Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 18

The Law and the Liquor Traffic

page break

The Law and the Liquor Traffic

The subject which I am to bring under your notice this evening is one which I am happy to say, is attracting, considerable attention both in the Home country hopeful sign and the friends of Temperance should greatly rejoice in the discussion which are going on in the press and the parliament, and from the platform, for this is a cause which, the more it is discussed, must gain over to its ranks men of influence and of principle, who have the well-being of their fellows and the prosperity of their country at heart. It is now being taken up by the leading statesmen of England heart. It is now being taken up by the leading statesmen of England as a question of the very gravest importance, which the Government cannot longer refuse or delay to deal with, it being pressed upon them not merely by zealous Teetotallers, but by facts to which they cannot shut their eyes in the immense amount of panperism and crime, and stagnation in trade, which are the direct and undeniable result of Intemperance, and under the burden of which the good ship of the State is beginning to roll uneasily, as if over freighted, and in danger of foundering. A very marked change has taken place within the last few years in the tone of public opinion as to the right and propriety, and neccessity of further legislative interference with the liquor traffic, so as if not altogether to prohibit it, yet still to impose much greater restrictions upon it that at present is the case; and I am confident that the more attention our statesmen give to this matter, in the light of the well-being of the State, the more will they be inclined and fell themselves compelled to make use of the strong arm of the law toward suppressing a traffic which has done so much to deluge the land—I might say the world—with papuerism, and blood. It is now only about seventeen years since the first movement was set on foot in Britain to obtain legislative prohibition of the trade in intoxicating drink. At first, the United Kingdom Alliance sought to tread in the foot steps of the Maine-law-leaguers, but finding the there was no hope of succeeding with that programme, they have latterly contented themselves with the more moderate scheme of the Permissive Bill, by which they propose that Parliament should enact that wherever in any parish three-fourths of the ratepayers shall so decide, there there shall be no public-houses allowed. After being sometimes ignominiously kicked out, and at other times politely bowed out of Court the promoters of Temperance legislation have at length secured a patient hearing, and from the Gladstone Ministry, obtained a promise a promise that the subject will receive the earnest consideration of the Government, and a Bill be introduced next session embodying the views of the Government upon the matter; which of course, it is not expected will go the length of the Permissive Bill, but from what has been already said will certainly propose important modification, and much greater restriction on the traffic than at present page 4 exist; and I do not know anything more likely to indues to the triumph of thoroughgoing Temperance legislation than the introduction of a half measure by the Government, as then the thoroughgoing Temperance party will have an opportunity of attacking and exposing the weaknesses of such a course, instead of, as hitherto, being at the disadvantage of having their proposed measures attacked, and the weak points in them exposed. Having at length succeeded in forcing their opponents to fall back from the former do-nothing position, they will have much less difficulty in driving them from any half-way ground they may take up, and urging upon them a complete surrender. In Britain, the evil results of the foolish and suicidal policy which has been so long pursued in regard to this traffic are now become so apparent that it is impossible for even the most prejudiced to shut their eves any longer to these evils and their cause; and the magnitude which they have assumed is now so threatening, that on all hands the necessity of something being done is acknowledged, though, of course, it cannot be expected that all at once those who have so long argued, for what they have magniloquently termed the liberty of the subject, and so forth, in the matter, should come round to the opposite ranks, and go in for wholesale suppression, or even, at first, any very great limitation. In this colony, the same suicidal policy has been pursued, though the evils resulting therefrom have not yet assumed so great a magnitude as in the Home country. Yet still we are beginning to feel pretty smartly the first pinching of the iron shoe, not only in the matter of our prisons and police, and officers of justice generally, but also in our Hospitals, our Lunatic Asylums, our Benevolent Institutions, our Reformatories, and the numerous cases of distress which are ever cropping up and calling for relief. And it is time that the community were rousing to take steps for reducing or uprooting the parent sources of evil and distress which fill to overflowing these public institutions, or soon it will find the burden of results greater than it can bear. Prevention is at all times better than cure; and if it can be shown that the traffic in intoxicating liquors is chargeable with a large proportion of the crime and pauperism, and misery, which abound in the State, it surely becomes the duty of statesmen to consider this matter, and to wield the power of the law to mitigate, if it cannot altogether prevent, these evils, by legislative interference with their cause. It is a fact which is admitted on all hands, that intoxicating drink has, in one way or another, to do with the great proportion of pauperism, destitution, crime, and misery which are to be met with everywhere, and if only we could sweep drink out of existence, one great cause of human misery would be gone, and the sum of man's happiness greatly increased. Not one whit too strongly have the terrible evils produced by intoxicating drink been pictured in the following lines:—

"Oh ! what hath this benighted land
O'erwhelmed as with a flood.
And made this world a golgotha—
A place of skulls and blood?
What hath the scowling gibbet reared
And forged the felon's chain?
'Tis writ in characters of blood,
The cup which drunkards drain,"

One of the most recent and most emphatic testimonies on this point is page 5 borne by Dr. Temple, the lately-appointed Bishop of Exeter, himself not a total abstainer, and therefore it may be presumed free from that exaggeration which is sometimes charged against the statements of zealous abstainers, and by which charge the edge of these statements is adroitly blunted. He says, in the course of his address at the last annual meeting of the United Kingdom Alliance—"I do not think that it can be for one moment denied that there is no other evil at the present moment in this country so deadly in its operation as the drunkenness that prevails amongst us. Even those who altogether oppose all that you are doing and all that I should wish to do, are not prepared to deny what indeed the plainest of all facts, that far the largest part of all the evil from which men suffer now that can be at all prevented by human means comes out of the indulgence of this one fearful sin. I do not think that I am at all overstating when I say that this one cause of unhappiness and crime is equal in its bad effects to all the other causes put together."

