall, of Feilding, delivered an address under the auspices of the Liberty League, on Liberty v. Prohibition. Mr J. J. Devine presided, and, in introducing Mr Bagnall, said he had been requested to take the chair because he Avas knoAvn to hold reasonable views on the liquor question, and, furthermore, it Avas decided not to ask the Mayor or other prominent gentlemen Avho Avere engaged in the political campaign to preside, as it Avas not Avished to give the meeting any political colour. He Avas in sympathy Avith temperance himself, and Avas almost a total abstainer, still he considered the law as it stood to be stringent enough. He did not agree Avith those Avho considered that a bare majority of one should say Avhat the people Avere to drink, and perhaps, to-morroiv, say Avhat they should eat and hoAv they should clothe themselves. There might be some people AA'ho took liquor to excess, but that was no reason Avhy the rest of the community should be made to suffer. Mr Bagnall, who, on rising, Avas received Avith applause, said he had been in Palmerston some time ago, Avhen Mr Pirani dolßered an address, in the course of which he said that people should only believe half of Avhat they heard. He did not wish his audience to take Mr Pirani’s advice. He had been much taken up with the motto adopted by the Liberty League, \ r iz., principle not party. He considered that principle should be put before party, and had ahvays acted on this axiom. This should be the motto of all Avho took part in politics. He recommended the advice gi\-en by the old|man to his son, to be honest, to the careful consideration of his audience. Ho condemned the proposal to confiscate the interest of owners of hotel property, Avhich, he considered, Avas nothing short of barefaced robbery. There Avas another consideration Avhich they should ponder over, and it Avas this, that perfect liberty and freedom should be permitted to every member of the community, and the recognition of this great principle Avas the foundation of the British Constitution. It was a A r ery significant fact that this principle of individual responsibility Avas acknowledged in the Commandments given by God to His chosen people, for He did not say that you must do this or you must do that, but “thou” shalt do so. This individual responsibility Avas also recognised in Christ’s philosophy. The recognition of this individual responsibility Avas the foundation of the greatness and colonising power of tiie English people. If they were 1o go to the Continent, they Avould find that the principle of individualism Avas lost there in consequence of the spirit of militarism Avhich prevailed. In the British colonies they had complete liberty and perfect freedom of the individual, Avhich it Avas sought to destroy by the principle underlying Prohibition. It Avas this liberty and individual responsibility Avhich had made the British nation the great colonising people that they Avere, Avhilst it Avas the absence of it among the nations of the Continent Avhich Avas the reason Avhy they had not been a success in their efforts to found colonies. (Applause.) The people Avere attacked on two sides, on the one hand by party fanaticism, and on the other by politicians Avho Avished to serve their oavu ends. Ho denied that the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Bill Avas a genuine attempt to settle the question, but Avas merely a device of the Premier to catch votes. He believed they had a visit from the Rev Mr Isitt in Wellington. They had had two visitations from Mr Isitt Avhere he had come from. Mr Isitt came to Rangitikei, and Avent on very Avell until someone made an objection Avhile he was addressing a meeting, when that gentleman wanted a policeman to take the objector into custody. He Avas pleased to know that there were Prohibitionists present at that meeting, for he wanted not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Laughter.) Mr Isitt’a lectures were always one and the same

wherever he went, and might be divided into two parts—unlimited abuse of everyone who dared to differ from him, and, secondly, the narrating of blood-curdling incidents, crea' tions of his own or some other person’s imagination. Mr Isitt had told them in Eangitikei, and very likely he had told them the same thing in Wellington, that the licensed victualler was the dirtiest, most disreputable and diabolical individual in the world. Referring to the Right Hon Joseph Chamberlain, Mr Isitt said he had never sold his principles because he had never any to sell Mr Isitt had also asserted that many of the working men would sell their souls for a pot of beer. When Mr Bagnall was about to deliver a lecture in opposition to Prohibition, Mr Isitt wrote to the papers, and in the course of his letter likened him (Mr Bagnall) to a fat cur. A point arose out of this letter, and it was this, that when one man designates another a cur either he or the designator is one. He condemned Mr Isitt for referring to barmaids in the manner he did. He had never seen a barmaid misbehave herself, and if Mr Isitt did, he should state when and how. It was not right because a girl had to go out into the world to earn her living that she should be attacked in this manner. With regard to the statement