LIQUOR LAW REFORM.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4225, 5 October 1874, Page 3

LIQUOR LAW REFORM.

EDITED BY THE HON. WILLIAM FOX, M.H.B. (The Editor of this journal is not responsible for tho opinions herein expressed. The column is solely under the charge of its special Editor.] BAKMAIDS.

Everybody has heard of the Cobbler of Leyden who used to attend the disputations between the students at the University, though he did not understand a word of the Latin language in which they were conducted. "I like to see who has the worst of. it," was the reason he gave. " But how do you know, if you don't understand the language they dispute in?" "I see which gets first angry, and I know that he is the beaten man," was the cobbler's answer. If the Leyden Cobbler were to read the articles of our Colonial critics on the barmaid question, we think he would certainly credit them with getting the worst of it. Writers on natural .history tell us that the lion has a claw at the end of its tail; and when questioned as to why nature has put it there, they suggest that when he wishes to lash himself into a white rage, the claw by lacerating his flanks greatly assists in the operation. Our editorial critics seem to have a claw on their tails ; that claw is the barmaid question, the mere mention of which gets any of them red in the face in a moment.

Why should they be so furious with Mr. Fox for having raised the question of the propriety of employing young women in the business of public bars and tap-rooms, and for endeavoring to improve the condition of such as are so employed by limiting their hours of labor, and defining the period of day and night during which they are to be employed ? As regards the latter part of the question, Mr. Pox has only endeavored to do for barmaids that which Mr. Bradshaw has (to his everlasting honor) done for women working in factories and workshops.. Mr. Bradshaw has had addresses presented to him and been loudly praised for his successful efforts,' both by the objects of his care and the outside public. The Imperial Parliament has over and over again legislated in the same direction for the protection of women and children in mines, factories, and even agricultural employment. But the moment a proposal is made to put barmaids in the same category, the proposer is overwhelmed with all sorts of virulent abuse and clumsy ridi exile, and his proposal is denounced as monstrous, impracticable, and unjust. The Legislature, however, did not agree with the furious editors. It gave the barmaids a large amount of what was asked for them by Mr. Fox, and imposed limits to the arbitrary power* of the publican on his " white slaves." Mr. Fox asked for a limitation to eight hours, the same as provided for the protection of women employed in'factories and workshops. He got a ten hours' limitation, and those between periods of the day and night which confer a great benefit on the barmaids. Why they should not have the same limitation of labor as other women, has not yet been stated by anyone, except that it might be inconvenient to their owners. And here is the whole secret of all the virtuous indignation of this publican's advocate. You may interfere as you like with any other trade, you may limit labor in workshops and factories to any extent you please ; but there is " a divinity doth hedge a publican ;"■ you must not touch a hair of his head, or the lions will put their tail claws into action, lash, themselves into' a white rage, and you will take the consequences whatever they amount to. There never was a piece of ranker hypocrisy than to praise Mr. Bradshaw for j>hilanthropy,_ and .to censure Mr. Fox for endeavoring to extend the benefit of Mr. Bradshaw's Act to a class who ought to have been, but were not, included in it.

In reference to the broader proposition made by Mr., Fox that women (particularly young girls) should not be employed at all in the work of public taps and bar-rooms. Mr. Fox thinks that such employment cannot be otherwise than morally and socially very injurious to those engaged in it, and that it is a disgrace to the civilisation of the period, which affects a tenderness towards women and a' desire to elevate them in the scale of purity and intelligence. The publican's advocate sees no impropriety in subjecting young women between fifteen and thirty years of age to the temptations and influences of the position. Be it so, he need not be so savage with Mr. Fox because he differs from him. Mr. Fox is entitled to his opinion as the publican's advocate is to his. Mr. Fox probably pities the want of humanity and good taste of his opponents. But he may console himself by the fact that he is supported by the practical decision of the intelligent people of the United States, who have excluded females from their public bars, and express their unbounded astonishment that the moral and religious inhabitants of Great Britain should patronise such an institution. Consoled by such support, it is possible that. Mr. Fox will survive the indignation of the irate editors. It is amusing to witness ' the triumphant air with which Mr. Fox's opponents appeal to the very feeble arguments used by Mr. Vogel on the subject, arguments which any child could answer. Mr. Vogel defends the institution on the ground that there have been some barmaids who have maintained aged mothers, some who have married respectable husbands whose acquaintance they made in the bar, and some who by their respectable demeanor and character have actually discouraged drinking in the houses where they were employed for no other purpose than to sell drink. It is per-' fectly possible that some such instances may exist. It is perfectly possible also that other