The London Times, in commenting upon this speech of Br Temple's, and arguing against the principles and the legislative action proposed by the United Kingdom Alliance, is at the same time forced to make this admission, which may he taken, therefore, as the evidence of another independent, unprejudiced witness; or rather, I should say, of an opponent of the proposed legislative interference with the traffic. It says, in the leading article referred to—

"There can be no question that the abuse of strong drink induces an excitement and disorganisation of the faculties, particularly of the moral qualities, which utterly incapacitate men from the patience and self-denial more necessary among the poor than among any other class. As we read the law reports it is difficult not to conclude that it is the most fertile cause of crimes of violence. If some controlling power could but enforce temperance, not to speak of total abstinence, the wealth and happiness of our people would perhaps be doubled at once." Similar testimony has been borne by many judges from the Bench, of which I will quote a few to show you the perfect unanimity on this point:—(Quoted from pamphlet on "Pauperism and Poor Laws," by Councillor Campbell, of Greenock, 1869). "Sheriff Alison states, "upwards of two-thirds of the whole of the boys in the Glasgow House of Refuge have been precipitated into crime through the habits of intoxication of one or both of their parents." Judge Coleridge states "there is scarcely a crime comes before me that is not directly or indirectly caused by strong drink." Judge Guruey, "every crime has its origin more or less in drunkenness," Judge Alderson, "drunkenness is the most fertile source of crime, and, if it could be removed, the assizes of the country would be rendered mere nullities." Judge Patterson, "If it were not for this drinking you (the jury) and I would have nothing to do." Judge Weightman, "I find in every calender that comes before me one unfalling" source, directly or indirectly, of most of the crimes that are committed-intemperance." Lord Chief Justice Bovil, "I have no hesitation in stating that in the north of England and in most of the large manufacturing and mining districts, intemperance is directly or indirectly the cause of by far the largest proportion of crimes that have come under my observation. The cost to the country for the maintenance of the page 6 prisoners and their families likewise becomes a matter of very serious importance; and, looking also to the wholesale misery that is brought upon the working classes by their indulgence in intoxication, at first unfitting them for their ordinary occupations and then vapidly causing disease and want—too frequently insanity and death—and "bringing distress upon their families ; and considering the amount of pauperism as well as crime which, is thus occasioned, it would seem to ho the imperative duty as well as the interest of the Slate to endeavour to provide some remedy which will check so frightful an evil." That is a pretty formidable array of judicial evidence upon the point of the large connection between crime and intoxicating drink. Now let us listen to the evidence of a few witnessed upon the large connection between pauperism and intoxicating drink. The following testimonies are taken from the appendix to the report on Temperance presented to the Convocation of Canterbury. England, last year, and are the testimonies of governors of workhouses and other officials. One says, "I believe pauperism would be unknown here if it was not for drunkenness, and rates would be lowered. Another says, "This union has to support eighty pauper lunatics at a cost of £20 per annum. About two-thirds of three eases have been traced to drink." Another, "without hesitation I should say that seventy or eighty per cent. of the paupers came to that state through drink." Another, "I have been able to glean from our inmates that about eighty per cent. of them have been the victims of intemperance." Another, "from my own experience in a workhouse of more than thirty veins, I consider that fully one-half of the adult inmates are there from their own intemperate habits, which appears as strong as ever if an opportunity offers One-fourth consists of those connected with the intemperance of others, and one-fourth from other causes." Again, another says "independent of lunatics, I have twenty-nine men in this house, and all, with the exception of three, are thorough drunkards. Of women I have twenty-threee; three of these I may call idiotic, one old woman of good character, the rest drunkards and prostitutes. Three-fourths of the children are left to the care of the union through the drunken and dissolute habits of their parents." And yet another, "from thirty-one years experience in union workhouses, I have observed that a large number of inmates and out-door recipients of relief are chargeable in consequence generally of the intemperance of the head of the family, viz., the father." One quotation more from the Report referred to, it is as follows, "a careful estimation of the mortality occasioned by intemperance in the United Kingdom, including the lives of innocent persons cut short by the drunkenness of others, places the mighty sacrifice at 50,000 persons every year." Do not such statements as these make one's ears tingle and their blood run cold. Has not drink been well styled the great British Juggernaut—a Juggernaut whose bloody festival comes round not once a year merely, but goes on from year's end to year's end, and that under sanction and protection of the law in a so-called Christian land. To the foregoing testimonies I will simply add that of one of Scotland's greatest, divines, and Britain's noblest philanthropists, the late Dr. Chalmers. He says, "the public-house is the most deleterious and by far the most abandant source of pauperism." American statistics are to the same effect as the British, thus I quote from a little tract by Rev. page 7 A. Barnes. He says, "the pauperism and crime of this land grow out of this vice as an overflowing fountain. Three-fourths of the taxes for prisons houses of refuge, and almshouses would be cut off but for this traffic and other attendant vices. Nine-tenths of the crimes of this country and of the expenses of litigation for crime would be prevented by suppressing it. Of 653 who were in the year committed to the House of Correction in Boston, 453 were drunkards, Of 5,000 admitted to the workhouse in Salem. Massachussets 2,900 were brought there directly or indirectly by intemperance. Of 592 male adults in the almshouses in New York, not twenty, Says the Superintendent, can be called sober; and of 601 women not as many as fifty. This is the legitimate regular effect of the business. It tends to poverty, crime, and vice, and greatly to increase the taxes and burdens of the community." Thus testimony upon testimony from every quarter might be heaped together to show the fearful amount of crime, pauperism, and misery, everywhere cause by tins traffic; but I will turn from this point with the following anecdote, which once appeared in the British Workman, and which I am sure tells too true a tale. The writer of it said, "some time ago, when in conversation with an intelligent soldier who had passed many years in India, and who had seen not a few fearful applications of the cat-o'-nine-tails, I enquired, 'How many of these cases of flogging had to do with drink?' The soldier, with a smile, replied," Oh, with every case, sir. I think I never knew a soldier flogged except through drink in Some way or other, or for stealing so as to get drink. Many a time have I had to or other, or for stealing so us to get drink. Many a time have I had to roll barrels of grog up the hill to one of the canteens in India, and it was a common joke to say "Bill, I wonder how many courts-martial there are inside here !"

