THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 489, 10 December 1869, Page 2

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

-*. The following letter on this subject was published in tbe Lyttelton Times of Friday, Dec. 3. The arguments for and against the measure are treated so exhaustively as to deserve as wide a circulation as possible. In spite of its length, the letter deserves a careful perusal : — Sib, — The Permissive Bill is based on the fundamental principle, "That it is neither right nor politic for the State to afford legal protection and sanction to any traffic or system that tends to increase crime, to waste the national resources, to corrupt the social habits, and to destroy the health and lives of the people." The liquor traffic unquestionably has this tendency, and produces those effects ; therefore it is . the duty of the State, as the guardian of the resources

of the country, and of the interests of the people, to interfere and prohibit it. This traffic is contemplated as a great public evil, which the State is not only competent but morally bound to suppress. It has no inherent, inalienable rights, but only conferred privileges. It ia wholly the creature of law, and exists on sufferance. The power that gave it existence, and that affords it protection, has the right to remove it at any time, if good reason for so doing can be shewn. The frightful evils resulting from it surely form a sufficient reason. It is held to be a common public nuisance, and is certainly in many respects a tenfold greater nuisance than many which the law arbitrarily removes; being detrimental to the health, comfort, and property of society, and as such it ought to be dealt with. Repressive restrictions have failed, because they bave only dealt with the effects, and left the cause untouched. The law punishes the effects of intemperance, and yet legalizes and protects their principal cause. This is singularly inconsistent, and ought to be remedied. His Honor the Superintendent, who is opposed fo the Permissive Bill, said, the other day, that '' it is not enough to suppress the external symptoms of the disease, we must remove the influences which foster its growth." And this is precisely what the Permissive Bill aims at. All past legislation has simply been directed against the " external symptoms of the disease;" prohibition will strike at the root of " the influences which foster its growth." Hqw does it propose to do this? Not by some rash, sudden, sweeping act of the Legislature, as some suppose,' but by the will of the people. It would give two-thirds of the ratepayers of any town or district who desired it, the power to stop the common sale of alcoholic liquors. Public opinion is not ripe for this yet, and therefore there will be no " immediate" (the Canterbury Alliance expunged tbis word, at which many stumbled) suppression of it; and if the bill is ever passed, it is likely to be brought into operation gradually. I would further observe— l. That the State has already assented to the principle cf the bill. It has prohibited lotteries, betting houses, obscene exhibition?, &c. Why? Because they endanger public morality. But are they more dangerous than, or did they ever do half the mischief which the liquor traffic has done ? 2. That it does not involve an unwarrantable interference with individual freedom. We cannot have the blessings of society without surrendering some degree of our personal liberties. A man might do many things as a solitary inhabitant of an island which he is not at liberty to do as a member of a community. The principle which ought to determine all measures affecting the community, is, to use the language of Bentbam, " the greatest happiness of the greateat possible number." Every restrictive act pinches somebody. The liquor traffic benefits a few, pecuniarily, but it injures the many, and it would be compatible with true liberty to make the selfish interests of the minority, give way to the general good of the majority. 3. That in vesting the power of veto in the people, it recognises the fact that they are the best judges of their own wants. The power of granting or refusing licenses now rests with the Magistrate. But hia proper function is to administer the law and not to judge of the wants. of the people. What is a public house for ? As its name imports, for the accommodation of the public. If the public of a given district want such a house in their midst, by all means let them have it; but if they do not require it, it is surely not too much to ask that they should have the power to prevent it. I know some say that practically this privilege is granted under the present law; but the people can only petition against the issue or renewal of a license; they cannot prevent it. 4. That as it can only be brought into force by the vote of two-thirds of the ratepayers, there is no ground for complaint on the score of tyranny. A cardinal principle of popular government is, that the minority must acquiesce in the decision of the majority. Those who object to this principle in the case before us, virtually assert the right of , the few to rule. the many, and inflict any nuisance or burden upon them they like. If deciding a . great public question by a majority of two-thirds of those most interested in ifc be tyranny, it may be asked in the name of common sense, what is liberty? 5. That it is in harmony with the tendency of modern legislation, and the general spirit of the times in whioh we live. 6. That it can only be brought into operation under conditions highly favourable to its efficiency and success. 