THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3360, 1 December 1871, Page 3

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

[Canterbury Star.] The Permissive Bill, which was brought into the House of Representatives during the last session by Mr Creighton, and which was admitted by the Hon Mr Fox to have been drafted by himself, has been, with many other useful measures, consigned to oblivion for a brief period. The promoters of the movement have, however, no reason to be dissatisfied with the result of their labors. A movement which, apparently feeble at the commencement, gradually gathered in strength until, in a few months, it resulted in petitions bearing twelve thousand signatures being presented to the Legislature in favor of a certain principle— which was affirmed by the bill being read a second time without a single dissentient voice — indicates that not only is the public mind thoroughly awakened to the necessity of the social reform contemplated by the measure in question, but that the principle upon which it is proposed to effect that reform is so equitable aud just that the people's representatives at once recognised its equity and justice by assenting to it. This is a result which the most sanguine promoters of the Permissive Bill movement hardly dared to hope for, and it is one that ought to encourage them, when the proper time arrives, to still greater effort. Probably the bill contained imperfection?, and required considerable modification in some of its provisions, but we believe that the majority of thoso who advocated the introduction of such a measure, and who have earnestly striven in its favor, and will still continue their exertions until it becomes law, will readily assent to any reasonable change in its details, so long as the principle upon which it is founded remains intact. It is true that the interests of a certain class of the community, and that individual interests may to some extent be affected by the operation of such a measure as the Permissive Bill, but it must be borne in mind that when it is shown that the adoption of any particular measure will tend to benefit the community as a whole, individual and class interest must not be allowed to stand in the way of the general good. We huve from time to time replied to various objections which have been raised against the principle of the Permissive Bill, but there is one which has been mooted since the bill introduced by Mr Creighton has been before the public that requires answering. Because that bill contains some clauses of perhaps a highly penal character, it has beeu said that a law which requires such heavy penalitics to ensure obedience must of necessity be bad in principle, bad of itself. Never was there a greater falacy. Law per se is declarative, not penal. In countries where representative government prevails, law is the declaration of the will of the community, the ponality attached to disobedience of the law is the sanction which the community gives to obedienoe to it. It would be perfectly logical to object to the principles upon which a law is based, and to endeavor to prove its badness, but to object to a law because obedience to it is enforced by penal consequence, be those consequences ever so severe, is to object to all law human and divine. The Divine Lawgiver enunciated a law — " Thou shalt not steal." Society has adopted that divine law as the basis of numerous laws for the protection of property, and has endeavored to enforce them by penalties more or less severe. Draco, the law-giver of Athens, punished the slightest theft with death, and there are many now living who can recollect the time when even in England men suffered death for stealing a horse or a sheep. We admit that the penalty was out of all proportion to the offence, but will anyone dare to affirm that the law — " Thou shalt not steal" — was bad because of the severity of the penalty provided to secure obedience ? No one would be mad enough to attempt that. Tested by the logical canon we have stated, what becomes of the objection that the principle of the Permissive Bill must be bad because of the severity of some of the penalties to enforce obedience ? Tt is shattered to pieces. What is the principle upon which the Permisssive Bill is ba-ed ? It may be thus briefly stated — " Popular control over }he issue of licenses for the common sale of intoxicating drinks ;" or, in other words, it proposes to give to the inhabitants, male and female, of certain districts, by a majority of twothirds, the power to say to what extent the liquor traffic shall be carried on within those districts. Can any reasonable objection be made te this ? Every man not blinded by prejudice or selfinterest rnnst admit its equity and justice. Who so competent to judge of the requirements of a district as the residents within that district? This principle has been reeommeckd for adoption in England by the highest legislative body of the Church of England — the Convocation of the province of Canterbury. Tt has been sanctioned by the Wesleyan Conference of Great Britain, and the Australasian Wesleyan Conference at its last meeting passsed a resolution approving of it. This is the principle that the promoters of the" Permissive Bill movement in New Zealand have been striving to get declared the law of the land, aod it is one they will ever agitate until, with God's help, their efforts are crowned with success.