HON. J.,C. RICHMOND ON THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3108, 27 January 1871, Page 3

HON. J.,C. RICHMOND ON THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

» There was one part of Mr Richmond's address on Tuesday evening which we are sure will not be palatable to the great majority of the electors of "Wellington. We refer to that part in which he gave expression to his views on the Permissive Bill. A Permissive Bill he considered as unjust in principle, and declared that it would ever receive from him the most determined opposition. He asserted that it was unjust; but failed, to give us any valid grounds for that assertion. His only argument — so far as we could gather — was simply a repetition of the statement that in determining whether there should be public-houses in a certain district it was. unjust that the majority of the inhabitauls of that district should rule the minority. But we must say that what appears to Mr Richmond to be unjust appears to us to be most just. In most things it holds both as a matter of justice and expediency that the will of the majority should prevail, and why not in this matter?. What injustice is • there in the majority of the people living in a certain district saying, "we regard public houses as more an evil than a good, and therefore we object to any. public house being planted in our midst ?" "It is unjust," Mr Richmond would say, " because you are depriving the minority of what they consider, if not a necessity, at least a luxury. Although a majority, you have no right to deprive a minoriiy of any luxury or convenience they may desire." But what if that luxury or convenience be a moral nuisance to the majority? Must the will of the minority triumph ? • Mr Richmond says it would be unjust that the majority should forbid public houses in a district, and thus deprive the minority of what they regard as a comfort and convenience. Well, reverse the thing and would Mr Richmond say that it would be perfectly just that the minority should insist on Ifaving publichouses in a district which the majority consider to be a discomfort and a moral nuisances. If it be unjust, for a majority to deprive a minority of what they consider a good, is it just that a minority should force upon a majority what they consider to be on evil ? There is at least as much injustice in one case as in the other. For undoubtedly what the one consider a good, the other regards an evil. And the only question is, whose views and convictions are to prevail? — those of the minority or those of the majority? Of the majority certainly, as in all other matters social and political. And this is the principle of the Permissive Bill. Observe; to defend this principle of the Permissive Bill from the charge of unfairness or injustice, it is not necessary to discuss whether public houses ' be or be not an evil. It is enough if the majority think them an evil, and say they don't want them. But if it were necessary to discuss this question as to the influence and effects of public houses in a community, it would be no very difficult matter to show that they are more an evil than a good. No one . can deny that drunkenness is one of the most prevalent vices, and one of the most fruitful sources of misery and crime in . the community. Why it seems almost the. only thing that gives employment to our worthy Resident Magistrate. Were it not for the inebriates, his office would he almost entirely a sinecure. Well, aud are not public houses the main sources and feeders of drunkenness and crime ? But it is said — legislation in this matter is useless ; for you cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament— true you cannot directly ; but you can indirectly. For it is a»well ascertained law that by • increasing the means and occasions of temptation you increase the amount of , drunkenness; whereas by lessening the means and occasions of temptation you lessen the amount of drunkenness. This was well proved and illustiated a few years ago in Liverpool. At that time the majority of the magistrates there were in favor of what was called free trade in public house licenses. Acting on this principle licenses were granted to all applicants against whose character, — or the suitableness of whose premises no charge was proven, — but quite irrespective of ; the wants of the locality ■in which the |Aublic houses were to be established. •There might be a superabundance of such houses already existing in the locality ;, that was nothing, if anyone chose to open another, why shouldn't he? if he applied for a license, he got it. And so public houses and huge gin palaces multiplied all around. You ould stand at a crossing of two streets, and count one 'at every corner ; and every few yards along the sireet you found another, often two facing each other ; in a short time there were up*

wards of two thousand publio houses, and nine hundred beer shops in the town of Liverpool. And what was the result ? what with the increase of public houses, there was a vast and ever-grow-ing increase in drunkenness and crime. Those who had at heart the moral welfare of the community took alarm ; the magistrates were remonstrated with ; but the freetrader said, "The evil will cure itself: public houses— like other things, must be under the law of supply and demand." But the evil did not — and never would cure itself. It only went on growing and growing—increasicg, Instead of the demand limiting the supply* it was found that the unlimited supply increased Hie demand, and increased it to a deplorable extent; S9 that although the public houses were multiplying in every street ; yet they all seemed to be doing a most thriving business— as much as £1500 or £2000 would bo paid simply for the- good will of one; and wealthy individuals would be owners of some twenty or thirty of those houses in different parts of the town. At length the fearful increase of drunlteni ness and crimeas borne witness to by the Resident Magistrate, by the Judge, by | the police and jail authorities, and by the voice of public opinion, convinced the Licensing Magistrates themselves that they were acting on a wrong principle ; and after several meetings at which the whole subject was fully discussed, the magistrates reversed their procedure, and adopted the principle of having regard to the wants of a district and the wishes of the people ere granting a license. And then the number of publichouses decreased, and with a very speedy and manifest decrease in the statistics of drunkenness and crime. It is nonsense, therefore, to talk of not being able to promote sobriety by Acts of Parliament; for you can, by diminishing the means and facilities and temptations to drunkenness. And this would be accomplished by the Permissive Bill, which we have shown is perfectly just in principle, wise in policy, and most beneficial in its tendencies and results. — Communicated..