I have now done with the, proof of my indictment against intoxicating drink as the great producing cause of pauperism and crime and general misery; and, you as the jury, must, I am sure, award me a verdict of 'fully proven." Such, then, being the case, as against intoxicating drinks, and the charge being admitted on all hands, does it not seem of any country taking the most stringent measures for the limitation and even total suppression of the traffic in an article which is the cause of so much misery and brings some, very serious burdens on the state? I quite reciprocate the feeling of astonishment expressed in the following extract from a speech of the late Mr. Wakely, a member of Parliament, and a coroner of a district in England, as also the opinion expressed as to the duty of the Slate to legislate most stringently upon this matter. He said "since I have been corner I have seen so many murders by poison, by drowning, by hanging, by cutting the throat, in consequence of drinking ardent spirits, that I am astonished the legislature does not interfere. The gin-seller should be mad as responsible as the chemist and druggist." The legislature of most if not all countries has admitted and asserted to a certain extent both its right and the necessity for exercising that right, to interface with the sale of intoxicating Liquors, and has so far placed it under restriction that there must be a license obtained by the seller, without which he cannot legally carry on the traffic. This, however, is a very partial restriction, as it is only in exceptional cases that the license is refused. But it is an admission page 8 or at least a usurpation of the right of control, and it may be fairly argued that the position taken up by many against any further or any very stringent restrictions of the traffic should compel them not merely to oppose further restrictions but to seek the repeal of those already in force. Thus, when it is argued in high-sounding phrase, and with great apparent force of reason and patriotism, that for the legislature, to interfere and narrow down and suppress this traffic would be a dangerous infringement of the liberty of the subject; that argument, if it has any force in it at all, should lead those who make use of it to set free the traffic from all restrictions, for the liberty of the subject is already infringed, inasmuch as only certain licensed individuals can carry on the trade, and that only in houses of a certain character and at certain hours. Is that no infringement of the liberty of the subject? But if it is right for the state to infringe so far upon the individual liberty of the subject for the good of the whole state; then clearly it is right for it to interfere still further even to total suppression of the traffic, if the good of the state demanded it. And that a strong Case may be made out on that score we have already shown. The cry against the infringement of the liberty of the subject involved in the legislative suppression of the traffic certainly sounds well, catching readily the ear, swaying the judgment, and exciting the prejudices of many against legislative action in this matter: So you will hear good men sometimes say "we do not care for the traffic, we would be glad if it were done away, but it must be by moral means, for the law to step in and attempt to do so violates the sacred and important principle of the liberty of the subject; for the traffic therefore we do not plead, but because of the principle involved we cannot go in with the legislative restriction or suppression you propose." This, as 1 have said, certainly sounds well, but it is all rhetoric and not reason, concerning which we may quote the lines of the poet

Like quicksilver, the rhetoric they display
Shines as it runs, but grasp'd at, slips away.

The doctrine of the liberty of the subject can surely never be regarded as covering a right to do that which is detrimental to the interests of the state, sapping the foundations of its virtue and stability, and burdening it with an overwhelming weight of crime and pauperism. Is this the sort of liberty which is to be accorded to the subject and with which it is wrong to interfere ? If a subject starts a manufacture in the neighbourhood of a number or even of one of his fellow subjects which involves the destruction of the purity of the atmosphere around, and thereby endangers the health of his fellows or even the health of their plants, the law interferes, and no one-pleads that the liberty of the subject should protect him from being proceeded against as committing a nuisance and being compelled to close his establishment. But here is a traffic which, by overwhelming statistics, is proved to be the greatest nuisance and the most destructive of human life and happiness which is carried on in the whole world, and yet the plea of the liberty of the subject is advanced as shielding it from the interference of the law to put it down. Surely men do not think when they advance such a plea as that to bar stringent legislation in regard to this matter. The liberty of the subject is interfered with in the case of the chemist and druggist, who is placed under the most stringent restrictions as to the sale of page 9 [unclear: arsenic] and other articles of his trade, and to a certain extent made responsible for the results of selling these articles. Even the kerosene oil dealer is placed under stringent restrictions as to the quantity to be kept at any time on his premises, yea, the private citizen dare not keep more than a very limited quantity of that household necessary in his private residence", and is not that an interference with the liberty of the subject? And yet it is acknowledged to be perfectly right and reasonable, because the safety of the community demands it, it being held as an equally sacred doctrine in morals and in legislation as that of the liberty of the subject, that no man has a right to injure or endanger the life or property of his fellows. But is not the life and property of the community at large far more endangered and injured by the traffic in intoxicating drink, and the liberty accorded of opening houses for its sale at every corner, fitted up with every facility and attraction to tempt men to turn aside and drink ? And yet forsooth, it is urged that the sacred liberty of the subject prevents the suppression of this traffic by the strong arm of the law! But let us just listen for a moment to the limping argument on this point advanced by the leading English journal, the London Times, in an article commenting upon the action proposed and advocated by the United Kingdom Alliance in regard to the Permissive Bill, as this, more than anything else, will show the weakness of the plea, and may be taken as a fair specimen of what moulds and guides the opinion of those opposed to legislative suppression. It says, "What the thorough-going Alliance man denounces is the 'legalized system of traffic in intoxicating liquors.' This phrase, we must be permitted to say, is perfectly unmeaning. The law in no way creates the right to sell alcoholic liquors. The right is a natural one, and the law has to show good reasons before it ventures on restraint." Was there ever a more miserable shuffle than this? If the law does not create the right to sell alcoholic liquors, it certainly has claimed and asserted the authority to control the right which the Times says is a natural one, and exercising its control, it says to all, you will not be allowed to exercise your natural right, but you may acquire a legal right by submitting to such conditions as the state imposes. It, therefore, virtually takes from all what is their natural right according to the Times. Why is the Times not up in arms against that infringement of the natural rights and liberties of the subject ? And then it bestows on some parties who comply with its conditions, chief of which is payment of a certain sum of money, a legal right to sell these liquors. No man dare exercise what the Times calls his natural right; he must acquire a legal right, and hence the present system under which the traffic is carried on "is a legalized system of traffic in intoxicating liquors." The phrase is not an unmeaning but a most expressive one, and it is because of its forcibleness that it is so much disliked by the opponents to the legislative suppression of the traffic as at present carried on.

