PERMISSIVE BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3214, 1 June 1871, Page 2

PERMISSIVE BILL.

TO TUB EDITOK OF THE INDEPENDENT. Sib,— A correspondent of the "Evening Post," signing himself "X.P.," thinks ifc necessary to pub himself in print, to show how little ho knows about the subject he writes on. He takes two points against the bill, and only two. The first is that the proper way to look at the. "übjecfc is to consider what would be the condition of the advocates of the bill if the position of the parties was reversed, and the supporters of publichouses were to insieb that every teetotaller should have 60 many glasses of spirits poured down his throat every day. This sort of argument only shows that the writer totally misunderstands the object of the Permissive Bill. It does not propose to force temperance on any man. It merely proposes to interfere with the licensing of publichouses. At present the supporter of tbe publichouses does force them on the rest of tho community. Through tho licensing system ho can establish on* in the centre of, say, fifty houses, tho owner of every one of which is opposed to it. The Permissive Bill will remove this, and enablethose, who object to^M'chouses to put thorn down. It does not proposo to interfere with any man's private drinking. The answer usually attempted to this is that tho " poor man" can get no drink but at tho public house. To put it down is to interfere with his liberty. But the reply to this is that the Permissive Bill can only bo put in force by tho aid and with the consent of the " poor man" — that he is the very man who goes in for tbe Permissive Bill, and that " X.P." and such like may quit patronising him, and leave him to look out for himself. If tho much patronised " poor man" does'nt wish it, it won't get done. "X.P." further says that no thinking man can believe that the Permissivo Bill will bo effective. Then why are its opponents so frightened at the idea of its being passed? But is this tho opinion of all thinking men ? Let the U.K. Alliance answer. That association numbers over 100,000 subscribing members, among whom aro Sir Chaa. Trevelyan, Sir John Trevelyan, Sir Wilfred Lawson, Jacob Bright, and hundreds of the most thinking men in ; London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh,

Glasgow, and every large city in Great Britain and Ireland. How can " X.P." be so foolish as to 6ay that no thinking man can believe what 100,000 persons, a large number of them the most advanced and thoughtful men in Great Britain, affirm that they do believe. I recommend " X.P.," and all the writers who have yet appeared in the New Zealand press (very few they are) on the public house side, to get some little information on the subject they are writing about, and not deal in arguments which babes can refute, and alleged fact 8 which aro the antipodes of truth. — I am, &C, A Rechabite.