7. That where prohibition has been fairly tried, favourable results have followed. Evidence can be given if required. 8. That as all other schemes for the suppression of intemperance among us have confessedly failed, the Permissive Bill is at least worth a trial. It might accomplish its object, but if it failed, and did more harm than good, it could be repealed. I, for one, have no fear for its success. I will now state some of the principal objections to it, and offer a word or two in reply. It is objected— l. That it would encroach unjustifiably on the rights and liberties of the people. This favourite objection has been partially anticipated and answered. It is asked, Has not a man as much right to embark in the drink trade as in any other, if he chooses to do so ? and have not the people as much right to spend money in drink as in any other article ? Certainly they have. But all rights have tbeir limits, and tbis is limited by the condition that they do no injury to other people, and that they spend only their own money. It must be rememI bered that there are two sides to this question of rights and liberties. Has a man a right to ask fcr a license for a given locality? And have not the people, for whose benefit it is professedly sought, a right to say, " We are much obliged for your generous consideration for our wants, but we do not require your proffered -accommodation,' and beg respectfully to decline your offer ? " In

other words, the public-house would depreciate our property, be a temptation to us and our children, and endanger the . morality and peace of our community, and therefore we won't have it. Again, shall a part of the people be at liberty to increase taxation by tbe additional police, prisons, asylums, charitable aid, the administration of justice, &c, rendered necessary by their intemperance ? And have not the burdened taxpayers a right to say — " We won't submit to this extra taxation. So long as those men's drinking affects only themselves we have nothing tb do with them ; but if they will go to those excesses which injure us, we have a right to protect ourselves by removing the source of danger, and we will assert that right." Yes Sir, the sober and respectable portion of society have rights and liberties as well as drink sellers and drunkards. 2. It would breed bitter strifes in tbe community. Very likely ; but they would be of short duration. But what of the noisy quarrels, the brutal fights, the j disgraceful scenes, which the liquor traffic leads to? Would the adoption of this measure be likely to produce scenes surpassing those in enormity ? And have not all great reforms been preceded, and often accompanied, by agitation and strife ? If the evil of- intemperance were conquered by the measure, would not the victory amply repay the coßt in strife, Sec? 3. It would lead to strange anomalies in tbe country ; Chrißtchurch, for example, might shut up public houses, while the Riccarton or Heathcote districts might have them open. I reply — Firstly. It is likely that the agitation for the movement would lead to its almost simultaneous adoption in several adjacent districts. Secondly. It is believed that the benefits of the bill would be so manifold- and apparent that those districts which at first rejected it would soon be led to adopt it. Thirdly. If it were deemed wise to do it, the clause of the bill defining districts could be bo widened as to include a wider area, say a whole province. 4. It would unjustly affect vested rights and interests. I suppose publicans' and brewers' rights are meant and reply : Firstly. Those are not rights, but only privileged interests. They exißt on certain conditions, and may even now be withdrawn at anytime, if those conditions are not fulfilled. Secondly. Most of the property affected could easily be turned to other and better purposes. Thirdly. Some have proposed that compensation should be allowed. This is a fair question for consideration, but I have not space for it. Fourthly. Hard as it may press upon those concerned, the interests of individuals must yield to those of the community at large; the law of general good must be paramount. Mr Mein, for example, feels it hard that the people should interfere with his boiling-down establishment in Lincoln Road ; but if a nuisance is created amongst them, have they not a right to complain _nd ask for its removal ? Mr Rolleston, according to his reasoning in his late paper, would say that the liquor traffic is not a parallel case; that it might be conducted free from serious objection, whilst that will remain a nuisance wherever carried on. I grant that the cases are hardly parallel, but the difference is, that the liquor traffic creates much greater and more wide-spread nuisances. It never has been, and from the nature of the thing, it is hardly possible that it can be, carried on free from the gravest objections. 5. It would close houses which are necessary for the accommodation and convenience of the public. I ask, are three-fourths of the places now open required for this purpose ? Whom do they "accommodate?" All the worst characters in society. Are they not tbe chief fostering cause of prostitution, crime, idleness, pauperism, &c ? Surely society might, with advantage, dispense with such " accommodation " and \" convenience " as those. Provision would sUU be made for all bona fide accommodation, refreshment, lodging, Sec, and would! be all the more decent and comfortable without the appendages of a license and [ts attendant evils. But it is said, tbey would not pay without a license. I think as many as would be required would. Their expenses would be greatly reduced. Besides, some pay now without a license. 