New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4139, 26 June 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1874.

The attempt made by the Gladstone Government to regulate the liquor trade in England, and check drunkenness, does not appear to have been an unequivocal success. It taught the publicans their power, which they took care so to exercise that Mr. Gladstone’s doubtful majority became an undoubted minority. It did not check the trade in liquor, but if it had any effect whatever it stimulated consumption. The revenue derived from the taxes upon liquors was actually one million and a quarter larger in the year succeeding the passing of the Act then it was in the preceding one. From inquiries that have recently been instituted amongst clergymen, magistrates, and the country police, it would seem that in some county districts it was believed good had been effected by closing the public-houses one hour sooner than before. The clergy of sixteen rural deaneries reported favorably of the operation of the Acc, blit the information elicited from large centres of population was of a startling character. There had boon a decided increase in the amount of the drunkenness that had taken place. In London, Colonel Henderson, the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, reported that in the year prior to the passing of the Act, 24,216 cases of drunkenness were dealt with. In the year subsequent there were 20,109 cases. The

same story came from Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other large towns. Of course the question might be raised 1 ‘whether those drink now who never drank before, or whether those who drank before now drink more, ” but the fact was absolute and ineontestible that under an Act framed witli the intention of making people sober, drunkenness had increased. The police might and did claim credit for more rigorously enforcing the ; law against drunkenness, but the revenue returns presented unanswerable facts. Possibly the increase might he partially accounted for by the advanced rate of wages, but increase there was. The fact is a sad one, and will doubtless lead to debate and inquiry that may bo profitably regarded from this side of the equator. Tho first question to bo askod is what the Permissive Bill men, the Good Templars, tho Rechabites, and other bodies that claim credit for laboring with success to prevent drunkenness, have to say for themselves in tho matter, and what sort of an account can they give of them exertions. A very poor one, it must admitted. What good they are doing very few seem to know save themselves. Very probably if we were to turn to some of the slipshod literature they affect—slatternly stuff that no one but themselves ever thinks of reading—-wo might find some big statistics, evidently evolved, but these in no way answer the official reports from which we have been quoting. To any one but themselves these people would seem to be sailing on the wrong tack. To bedizen one’s self, walk about in a procession and rejoice in being a Good Templar, is an utterly powerless method of dealing with what we must all admit to be a mighty evil. The chain of evidence daily increases that though it is impossible to make men sober by Act of Parliament, it is very possible to make them very great hypocrites, and experience has shown that there is no wisdom in a limitation of tho number of existing public-houses in any locality in England. It only caused a greater number of people to flock to the houses that were left open, and they naturally drank more. Tho man who went with the intention of having one glass, drank up, had another with his friend, and then his friend had another with him. If all the houses in a locality were closed, choice spirits migrated to another, and there had a merry carouse instead of the one glass or two glasses they would have been content with had the liquor their soul loved been obtainable next door. Out of all the inquiries that have been made one fact has come clearly enough. The existing measures, , whether voluntary or legislative, are failures. Relief, if it is to be of avail, must be sought for from other sources. The Women’s Whisky War in Ohio has been just as great a failure as any of the other faddles with which well-meaning hut simple-minded people have amused themselves. Tho wickedest man in all Ohio made more money by temperance than ever he did by selling whisky, and like the children of this world, who are said to be wiser in their generation than the children of light, ho made hay whilst the sun shone. In all human probability he will open another tavern with the proceeds of his fit of temperance. An interesting item of statistics would bo afforded if a record could be obtained of the number of people who have been induced to sign pledges, and take upon themselves vows, —occasionally half a dozen times over—there was never tho slightest probability they would observe. Adam Smith, in his great book on tho Wealth of Natitfns, observes, “ The cheapness of wine seems to bo a great cause, not of drunkenness, but of sobriety. The inhabitants o£ tho wine countries are in general tho soberest people of Europe ; witness the Spaniards, the Italians, and tho inhabitants of the southern provinces of France.” This assertion has frequently been made by other authorities, and if it bo indisputable, it forms a powerful argument against the principle of temperance by Act of Parliament. Tho Presidents of all the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in England, so lately as 1871, published a report in which they deprecated tho inconsiderate action of those friends of temperance who denounced intemparately the use of alcohol, and advocated its entire prescription by unwise legislation. They declared their intention to continue the use of it in hospitals and other institutions of a like kind. Surely such men as these have a right to speak with authority. There appears to be a strong probability that in consequence of the non-success of tho present efforts in England to check this fearful scourge of drunkenness others of a diametrically opposite character will bo resorted to. The experiment will be tried of making the present houses in some towns better than they are, and allowing tho profit upon tho sale of drink to become tho property of tho municipal governing bodies, so that the retailors may have no interest in the trade. Another proposition that is finding some favor is to permit all persons to sell beer on paying a slight license-fee, so that customers could order their liquor of their grocers or other storekeepers—in fact, to allow anyone who sold anything to sell beer. This course it is urged would have a tendency to shut up houses where simply drinking is carried on. Then again, there is an agitation against tho malt tax, which is not objected to by large brewers, as it is ultimately paid by consumers, and being heavy, gives them a certain monopoly in their trade. Good and cheap beer, it is said, would make the average Briton as sober as the average inhabitant of the wine producing districts. But tho Permissive Bill men with their pet nostrum seem to bo entirely out of Court. Tho theory is free-trade in liquor, and a cheap dinner as well as a cheap breakfast-table.