But what does the same writer say a little further on ? "The liberty to buy alcohol is no doubt a liberty to do wrong; but it is in an equal degree a liberty to do right, and it would be impossible to extinguish a legitimate liberty simply because it involves responsibility and dangers." The liberty to buy alcohol, the writer then admits, is a liberty to do wrong, and the only apology in defence he can offer for not at once page 10 calling in the aid of the civil power to prevent men exercising this liberty to do wrong is, that it is equally a liberty to do right. What can be made of such miserable arguing as that ? It surely cannot be a liberty to do right and to do wrong at one and the same time ; and if in any circumstances it is a liberty to do right, surely that can be no reason fin-not restraining and preventing its exercise when it is a liberty to do wrong. It may be a liberty to do right when it is bought under medical prescription and for medicinal purposes; let the law permit that as it permits the buying and selling of arsenic or prussic acid, and such like articles. But when it is a liberty to do wrong—as certainly it is, when the money which should be spent on food or clothes for a hungry wife or family is squandered in that—let the law then step in and say to the seller, You shall not sell in such circumstances; and to the buyer, Yon shall not buy. And does not this involve the wholesale suppression of the present legalised system of traffic in intoxicating liquors? But further, suppose we admit in all the force which he intended it to have, that the right to sell alcoholic liquors is a natural one, then he himself admitted that the law might place restraint upon the exercise of this right, if only it showed good reason for doing it. And are there not 50,000 good reasons fin-doing it in the 50,000 lives annually sacrificed in Britain by drink ? And are there not thousands upon thousands more of good reasons in the thousands upon thousands of pounds of taxation indicted upon the well-doing, by reason of abounding intemperance and its results." And are there not millions of good reasons more, in the myriad inmates of work-houses and asylums, and starving men and women, and desolate, destitute homes throughout the land? And all the result of this exercise of the sacred natural right to sell and buy intoxicating drink which the Times defends. Such a defence is unworthy the columns of the leading English journal, but yet such is the style of writing and argument which moulds, to a large extent public opinion and the opinion of legislators in this mutter. It casts a cloak of patriotism over a most ignoble cause, and some are misled thereby, whilst others gladly hide their real motives under that specious appearance. It was humourously, yet with a telling truthfulness, remarked by Erasmus, to the Elector of Saxony, in regard to Luther—" Luther sinned in two things, because he touched the crown of the Pope and the bellies of the monks," slyly insinuating that the latter was of equal if not of more unpardonable guilt than the other. And so I think we might venture to say that much of this opposition on the part of such writers as those in the Times which I have quoted, and the legislators and public whom they represent, to the measures proposed by total abstainers in regard to the suppression of the liquor traffic, arises from the fact of such measures, sinning in two respects—they touch the liberty of the subject and the bellies of the opposers; which of the two is the most unpardonable sin in the quarter referred to I will leave you to decide. Dr. Temple, in the address from which I have already quoted, turns aside the plea of the liberty of the subject in another way, which his Times reviewer, however, when again advancing that plea, and founding upon it his opposition to the legislative restriction proposed by the Alliance, takes no notice of. He says—"I am only putting it for the sake of argument; but let it be granted that it would be something quite wrong altogether to stop the traffic in liquor; let it be granted that page 11 liberty is of so much importance that we cannot sacrifice even such a liberty us this, although it is so plainly a liberty to do wrong; let it be granted that even to the last we must not so far interfere with our fellow-subjects as to say that there shall be a hindrance upon any man obtaining that wherewith he may ruin body and soul—still even those who may claim this cannot deny that at present it is not a question merely of suppressing the traffic in liquor. It is the question whether or not we shall make some determined and united effort to remove out of the way of the working classes a temptation which seems to pursue them through their lives, and from which it is almost impossible for them to escape. If it be held that still there ought to be the means of obtaining intoxicating liquors if a man chooses to get them, it does not follow from that that he should always have that temptation, as it were, thrust in his very face. It does not follow that he shall hardly be able to go to his work, or to come back from his work without finding the public-house inviting him to his own mischief. It does not follow that he should find that, go where he will, he cannot escape from the allurement, and, at any rate, we ought, if we can do no more, very largely to diminish the number of public-houses and beer-shops in this country, until it may be fairly said, in answer to our efforts, that the number is so few that the temptation is gone." With this view of the matter, and its disarming of his grand plea of the liberty of the subject, the Times reviewer does not venture to deal, doubtless feeling that discretion is the better part of valour, and that, therefore, his best course is to shut his eyes and leave its argument alone.

But there is another general high-sounding argument, if argument it can be called, which is frequently advanced by the opponents of legislative suppression of the present system of public-house liquor traffic, and I deal with it the more because it is a stock argument with many against all restrictive legislation which bears on certain questions of public morality. It is to the effect that" you can never make men moral by Act of Parliament." Now that is a truism which all must admit, but still it is possible, and it is right as well as possible to protect morality by Acts of Parliament and to prevent the open practice of immorality. Indeed, what is the object of a great portion of existing Acts of Parliament if it is not that? And this is what we ask the legislature to do, by its strong arm to prevent and to suppress open immorality, to remove the causes of and the temptations to public immorality which everywhere abound ; to say, "we will not give our sanction to but on the opposite we will use our power and authority against a traffic which is deluging the land with immorality and so weakening and burdening the state." We do not expect an Act of Parliament to change the hearts and dispositions of men and make them moral in that sense, but it certainly can control their public acts, and can prevent to a great extent their indulgence in immorality, by removing the opportunities of indulgence. And is not the individual man and the community as a whole benefitted thereby ? But because, forsooth, you cannot by Acts of Parliament, make men moral in the sense of changing their nature or hearts, is that any reason why what can be done by an Act of Parliament in the direction of controlling their conduct and preventing them being immoral in that or page 12 demoralizing others thereby, should not be done? But this is just another example of the plausible sophistries which so often mould and sway public opinion and state legislature.