that Mr Chamberlain had never sold his principles because he had none to sell, he contended that Mr Chamberlain was one of the greatest commoners in England at the present day. He condemned the assertion that many a working man would sell his soul for a pot of beer. He did not think there was any commandment with reference to Prohibition, but there was certainly one against the use of uncharitable language. It was contended by the Prohibitionists that the sale of liquor led to crime and to an increase of the inmates of gaols and lunatic asylums, but if that were so the Prohibitionists did not contribute to the cost of police, of gaols and lunatic asylums. It was very easy to make these charges, but the onus of proof rested with those who made such assertions. The people who drank liquor paid for these, and consequently the Prohibitionists did not suffer any hardship. The duty collected on spirits and wine was .£385,014, and the excise duty on beer <£61,705. The cost of the Police Department was .£94,210; Lunacy Department, <£54,420; prisons, <£28,528 ; and hospitals and charitable aid, <£61,455. The revenue from liquor was about .£446,000, whilst the expenditure on those institutions, which it was alleged were due to drink, was less than .£240,000, so that practically the drink consumers paid for all these, a substantial balance of £208,000 being left over. They kept all the lunatics in the asylums, but it would be an appalling thought if they had to keep all the lunatics outside of these institutions. (Laughter.) He contended that the statement attributed to Liebig by Mr Isitt to the effect that there was more nutriment in a quantity of flour placed on the point of a knife than in several pints of Bavarian beer was a garbled one, and not a correct extract from Liebig’s -work. When Mr Isitt was challenged as to the accuracy of this statement he said he was sorry he could not find the reference. The eminent scientist Jenner, speaking of the moderate use of alcohol, said it was conducive to bodily energy and vigour. Mr Bagnall contended that alcohol was most beneficial as a medicine, and told how he was cured from an attack of influenza by the use of champagne, and how a man in his employ was prostrated by the epidemic until ho was induced to forego his temperance scruples and take some champagne also. He was not there to excuse drunkenness, for alcohol was capable, like many other good things, of being abused. Supposing they were to abolish everything in this world capable of being abused, what an abolition there would be ! There was no drinking t@ excess in New Zealand, and consequently there was no need for a prohibitive law. In New Zealand the cost of liquor per head of the population was set down at £2 17s, and in England at £3 18s. But this was not a fair comparison, for a quart of beer could be purchased for 4d in England ; so that it would be nearer the mark to say that the people of England spent £l2 in liquor in proportion to the amount spent in this Colony. He contended that Prohibition would not prohibit, but would help to intensify the evil they were trying to remedy. Lord speaking some time ago, said it was impossible to compel a minority to obey a law to which they were strongly opposed, and which they were determined to evade. Mr Isitt said he saw no drinking in Maine, but on the other hand a great deal of prosperity, from which he camo to the conclusion that the absence of liquor was the cause of the prosperity. Still it was a fact that the poor ra!e was higher in that State than in any other. Prohibition had been tried in many of the States and had been abandoned except in a few instances. In Massachusetts the prohibition law was condemned by many of the leading citizens, and a number of clergymen, who gave evidence before a commission appointed to enquire into the matter, said that during the timetheprohibition law was in force there the sale of liquor had increased in greater ratio than the population. Mr Isitt eonlirmed the contention that Prohibition would not lessen the sale of drink, for he said that many hotelkeepers sold more drink on Sunday than on any other day of the week. In dealing with the fiscal aspect of the question Mr Bagnall said that Prohibition would cause a deficiency in the ro\ enue of close upon £500,000 per annum. If this deficiency were created it w'ould be necessary t raise a similar amount from other sources. This would mean the interest at 3 per cent, on £15,000.000. This reduction in the revenue would mean a | reduction in expenditure, and the cessation of public works. This was a matter for the serious consideration of thinking people. He concluded by moving : “ That this meeting pledges itself to oppose Prohibition by all legitimate means, as being destructive of the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the individual, because it is calculated to intensify the very evil it seeks to remedy.” This was seconded by Mr Schoch and declared carried. A vote of thanks to the lecturer and the chairman concluded the mooting. During the course of his address Mr Bag- j nail was frequently applauded. •'t the con- ! elusion of the meeting some of the Prohibi-

tionists called for three cheers for Isitt, which were given, mingled with groans.