6. It would reduce the revenue to an extent which \the requirements of tbe country would not allow. What ! Is gold to be placed in the scale\ against the intellectual and moral, the social and religious bearings and fruits of the question ? I say, deliberately, perish the revenue, if it has to be wrung from the health and comfort, the morality and reputation, the life and blood, tbe bodies and souls of the people ! In the name of humanity I protest against the revenue, or any material considerations whatever being allowed for a moment to weigh against the sufferings of abused wives, and neglected, half famished children, against widows' tears, and orphans' cries, against wrecked intellects, and bloated, ruined bodies; and above all, against the future destiny of immortal souls 1 But would the revenue seriously suffer, after all ? Tbe money now spent in drink would be spent in other things. An increased consumption of other taxable articles would send a large portion of it back to theexchequer through other channels. Moreover, less revenue would be required. And what right-minded man would not submit to an extra tax in some other shape, if only society could be freed from this gigantic evil ? True, the sum of .£100,645 per quarter, or £402,580, per year is a. serious difficulty in the way ; but I am quite sure that when this question of prohibition is ripe for public ac ion, men willbe found equal for the work ; so that, while the moral interests of the State will be attended to, its material interests shall not be unjustly affected. 7. It would be most oppressive to the working-man. Is this concern for the working-man, in all cases, sincere, or only affected as a cover for other interests ? Firstly. Is drink necessary for the strength or comfort of working-men ? Secondly. How comes it to pass that working-men are most in favour of this measure ? Where they bave been canvassed in England, overwhelming majorities have expressed their wish for

it. Thirdly. Would not the working-man be most benefited by it? He has enough to do to provide for himself and family properly, without spending a part of his earnings in drink. Were this temptation removed, his family would be better clothed, better fed, better educated, and the whole family better circumstanced, and more respectable. 8. It would be evaded, and lead to illicit traffic and private drinking. Are not the laws against stealing, gambling, Sec, often evaded ? But I am sure the Dean of Christchurch would be one of the la9t of men to say that they ought to .be repealed on that account. All laws are more or less evaded. Shall we, therefore, destroy the Statute Book ? Further, would the smuggling and secret drinking, likely to be carried on, approach, in extent, the evils of the present system ? If we must choose ono of two evils, let us choose the least. 9. Its severity would provoke reaction. Whence would the reaction come ? Firstly. The Bill would be adopted by two-thirds of the ratepayers, and they would be likely to uphold their own act. Secondly. Its effects, in all probability, would be such as to disarm and win over many who were, at firat, prejudiced against it, and opposed it. Doubtless, interested ex-publicans, and a few incorrigible drrak-lovers would try to get up a reaction, but would they be likely t> reverse the decision of so large a majority ? 10. It is an attempt to make people sober by Act of Parment, which you can nomoredothan make them religious by such means. But you can remove temptation from the path of those who are too weak to resist it, surround them with incentives to sobriety and religion, and make their condition as favourable as possible to the proper exercise of their free agency. The effects of the Permissive Bill upon society would be negative rather than positive, in the first instance. 11. It will be hard and unjust to sober well disposed people, who like a glass of beer or wine, in compelling them to give it up because others abuse it. And will the really " well-disposed " object to give up a little pers mal grat-fleation for the good of others to whom it is a positive injury? Some people are, either naturally, or because they have abused their powers, so weak in moral principle as to be hardly able to resist certain evils. And do selfish appetites absolve the strong from all moral obligations to assist a weak brother, even to the extent, if necessary, of giving up a thing, which to themselves, is lawful and harmless ? A thing may be lawful but not expedient. St. Paul teaches this duty of denying ourselves for other's good, and illustrated it in his own person. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." What is applicable to meat is still more so to strong drink. Those who believe in Paul cannot consistently refuse to follow his disinterested example. 