But again there are some who are opposed to any stringent legislation in this matter on the ground that it will accomplish comparatively little good in the way of putting a stop to intemperance and its evils. ' They say if you restrict the number of public-houses you will not diminish drinking but only increase the gains of those houses you leave, or if you suppress public-houses altogether, then you will just have as many shebeens and sly grog shops springing up all over the country. Now, perhaps my individual opinion would be considered little worth on the question of the amount of good which might be done by further legislative interference with this traffic, and I will therefore; quote to you the, opinion of one who is ever listened to with respect on questions of this nature. Mr. D. Hill, the late Recorder of Birmingham, being asked to give his evidence last year before the Committee of Parliament on the Sunday Liquors Bill, and not being able to attend personally, sent a letter to Sir James Ferguson, Chairman of the Committee, from which I quote the following. He says, "It was not until after many years of observation and thought on the subject that my mind was brought to the belief that any good could be effected by the interposition of the law to which I have ever felt great reluctance to resort without the pressure of overwhelming necessity. But having spent much time for more than forty years of my life in criminal courts, partly as counsel and partly as a judicial officer, sad experience has forced upon me the conviction that drinking habits are by far the most fertile causes of crime ; and that when the best law that can be passed has done its utmost much will remain to be effected by moral influences. Yet I have arrived at a very decided opinion that the arm of the law will be found much more efficient than I bad in my earlier years believed possible. I am under the deep impression that restriction has done good service, and that it has not yet been carried to the limit, at which its action ceases to be beneficial to the community. I have sedulously watched the progress of public opinion on this momentous subject both abroad and at home, and I am persuaded that an amount of restriction which would have incited some years ago an opposition so strong as to paralyse the operation of any statute in which it was incorporated would now be received as a boon by the majority of the nation." That is the matured opinion of one well capable of giving a sound opinion and well-entitled to express it. He distinctly says that the arm of the law may be wielded to great advantage and to the accomplishment of much good by placing much greater restrictions on the liquor traffic than at present exist. In the close of the extract from his letter winch I have given above, he refers to a point of some importance in legislation, viz., that the measure of success which will attend any enactment, however beneficial it may be in itself, is greatly dependent on the state of public opinion generally. And so he says, a measure of restriction which a few years ago it would have been useless to enact so far as any beneficial results are concerned, may now be enacted and carried into effect. It is of the utmost importance", therefore, that along with appeals to the Legislature for the putting forth of its authority, the public mind should page 13 be enlightened and educated upon the subject, and therefore as friends of the cause we must get up and keep up a Temperance Agitation as well as a cry for Temperance Legislation. And I rejoice greatly that the Temperance movement is taking such a firm and general hold upon the community throughout our province. Dunedin, I am sorry to say, which ought to be foremost, shows the greatest apathy in the matter, if not absolute hostility. But soon, I trust, this reproach will be wiped away, and we, poor benighted dwellers in the country, "country clods" as you city people often complimentarily style us, and more frequently regard us, who have hitherto been plodding away in our own Scotch navigation style of doing things, will have the benefit of your superior enlightenment and wisdom, as well as influence and example to guide and stimulate us in this movement; for, of course, rustics naturally and necessarily look up to dwellers in the city with all-becoming reverence as clods to crows. But, lest you should begin to think that our late floods had left us more chaff than corn to dispose of when we come to your market, I had better return to the point of my subject from which I drifted, viz., the good that is to he done by restrictive legislation of the liquor traffic. I have already cited the opinion of one in every way entitled to a respectful hearing, now let me cite the experience of the magistrates and police of Liverpool. At one time, the Justices there took up the opinion that the number of public houses had nothing to do with the extent of intemperance and its evils, and that there would be just as much drunkenness though the opportunities and facilities of obtaining drink were greatly lessened. Accordingly, they for awhile licensed almost every one who applied, and in this way public-houses became greatly multiplied. But they soon found to their sorrow and cost that just as the public-houses increased so did the public intemperance and its evils, and they were glad to revert to the old plan of requiring some sort of a plausible case to be made out before a license would be granted, and just as the public-houses diminished so again did the intemperance. It is strange that this point should ever be disputed, that along with increased facilities for obtaining drink intemperance and its consequent evils are sure to increase. But it has been disputed, and some here may still have doubts upon it. I will, therefore, cite a few testimonies of Police Superintendents and others, extracted from the return already referred to, as printed in the appendix to the last Temperance Report submitted to the Convocation of Canterbury, England. The testimonies given there, I may state, on the various points, are very numerous, so that they present a wide field of induction. One says "intemperance has increased here with the number of beer-shops. The increase is owing in this parish to the fact of one public-house and two beershops having been opened since 1854." Another says, "Intemperance had considerably decreased until the opening of three new public-houses." Another says, "Undoubtedly the spread of intemperance increases with the number of public-houses or drinking-shops which points necessarily to some very severe examination as to the wants of the neighbourhood requiring it before a public-house or drinking-shop is licensed." And again, another says, "I enclose a return from which it will be seen that there is least crime in the parishes in which public-houses are fewest." The return referred to was drawn page 14 up in 1842 by the Inspector-General of Police for the central division of England including 25 counties, and from it I just cite the two following particulars, viz., "Where the number of public-houses or beershops was under 6 to the 1,000 of population, the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness was at the rate of 2.73 per 1,000 ; and just as the ratio of public houses increased so did the ratio of drunken persons, until at the ratio of 12 and under 14 public-houses to the 1,000 of population—about the ratio of Otago—the ratio of drunken persons was 12.61 to the 1,000 of population." Thus the difference shown by these carefully compiled statistics is that when the public-houses were double in number to what they were in other places to the proportion of population, the drunkenness was not simply twice as great but nearly six times greater. A most appalling proof that just as facilities for drinking are multiplied so intemperance and its consequent train of evils increase with fearful rapidity. And yet some of our statesmen (?) will argue that the number of public-houses has nothing to do with the amount of drunkenness, and that as the revenue is benefitted by the increase of licensed houses, then let all who will thus contribute to the revenue do so. With this question of revenue I will afterwards deal, but meanwhile I stick to the first point of their argument, that drunkenness does not increase with the number of public-houses and consequent facilities for obtaining drink. The returns quoted above prove that so far as England is concerned.

Now, let me quote to you a sad confirmation of this fact from the history of another country. Sir Archibald Alison, in his history of Europe, says of Sweden, "Brave, kind-hearted, and hospitable, sincere in their devotion, enlightened when duly instructed in their intellect, gentle in their dispositions, the Swedish peasantry exhibit as fine a specimen of rural civilization as is to be met with in the whole domain of the family of Japhet. But one fatal indulgence has well-nigh obliterated all these advantages and let in upon this simple kind-hearted people the whole catalogue of human sins. Drinking is universal. The liberty of distilling in every house on paying a trilling duty to Government for the right to use a still has from time immemorial been established among the whole peasantry of the country. The consequences of this calamitous facility in producing and obtaining spirituous liquors have been to the last degree disastrous. Notwithstanding the small number of manufactures which are established in the country, the general simplicity of rural life, the absence of great towns, and the moderate size of its capital (which contains only 80,000 inhabitants), the average amount of crime over all Sweden equals that of the most depraved cities of Great Britain." Facts and testimonies like these should surely open the eyes of our legislators to the fact that increased facilities for drinking necessarily and inevitably increase drunkenness and its constant attendants, crimes and pauperism ; and if they would successfully deal with these evils they must go to their root and legislate for the restriction and suppression of the liquor traffic. But it is amazing what a morbid dread and dislike to this legislative restriction or suppression of the traffic haunts the public mind and finds expression in high quarters and leading journals in the most Utopian and Quixotic suggestion of other means of combatting the giant evil. One of the most curious developments of this dislike which page 15 I have met with appeared in October last, in an article in the Pall Mall Gazette, a paper which now ranks as one of the leading London journals. The writer of the article admitted that things had come to such a pass in Britain that something must he done, and argued in favour of such a change in the licensing system as would place it more directly under the control of the ratepayers of each district, though he did not give his support to the Permissive Bill and its proposals. His plan would be to take the licensing out of the hands of the justices and place it in a board elected by the ratepayers "representing their knowledge as well as their ideas." Not a bad 'idea that as an improvement upon the present system, and which I am sure would come pretty near if not altogether in many instances virtually to legislative suppression of the traffic. But he goes on to put forth "this bright idea, which I am sure you will all say he deserves special credit for, viz., (I quote his words,) "These local authorities would feel their way and gradually acquire a large amount of practical understanding of the subject and its difficulties which would direct us in any further legislation. It is possible that under their guidance we might even be able to enlist the public-house keepers themselves in the number of those who would discourage rather than encourage the consumption of drink." This is certainly a brilliant idea, and would be a wonderful feat something like enlisting the cat to teach the mice to keep out of its way, or training the spider to drive away the silly Hies that would come too near his entangling web, until we should have to change the old nursery and school rhyme, and make it run something in this style,

