THE BARE MAJORITY.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1060, 30 June 1910, Page 20

THE BARE MAJORITY.

AFFIRMED AND REPUL i A'x hD in. ONE'.DAY. THE INCONSISTENT ATTITUDE GF / PARTY. The 4 licensing “compact” which-was agreed to in November last by the executive- of'-the New Zealand Alliance o ( n the one hand and the representatives ’ ef- the Trade on the other, and which was subsequently repudiated by a representative conference of the No-License party, has now been accepted in principle by the Dominion Convention of the N.Z. Alliance, but no action is authorised to be taken in the matter. Such, (according to Saturday’s “Dominion”) is the effect of a decision arrived at by the convention while sitting i,n camera on Friday last. The official report is l as follows:-—-After two and a half days’ debate on the proposal to revive the arrangement regarding licensing legislation, which was made with the Government last November, an amendment condemning the combination of the issues of No-Licepse and Dominion Prohibition was rejected by 76 votes to 60. It was then agreed to treat the decision as affirming the compromise, but to proceed no further with the matter, owing to the closeness of the division. * * * ♦ SPECIAL VOTE ON DOMINION PROHIBITION. The following motions are also officially reported:— (1) That we demand a special vote on Dominion Prohibition, with full provision for giving effect thereto if confirmed. (2) That, this special vote be taken bn the day of the next general election. (3) That the question be submitted to the electors on a separate paper of distinctive colour, to be kept and counted separately. (4) That we demand the bare majority and all amendments dealing with the local law affirmed last June. (5) That the executive, in consultation with the Consultative Committee, be empowered to draft a Bill on the above lines, and submit same to Government and to organise the party throughout the Dominion in support of the Bill. “CONSISTENT INCONSISTENCY.” Nothing could, perhaps, better illusl- - the consistent inconsistency of the “No-License” people than the estraordinary volte face disclosed in connection with their action. They decide that they will demand “the bare majority,”' although they have affirmed by 76 votes to 60 the wisdom of the compact agreed to by their party leaders last November. In other words the minority rules the majority, even in the counsels of the Prohibitionists), and the majority, while affirming one principle as desirable, agrees to allow the minority to bind them to another principle which, however, “democratic” it may be deemed, is a distinct menace to the liberty of the subject, not merely upon the one question, which it is claimed 1000 people have the right to decide against 999, but upon matters affecting freedom of thought, speech, belief, custom and religion; for—there should be no mistake made on this point—if a bare majority has the right to say to a bare minority what the latter shall eat and drink, they have an equal right to say what the bare minority shall say and do in every other matter, including the social life of the community. « • « MAJORITY RULE UNJUST. It would not be a difficult matter to show that majority rule is seldom if

ever just. Every liberty, every reform, every substantial advance . made in the condition of society generally, has been won by the . persistent work of minorities. Christendom itself affords the most potent convincing of all illustrations of the truth of such a statement; the records of Liber-alism-supply us with further instances showing that majority rule has not only proved unjust but actually oppressive in its incidence, and in liberty-loving England itself, the rights of minorities have consequently been jealously safeguarded up to the present, although reactionary influences are now at work that may have the effect of subverting that principle. The rule of the bare majority is the Prohibitionists tell us, a sound democratic principle; they have po fault to find with it. Mr- Wesley Spragg, the Revd. Frank Isitt and his brother the Revd. L. M. Isitt, the Revd. J. Dawson, Mr. T. E. Taylor, MP., and other gentlemen,, all belonging, wc believe, to one or the other branches of the Methodist Church, say that the principle is sound and good. “Very well gentleman,” we reply, “the churches to which you belong constitute 10.06 per cent, of the population of this country. The majority is against you; close up your churches, and worship as the majority dictates. Mr. A. S. Adams and other members of the “No-License” party belong to the Baptists, who constitute only 2.00

per cent, of the population. To these gentlemen, we say: “Ninety-eight out of every 100 people in this country decline to join your church; you must give way to them; the majority is against you.” And so with the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholic, and the Episcopali-ans—-u.ll representing minorities of the population —we say the same thing. What a howl of indignation would arise all over the country, were the majorities against these churches to attempt to enforce their will against them! The age is supposed to be a tolerant one; were all the bigoted zealots who beat the big drums of ecclesiastical bigotry and who preach class hatred and destruction, wiped off the face of the globe, it would be. But fanatics abou ( nd in the land, and their manners are as bad as their logic is faulty and their methods tyrannical and unjust. * * * * STILL ILLOGICAL. Another instance of the illogical attitude adopted by the “No-License” people is furnished in the resolution carried at the Conference the following terms:—“That the principle of granting local option to the Maoris having been affirmed again and again in large gatherings of both Maoris

a,nd Europeans, as a measure of justice the Government is . respectfully urged that in' order to give effect to this principle, rolls of Maoris residing in each European electorate be prepared, and that the Maoris so enrolled be entitled to vote on the local option issue only at the same time and with the same machinery as is used for the European vote, and to be reckoned together with that vote.” In view of their former attitude of pronounced hostility to any attempt made to establish licenses in the King Country, we may well ask, should the principle of license be affirmed in the Ki,ng Country, where licensing polls must be introduced if this resolu-' tion receives logical effect, whether the “No-License” advocates will not want to again change their front on the question.