New Zealand Tablet Fiat Justitia.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 14, 2 August 1873, Page 5

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, AUGUST 2, 1873. THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

Sevebax correspondents have written to us in reference to the Permissive Bill, the majority of whom disapprove of our opposition to that measure. It is a comfort, however to have testimony that we do not stand alone. Nearly all those who deprecate our opposition place before us Archbishop Mannings example and authority, as well as the advocacy of the measure by many other great and good' men But this array of authority, though most respectable 1 and deserving of the highest consideration, fails to convince us that we have fallen into any mistake or error off the subject.

Had we never considered the subject, ware we in ignorance about it, this weight of authority WO uld have a power--ful influence with us, and make us most cautious as fo the' giving any opinion. It is not so, however, and we think we see our way so" clearly that, with all due respect we fancy these threat and good men have permitted their hatred of drunkenness and their philanthropy to over-rid© experience. Besides, we are not aware that any one of name advocates the Permissive Bill, except as a tentativemeasure. No one is certain it would attain the proposed' end ; its greatest friends only hope it might. Under such circumstances, we think we are hardly dealt with, to be so sternly called to account for saying what we foel we have good reason for saying on the subject. Our first objection is to the clause giviug the majority power to decide ; and it has been asked, Are you opposed to the popular voice ? Certainly we do not believe ia majorities, particularly in small localities, in which many sinister and unworthy motives can be easily brought to bear upon the question. There is no infallibility in°majorities ; and for' our own part we do not hesitate to say that the last place, generally speaking, to which we should think of looking for either reason or justice, is the majority,On calling to mind what we have read of the history of the World, the" painful and humiliating thought- springs up,, that the greatest tyrannies and injustices on recorefhavo been |he offspring of majorities. And as in former days, so it is' in th-e* present age. It is a majority that is now the tyrant- and persecutor" in Germany, as it Was the majority that enacted the penaV laws in England in the reigns of William 111, Anne, and the G-eurges. It is the majority, both here and in Victoria and elsewhere, that is compelling Catholics to' pay taxes*for the maintenance of systems of education they abhor.. Majorities have no conscience, no slatie, no remorse. lv* majorities, the voice of reason and justice is generally' unable to 1 make itself heard amid the din of passion, pre--judice, bigotry and self-interest, whenever the multitudeis swayed by these passions, and that is not unfrequentlyv So far as we are concerned, we would not commit anything that is dear to us to the keeping of a majority, snd shoul I not of course do anything to compel others to do so. I# will be said, of course, that Licensing Boards are notalt^-

gether free from the influence of the passions enumerated. True ; but it is easy to apply a remedy here, and we have no hesitation in saying that we should infinitely prefer to place our interests in the keeping of educated and intelligent men, though few, to handing them over to the tender mercies of a majority. Who is there that is ignorant how majorities are got up and moved ? and who does not know that, after all, the voice of majorities very frequently resolves itself into the single voice of a charlatan who knows how to manipulate adroitly national idiosyncrasies, religious prejudices, political hatreds, and personal interests ? Our second reason for opposing the Permissive Bill is our conviction that such a law would enormously aggravate the evil all are so anxious to lessen. Society is not reduced to an alternative between the enactment of the Permissive Bill and the present state of things. The law of licensing now in force can be easily amended, and ought to be without delay, so as to give authority to magistrates to diminish the number of public houses, and make such as remain respectable, and to compel these magistrates to use the power confided to them. But if the Permissive Bill become law, what will be the inevitable result ? Its enthusiastic supporters, so numerous and influential, will not permit it to be a dead letter. On the contrary, it may be expected to be enforced in such a high-handed and overbearing way as may naturally be expected from victorious enthusiasts. Public houses will disappear by dozens, and what then ? If at the present moment there are sly-grog houses and private stills, would not their number be vastly increased under a Permissive law ? To deny this is simply to close one's eyes to the teaching of experience, and to put a trust in a human law which is childish. The present order, enormous as are the evils of it, is preferable to the slygrog system, with all its secresy, evasion of law, lying, hypocrisy, underhand work and low debauchery. We can conceive no more efficacious system for rendering a people lawless, demoralised and rebellious. But whilst we say all this, we beg to assure our many correspondents that they cannot be more anxious to destroy the horrid vice of drunkenness thau we are, and that any feasible project with a view to this end will meet with our most hearty support.