O do not, walk into my parlour said the spider to the fly,
For though 'tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy,
Yet still it is a wicked parlor you had better not come nigh,
For if once you come within its walls you are pretty sure to die;
Therefore take the warning of its keeper, you silly little fly,
And never come within my house, nor that of any such as I.

The change thus produced would be a very emphatic illustration of the lion changed into a lamb. But let me go on to read to you the writer's account of the source whence he gets the inspiration for this bright idea of enlisting public-house keepers themselves in the great cause of discouraging drinking. He says "An association in Sweden has been formed with the object of supplying liquor to the public without profit to the retailers, and under this system it is obvious that the retailers, being mere servants, have no interest in forcing the sale." But after being indebted to these patriotic Swedes for his grand notion of converting public-house keepers into the friends, conservators and promoters of temperance, he is ungenerous enough to turn round and add, "We mention this, not to recommend the idea." yet he has an important use for it against legislative restriction, viz., (I still quote his words) "to illustrate how many ways then: are in which the mischief may be combatted." Is it not pitiable to see such an important question as this discussed in such a limping way by leading organs of British public opinion? But "facts are chiels that winna ding," and what fine spun theories and objections can stand for one moment the blow of facts wielded after the following fashion. "If we can enforce restrictions," says a certain Tom Brown, not of Oxford, but of Montreal, "if we can page 16 enforce restrictions in the freedom of trade in gunpowder which has only killed one man in Montreal in 30 years, may We not impose restrictions on the trade in alcohol which is killing its dozens every week." But I have more facts to prove to you the benefit of restrictive legislation on this matter. In the reign of George II., in the year 1758, a petition was presented to the House of Commons, signed by the mayor, magistrates, merchants, and inhabitants of Liverpool, complaining of the high price of wheat, and praying in consequence that among other measures the distillation of spirits might be totally prohibited. This met with the favourable consideration of the Commons and a Bill was accordingly enacted prohibiting distillation for that year. Next session petitions were presented from the cities of Liverpool, Bath, Bristol, and New Sarum, representing that "since the laws prohibiting distillation had been enacted the people had appeared more sober, healthy, and industrious, that evil consequences would be sure to flow from a repeal of these laws," and therefore praying for their continuance. The London distillers, of course, raised a loud remonstrance against this interference with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of trade, and proclaimed the benefits of a "wee drappy" to preserve field labourers from agues and other distempers when working in the cold and in wet and marshy places, and all the other manifold blessings conferred on humanity by a temperate use of malt liquors, whilst the loss of revenue and all other evils attendant upon restriction were as loudly proclaimed. But notwithstanding of their fierce opposition to the measure it was continued in force another year. And in regard to the beneficial results to the nation of this continued prohibition of distillation, the historian Smollett, after giving a very full and complete summary of the arguments on both sides, adds, "After all, it must he owned that the good and salutary effects of the prohibition were visible in every part of the kingdom, and no evil consequence ensued except a diminution of the revenue in this article; a consideration (as he wisely adds) a consideration which at all times ought to be sacrificed to the health and morals of the people." In the following session the subject of course came up for discussion and many petitions were presented on both sides. A committee was appointed to investigate the matter and notwithstanding that one of their four resolutions declared "That the present high price of spirituous liquors is a principal cause of the diminution in the home consumption, and hath greatly contributed to the health, sobriety and industry of the common people;" yet evidently looking to and being swayed by the consideration of revenue, recommended that distillation be allowed, but only that a large additional duty should be laid upon all spirituous liquors. When the recommendations of the Committee came before the House several petitions were again sent up against any relaxation of the law, prohibiting distillation, all taking the broad ground of the public weal. Notable amongst these was that from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, which set forth that the petitioners "had with great pleasure observed the happy consequences produced upon the morals, behaviour, industry, and health of the lower class of people since the prohibition of the malt distilling, that observing a bill was brought in to allow the distilling of spirits from corn they were apprehensive that the encouragement given to the distillers thereof page 17 would prove detrimental to the commercial interests of the nation ; they expressed their fears that should such a Bill pass into a law the excessive use of spirituous liquors would not only debilitate and enervate the labourers, manufacturers, sailors, soldiers, and all the lower class of people, and thereby extinguish industry, and that remarkable intrepidity which had lately so eminently appeared in the British nation, which must always depend upon the vigour and industry of its people; but also its liberty and happiness, which cannot be supported without temperance and morality, would run the utmost risk of being destroyed." This remonstrance, so noble and so forcible, was corroborated by another to the same purpose from several merchants, manufacturers, and traders in and near the City of London. And happy would it have been for Britain if it had been listened to, but the bands were relaxed a little, and ever since the traffic has been gradually extending and extending, and at the same time doing its deadly work, till now in the course of a century, the evils feared by these wise magistrates and councillors of London have become so terrific and so rampant that the strong arm of the law must he raised to strike a blow at their cause, hut alas the arm is raised somewhat tremblingly and falteringly, and amid a loud wail and cry from multitudes who surely know not what they do. "Strike softly, smite, but do not kill, curb but do not bind." Let all who love their fellows and their land raise loud the country cry and urge our statesmen to an unsparing and decisive blow. And happy will it be for the nation when the counsels of 1758 and 1759 are gone back upon, and the law declare there shall no longer be any league of friendship or toleration between it and the liquor traffic. I will, therefore, trouble you to listen to a little more evidence upon the beneficial results of suppression of the public-house system, in order, if possible, to enlist you all on the side of this consummation so devoutly to be wished for. According to a statement made within a year or two ago—the exact date I cannot just give—in the Edinburgh Town Council, by one of its members, there were at that time 3-4 parishes of Scotland where there were no public-houses, and in these parishes there was not a penny of poor rates. In some parishes where twenty years before there was no public-houses, the poor rates, now that public-houses were introduced, had increased from 10d. to 2s. in the £. From such facts can be gathered the easing of public burdens which would result from the limitation, or better still, the total suppression of the liquor traffic. But still, further, I will ask you now to visit two towns, one in Ireland and one in England, where there are no public-houses and note the result. Near Newry, in old Ireland, there has sprung up the town of Bessbrook, around large mills erected there by a Mr. Richardson, a quaker. In these mills there are now about 3,000 hands employed, and most of these live in the town of Bessbrook. The founder and proprietor has not permitted a public-house to be opened, and the consequence is that not a single policeman is needed to keep the peace. The Bobby is an unknown animal in Bessbrook, whereas in every other Irish town half-a-dosen at least of these conservators of the peace are required to check those strange exhibitions of affection when "friend meets friend and for love knocks him down with his sprig of shillelagh and shamrock so green ;" and should some unlucky page 18 specimen of that peculiar biped (Policemen X) stray into Bessbrook, I fear he would run a bad chance of being captured and put in a glass case and consigned to the museum. And should all towns become Bessbrooks in respect of having no public-house, I fear poor Bobby's bones would become as precious as those of the moa for museum specimens of an extinct race. Another individual unknown in Bessbrook, is "my uncle of the three golden balls." His benevolent services, always so accommodatingly rendered to the poor and needy, being found altogether unnecessary. Just as a reclaimed drunkard in Kent once said to an acquaintance, "You complain of my taking the pledge! Strong drink occasioned me to have more to do with pledging than over teetotalism had. When I was a consumer of strong drink I pledged my coat, I pledged my bed, I pledged in short everything that was pledgable, and was losing every hope and blessing, when a temperance friend met me, and convinced me of my folly. Then I pledged myself, and by so doing soon got my other things out of pledge, and got more than my former property about me." And thus it is that sobriety, good order, and comfort reign in Bessbrook; but how long will it be so if even one public-house was admitted, let alone the usual number of 6 or 8 to the 1,000 of population, or about a score or two dozen to Bessbrook.