persons may have had a very different experience. Mr. Bathgate in a letter which was quoted in the House refers to the case of a poor girl ■whom he had to send to the Lunatic Asylum, who was late the barmaid of the Hotel in Duuedin, and " was found this morning wandering two miles from town in a state of nudity, having been out all night. He saw at a glance that her lunacy was caused by drink, and in this the medical men concurred." Let us hope that such cases are as exceptional as Mr. Vogel's are. The question is not settled by either Mr. Vogel's or Mr. Bathgate's special instances. The question is what is the general tendency, and what is the general result. Nobody knows better than the irate publican's advocate, that the general result, is something very different from the charming picture which Mr. Vogel, in his simplicity, is pleased to draw. To every aspect of this liquor question there are two sides, and only two — God's side and the Devil's side; it is not very difficult for any one to judge on which side he stands. We think it can hardly be alleged that the attempt to improve the condition of barmaids, or even to prevent their engaging in the business, is a suggestion on the side of evil. A writer in the editorial columns of this journal complains that Mr. Fox has used (we hope he does not mean abused) his privilege to insert in the Liquor Law column, a report of his own speeches on this question, but omitted to give his opponent's replies. We think this is really too much, to expect Mr. Fox to devote the limited space at his disposal, not to stating his own case, but that of his antagonists. Surely the latter have space enough to state their own case,.and report their own speeches, and their advocates do not seem slow to do it. But we may remind the editor that Mr. Fox did send him for insertion in these columns a specimen of the arguments used on the other side. Whether they did not reach the editorial desk, or were suppressed by editorial authority, we of course do not know—all we know is they were sent, and have not appeared; and the charge therefore is not a very gracious one. In conclusion, we will observe that - the attempt made by certain of our critics to give this question a personal character, by insinuating that Mr. Fox has "formed an unfavorable opinion of a class of respectable people who are earning an honest livelihood," and that he is "hostile to barmaids," is exceedingly unfair. Mr. Vogel, we are sorry to say, struck the key note of this tune, by attempting to get the House to laugh over the question which he put to Mr. Fox, whether his unfavorable opinion of barmaids was theoretical or the result of personal experience. The joke was a very poor one, of the class which Mr. Fox alluded to as "making the. joker very merry, but his hearers exceedingly sad." A gentleman filling the position which Mr. Vogel tills should have showed himself more seriously impressed by the importance of a great social question ; at anyrate, the attempt to impute personal feeling to Mr. Fox was ungenerous. Mr. Fox has carefully avoided making a personal question of it, and he had already told the House that he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to barmaids, but by an earnest desire to benefit the class to which they belonged. Mr. Fox's personal acquaintance with barmaids is probably less than Mr. Vogel's or his editorial critics ; but he has lived a good many years, has travelled in a good many countries, and has not gone through life with either his eyes or his ears shut. We hope we have heard the last of this unfair attempt to represent him as the enemy, and not the friend, of " that respectable class of people who are earning an honest livelihood," and on whom he has already, by the passing of the time limitation clause, conferred no small benefit. It is true that clause was passed on the motion of the member for Oamaru, but it was done by arrangement with Mr. Fox, and was the result of the fight he maintained on the general question.