12. It is a backward step in legislation. I believe tbat Mr Rolleston, who raised this objection, will on maturer reflection, see that it is untenable. Does not legislation tend more and more to freedom — to recognise the people's rights, and invest them with increased power. Despotic and oppressive laws are no longer tolerated. Absolute and irresponsible Governments are things of the past. The will of the people is rapidly becoming supreme in tbe State ; legislation is fast giving effect to tbis ; and Governments will soon be simple Executive bodies to carry it out. Now this is the tendency of the Permissive Bill. It recognises the fact that the people are tbe best judges of their own wants in relation to strong drink, and it will give them a liberty and power in dealing with the liquor traffic they have never yet possessed. It is therefore not a " backward" but a "forward" step in legislation. 13. It askß the Government, virtually, to abrogate its functions, and no Government will consent to do this. It does nothing of tbe kind. The Government will be only asked to make the bill law, and leave it to the people to give effect to it when they see fit to do so. And in point of fact the Governmeut has already passed certain permissive Acts — Acts left to the people to adopt — and has thus acknowledged the principle of this bill. Has it thereby abrogated its functions? As to the Government objecting to pass it, if the country wished for such a measure it should be compelled to grant it, or give place to a Government that would. No Government in the present day can, with impunity, resist the will of the people. 14. It would afford a dangerous precedent for many other conceivable acts of tyranny of majorities over minorities. Ido not know what acts of tyranny the Dean bad in view when he used those words, but I do know that most unwarrantable conclusions have been drawn from this measure by many people. If the sale of drink has to be stopped because some people abuse it, it is inferred that hardly anything will be safe from prohibition, for almost everything is more or less abused. It is asked, — Because some folks abuse food and make gluttons of themselves, shall the law therefore regulate our dinner tables ? Because others poison themselves, shall the sale of all poisons be prohibited ? Because others cut their throats, shall an important branch of the cutlery trade be destroyed ? Because fire sometimes destroys valuable property, shall our coal mines be closed ? Or because a man or bis trade is not liked iv a neighbourhood, shall his trade be suppressed, and he expelled ? This reasoning is sirtply absurd. Every question must be decided on its .own merits. Its effect on the community at large must determine the action to be taken in relation to it. I think the true light in which to regard the liquor traffic is, that it is altogether an exceptional thing, and justifies exceptional treatment. ' If gluttony, and poisons, and razors, and fire did the mischief in society, and destroyed aa many lives as the liquor traffic ; and if all I other mean, bad failed to stop their ravages ! — then, then call it the " tyranny of majorities," or what you like, I would say,) let the law interpose, let the people have the

power to suppress the causes which produces such dreadful effects in their midst. As to " other conceivable acts of tyranny" being perpetrated, and seeking their justification in this bill, I think, Sir, that with a free discriminating press among us, ever ready to detect and expose wrongs, and with the common sense of the people to fall back upon, we may safely dismiss all fear of such " acts " from our minds. 1 5. It is utterly impracticable — a Utopian scheme of a few hot-brained enthusiasts, which can never be carried out; and therefore the sooner it is abandoned, and a more feasible measure adopted the better. Indeed ! Has it been tried ? When any great public question is launched there are three classes — habitual croakers, interested parties, and well disposed but timid, short-sighted people, who join in the chorus of " impracticability," and try to drown the advocate's voice and frighten him from the platform. The measures advocated by the Corn Law league and Reform Associations were branded a*» "impracticable," just as that proposed by the Alliance is ; but by the united and persistent efforts of their promoters they were carried, and have answered the highest expectations; and such, judging from present indications, I venture to predict will be tlie case with the Permissive Bill. Such are some of ths objections to the fifth rroposed remedy, which I have heard or read, some of them scores of times. In answering them, briefly and imperfectly as this has been done, I trust additional arguments for tbe measure have been supplied. In conclusion, allow me to express an earnest hope that the question of temperance reform will be heartily taken up by the public. It is high time that something decisive were done. As we read the brief but mournful statistics of the liquor traffic which you lately published, can we wonder that educational, philanthropic, and religious movements languish, and that evil triumphs in our midst ? Let this movement be made a broad public one, and not remain the narrow sectional thing it has hitherto been. Let ministers and laymen of all denominations lay their differences aside, and band together against this common crying evil, for here is a platform broad enough for them all. Let them unitedly, deliberately, resolutely set to work, and, if none of the means yet proposed are considered sufficiently adapted for their purpose, I am confident that, in their united wisdom, they will be able to devise such as, if wisely and energetically worked, will, under God's blessing, be crowned with abundant success. Thanking you for your courtesy, I remain Your obedient servant, HUMANITY.