The other town I wish you to visit is that of Saltaire in England, also a manufacturing town of about 3,000 inhabitants. It owes its origin to the same cause as Bessbrook. A wealthy manufacturer, Titus Salt, Esq., first built large mills there, and then grouped around them houses for the operatives. In the town thus erected no public-house is permitted, and I will just quote Dr. Blakie's description of it. "Saltaire, I need hardly say, is free from all traces of the filth and darkness, and squalid misery so common in manufacturing towns and districts. From the surgeon I learned that the infant mortality, which in Bradford is frightfully high, is not nearly so great. Crimes of all kinds is extremely rare, and there are hardly any illegitimate births. The absence of all temptation to drunkenness has much to do with this. If the gin palace were to be seen at every corner, the houses would not present that appearance of comfort and even elegance which so strikes a stranger." Such examples as these, are just specimens of what every town and community would become if the public-houses were banished from them, and is it not a consummation most devoutly to be wished.

But as I wish to anticipate and dispel the main objections which may be urged against reducing or suppressing regularly licensed public-houses, I must now deal with the assertion, that if you reduce licensed houses you will only increase the number of unlicensed ones, and thus in curing one evil you will only create another and a greater. That assumes that the unlicensed or sly-grog selling, shebeen-keeping as it was called in Scotland, cannot also be put down by the strong arm of the law. Now, there is one most obvious way to stop both evils, viz, cut off the supplies, by doing as was done in 1758, prohibiting distillation and importation. But apart from that, sly grog selling can easily be put down if there is a harmonious desire to do so upon the part of the authorities. The mischief has always been that either the police were remiss in taking up the matter, or the bench, animated by a most re- page 19 markable zeal, I am sorry I cannot say always a most praiseworthy one, to do nothing beyond the strict letter of the law, have demanded the nicest and most exact legal proof before they would convict, and the consequence has been, that aided by crafty lawyers, flaws and deficiencies of the most microscopic kind in the proof have been detected, and on the most trumpery quibbles, parties of whose guilt there could be no possible doubt in the mind of any man out of Bedlam, have been allowed to go Scot free and break the law with impunity, and thus a premium has been given by the Bench to law-breakers, and an inducement to Others to do the same.

Thus I remember a case where the evidence for the prosecution was broken down ill somewhat of this way: Lawyer to witness, "You swear that you saw a glass, with liquor, handed by the defendant, to another party, and money handed back in return ?" Witness : "I do." Lawyer: "But, come, now, Mr. Cute, how do you know it was spirituous liquor ?" Witness: "I saw it." Lawyer: "O! you only saw it: but are there not a great many other liquors besides spirituous liquors put into glasses; and will you swear that it was not one of these." Witness: "I am sure it was not any of these." Lawyer: "It is all very well for you to believe and say that; but what evidence can you give of it. Did you taste the liquor?" Witness : "I did not." Lawyer: "Did you smell it then ?" Witness : "No, I was not near enough for that." The lawyer then, with an air of triumph, as if ho bad succeeded in rescuing an innocent man from a diabolic plot to injure his character and property, turns to the judge with the most impudent effrontery, saying, "You sec, my bird, this witness's evidence has thoroughly broken down; he cannot swear but what it might have been a glass of bitters or some other tonic or unspirituous beverage which the defendant gave, and, on such evidence as that, I confidently appeal to you for a verdict in favour of my client." The judge, looking very wise, and, as if actuated with the most conscientious and praiseworthy desire to be just, says, "I agree with you, Mr. Quibble, the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a legal conviction. The defendant must be acquitted." This is just a specimen of how magistrates strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. But it must be said for many of them that I believe they feel that they would not be supported by public opinion if they were to convict without the most exact legal proof, and therefore they give a great deal more weight to these obvious quibbles than they would otherwise do; and so, in reality, it is the public and not the magistrates that are most to blame. Let public opinion he brought to bear on the bench, and you will soon find magistrates giving decisions of a very different kind, and convicting upon sufficient circumstantial evidence. As a further illustration of the kind of interpretation which is sometimes put upon the wording of the law in regard to unlicensed selling of drink, I will just refer to another case which occurred within the limits of the Province of Otago. The charge was having liquor exposed for sale in an ordinary store. Decision, of course, tinned upon what is meant by the word exposed. The magistrate held that, to be exposed for sale it was necessary that the bottles be visible, or in a position in the store where they could at once be seen by a person entering the premises to buy goods; and, because this was not the case, page 20 though the policeman swore he could see the heads of two bottles, the charge was dismissed. Now, though this has at first sight an appearance of fairness, yet, just apply it to other tilings in the store. The sugar is in bags below the counter, or, as in many retail shops, in closed drawers in the counter. It cannot be seen on entering the store, is it not therefore exposed for sale? Then there are frequently a range of drawers on the wall in which packets of maizena, black-lead, mustard, pepper, Starch, &c., are stored away ; these articles cannot be seen, but are they therefore not exposed for sale in that place of business ? If such is to be held as the meaning of this word in the Act, then all that any storekeeper wishing to evade the law has to do is, to put up a simple screen of cloth or of board in front of one of his shelves, and behind that he may have a hundred bottles if he pleases, but they are not exposed for sale ; he can even leave the capsule-covered head and neck of two gentlemen peeping out behind their screens to advertise the presence of a strong reserve, but that is not exposing them for sale! I have referred to this case as one in point to show that a common sense and somewhat liberal, not merely literal, interpretation must be put upon the Acts of the Legislature, which aim at the detection and putting down of this pernicious evil, or else it will never be done. No law can possibly be framed but what such evasions of it may be discovered. The administrators of our laws must therefore co-operate with the makers of our laws, and, without the slightest risk of ever doing an injustice to an innocent person, they can together easily enough put down this sly grog selling. Other forms of crime can be put down, and why not this?

