PROHIBITION A FAILURE.

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

PROHIBITION A FAILURE.

The Rev T. 11. Sprott, preaching at St. Paul’s pro-Cathedral on Sunday evening from Gai. v., 23, “The fruit of the spirit is

. . . temperance,” said he had received a circular from the Prohibition executive requestinghim to appeal to the congregation to vote “No License” at the forthcoming licensing poll. He therefore took the opportunity of speaking upon the subject. Temperance reformation, a striking feature of our time, might, he said, be justified upon economical, physical, moral and religious grounds ; drunkenness was a waste of wealth, a source of suffering, a vice, a sin. Nevertheless ho could not advocate “No License.” He was far from being satisfied that Prohibition where tried had succeeded. The circular spoke of temptations arising from licensed hotelbars, but said nothing of temptations which may arise from unlicensed drinking facilities. This, he thought, would be a most real danger if “ No License ” were carried, for two reasons —1. A large part —probably tho larger part of the community in no wise feel the moderate uso of alcoholic liquors to be wrong —would regard the law as tyrannous and to be evaded where and when possible. The authorities, not backed up by strong public opinion, would be as lax as they are (for precisely the same reason) at present. 2. The circular instructed him to say that the carrying of “ No License ” would not in the least interfere with the private consumption of alcoholic liquors. If he interpreted this rightly, it simply meant- that people like themselves could sit comfortably at home and have their accustomed wine or what not, while that large class of the community which was not accustomed to buy any of its articles of daily consumption in large quantities would be subjected to enforced abstinence. He did not think that in a Democratic country such a system could be carried out. For these two reasons he thought “ No License ” meant the law despised and evaded, and the demoralisation of sly drinking. In fact, the Prohibition _ movement seemed to him to be proceeding on lines which may prove ruinous to true reform. He was becoming more and more convinced that the most hopeful solution was to be found in some modification of the system known as the Gothenburg system. Let the licenses of all respectable houses bo confirmed for a reasonable number of years, say, 15 or 20 ; of course upon the condition of continued good conduct. Let it be understood that at the end of that time they lapse. Let it further be understood that the owners may enter into negotiations with the municipal

authorities for the taking over N of their properties. Of such properties the authorities may continue as hotels as many as are required by the needs of the community. Such hotels should also be restaurants; they should have paid managers,who should receive a bonus upon all food sold, nothing upon drink. The profits should go to public purposes not provided for by rates. Some such scheme as this, which is gaining support among many thoughtful persons in England, would provide compensation (in the form of the confirmed license) for the present owners, and would remove the temptation which now exists to cupidity and greed to force the sale of drink. But while unable to advocate voting “No License,” he would advocate voting “ Reduction ” —not] so much because a reduction of houses would necessarily mean a reduction of drunkenness, which he

l thought would only be the case, and then / possibly only in a slight degree, in a large area where hotels were few and farbetween, but because it seems to be the

only way at present (a clumsy way he admitted) of compelling the authorities to close houses which had clearly broken the law. If reduction was carried the authorities must begin with houses whose licenses have been endorsed for such offences as selling drink to children, Maori women, drunken persons, and sellingdrink on Sundays, also houses which have little or no accommodation for

lodgers travellers, beyond the bar. Houses guilty of such offences he should close without compunction or remorse. He could not close without saying that the reformation in our drinking customs which had marked the century—good upon the whole —had one evil effect. It was a great evil to a community when its moral cur-

rency became debased, and tho word temperance had become debased. Numbers of people had come to think that if they were total abstainers, or were moderate in the use of alcohol, they possessed that fruit of the Spirit which the New Testament calls temperance. But total abstinence or moderation was poor virtue compared with the New Testament grace. It may coexist with the grossest crimes and vices, as they saw to-day in Mohammedan countries. But the New Testament grace cannot so co - exist, for it is that “ Sovereign self-mastery, that perfect selfcontrol, in which the mysterious will of man holds in harmonious subjection all the passions and faculties of his nature. Where it is complete, no impulse however strong, no endowment however conspicuous, finds play, without the sanction of that central ruling power which represents the true self, and then only according to its bidding. In this aspect temperance, seifcontrol, is the correlative of freedom, as freedom expresses the absolute fulfilment of duty.”