MR. GLADSTONE ON PROHIBITION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 280, 5 December 1895, Page 13

MR. GLADSTONE ON PROHIBITION.

Mr. W. E. G-ladstone may be certainly instanced as a man who would speak dispassionately on any abstract subject, and a man also who from his long political service and general knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon people, is particularly qualified to judge the advantages and disadvantages, and the possibilities of success that would attend the introduction of acts or bills making total abstention the law of the land. The question came up in the British House Parliament long before the old warrior had laid aside his armour, and during his regime both he and his government treated the movement with a species of dignified contempt. Since his retirement he has been approached by the temperance leaders in England, and a short time ago wrote a characteristic letter to the National Temperance Congress, held on October 4th last at Chester. Many of the opinions expressed by him have been put forward in similar form by ourselves, and it is pleasing to note that although the venerable old gentleman is rapidly approaching the end of his career, his mind is as clear and his judgment on matters of interest as ready as it was thirty or forty years ago. Speaking broadly and with reference to the promotion of temperance reform, Mr Gladstone appears to admit its advisableness, but when it comes to making men temperate by Act of Parliament, he disagrees with the proposed actions of the extreme prohibitionist party. He says : — “I seem to see pretty clearly certain things about the question but as a whole it baffles me. I do not doubt that local option is in principle sound, but it appears to me that those must be of a very sanguine temperament who believe that it is sufficient to dispose of the entire question.” We have often said that if the majority of the people were in favour of closing up the hotels, we as citizens of a free country would bow to the will of that majority, but we claim and can prove that such a majority does not exist, and that the prohibitionists who are making such a noise in New Zealand are really a distinct minority who wish to pass laws compelling other people to live according to their ideas of prosperity. Again, supposing there was a majority in favour-of Prohibition, the question of compensation comes in. On that point

Mr Gladstone says : “The holder of the license is . . person to whom compensation . • ought to be mentioned ’’ In New Zealand, as we have stated before, the ramifications of the trade are so extensive that fully thirtythree and a third per cent, are either directly or indirectly interested in the liquor traffic; in fact, the question is brought much more forcibly home to us here than in the Old Country . .It would be an act of unparalelled injustice if these people — always supposing that Prohibition were a possible contingency —were to be denied compensation for their actual money loss in addition to the loss of a means of livelihood. With reference to the scheme of limitation, the ex - Premier says : “As regards the scheme of mere limitation by reducing the number of licenses, I confess I have but a poor opinion. To relieve the trade from the discredit which now rests upon it ivould, indeed, he a great object, and an act of justice to all its members'' The sentence above which we have italicised 's the kernel of what has often appeared in the columns of this journal. Purge the trade of its undesirable members, and make it as honourable a vocation to be a publican as to engage in any other branch of business. But this cannot be done by law, or by the Prohibitionists ; it must be done by those engaged in the traffic themselves, and absolute free trade, with strict police supervision and adequate taxation, is the best plan. Mr Gladstone, in speaking of this proposition in his letter, expresses sincere regret that it was not given a fair trial in England, as he thinks it would have been the means of regulating the traffic. Why cannot it be done here ? Prohibition has been virtually defeated in its fir it big battle. Before the foe can attack us again, why not so purify and regulate our ranks that at the next engagement our victory will he for once and all decisive ? _______