But I am glad to be able to put a most important witness into the box on this point, whose evidence is thoroughly reliable, and of great value. I refer to Captain Smart, Superintendent of the Glasgow Police. In one of his reports, he says—"The traffic in spirits, in shebeens, or unlicensed premises, was nearly put an end to by the vigorous application of Forbes Mackenzie's Act. This satisfactory result was brought about by the magistrates, under the advice of the Town Clerk, having convicted on circumstantial evidence, instead of, as formerly, making it imperative on the prosecutor to prove a sale in each case." Now, if that could be done in a place like Glasgow, where might it not be done ? A few effective police detectives told off to that particular business, backed by the Bench convicting on good circumstantial evidence, would soon stamp out this illicit traffic, or reduce it to very narrow limits indeed. To show still further the power of the magistrates, and the influence of their action in carrying out or in defeating any legislation, however strict, and however beneficial, I will just quote to you a short paragraph from the Report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1859, to enquire into the working of the Forbes Mackenzies Act in Scotland. They say—"The beneficial effect of this Act is proved by the evidence which we received as to the diminution of crime, and the change for the better in the habits of the people immediately after the passing of this Act, when its provisions were strictly enforced, and by the tendency in an opposite direction which in some places has followed its less rigorous enforcement during the last two years. In some towns there has been, on the part of the magistrates, great remissness in administering the law. The result seems to have been, if not an increase of crime in these places, at least the absence of the improve- page 21 ment witnessed elsewhere." The foregoing extract points out very strongly that a great deal of the success of any legislative measures passed with a view to the restriction or suppression of the many evils connected with the liquor traffic depends upon the manner in which they are administered by the magistrates, or others upon whom the administration devolves. The object and intention of the very best, framed law may he utterly defeated by a hostile, or careless and unfriendly administration, whilst a comparatively bad law may be often worked or administered so as to do a great amount of good. I have no fear, therefore, but that with a harmonious desire on the part of the Legislature, and those to whom they must entrust the administration of their laws, sly-grog-selling and shebeen-keeping may be easily and promptly put down, so that the bugbear of its increase, as an argument against the restriction or suppression of duly licensed houses, has no force at all. If it is an evil which will certainly arise out of the restriction of the number of licensed houses, it is an evil which can be met and cured by the strong arm of the law. But it is rather a strange mode of argument, to plead for the continuance of one evil, lest its cure should produce another, when both may be cured, and the body politic invigorated in health and strength by the eradication of both.

I come now to deal with the last point, which weighs more strongly, perhaps, with legislators than any other, viz., the question of revenue. Indeed, I saw it stated lately in an article in an Auckland paper that, "that is the nut which teetotallers have to crack." Well, then, let us put our teeth on it, and see how much force there is in any objection on this score. The revenue, which the state derives from the duty upon spirituous liquors, and the license for selling them, is very great, and it is urged that the necessities of the state require all the money which can be raised, and that one of the fairest and best ways in which the public purse can be replenished, is by taxation upon articles of luxury or mere indulgence, such as spirituous liquors. Then, it is added, if you restrict the trade in these liquors or suppress it altogether, to a proportionate extent the revenue will suffer, and how is the deficit to be made up? First of all I would premise that it is surely unsound in principle, as it must be pernicious in practice, to let a mere money consideration weigh as against the far higher moral and social interests and well-being of the community. If the restriction and suppression of this traffic is to benefit the public health and morals so largely as it has been shown it would do, then, supposing there should be a loss to the public purse, surely that should never weigh against the oilier higher consideration. But I boldly assert that the revenue would not ultimately suffer in reality but only in appearance. The public revenue might certainly, for a time, be greatly reduced, but then, would not the public expenditure be also greatly reduced? Most certainly it would. I have already proved to you the large connection between the liquor traffic and pauperism and crime. These two evils, pauperism and crime, are anion" the greatest burdens upon a state and causes of its greatest expenditure', costing us in Otago something like £50,000 per annum out of the public treasury. If, therefore, you remove the producing cause of these, and so reduce the expenditure of the slate on account thereof, the state is no loser, though deprived of that part of its revenue which is at present derived from the great cause of its expenditure. If you reduce revenue page 22 and expenditure together, and by the one Act, then there is no actual loss. But it must be taken into account that along with the very great reduction in the expenditure of the State by suppression of the Liquor Traffic, there would be a large amount of money left in the hands of the people, which is now squandered in drink, amounting, for example, in Otago alone to something like £300,000 per annum, and in Britain to the enormous sum of about 100 millions, and which would be invested in industries and expended in works of permanent advantage to the state, which would in a variety of ways tend to increase its revenue in other directions. And thus the state would really be in a very short time, the gainer in respect of revenue by the suppression of this traffic.

Take for instance the gain to the public revenue of our province from the liquor traffic at something like. £60.000 per annum. If the traffic was suppressed then of course that amount would be lost to the public treasury. But then a considerable part of the expenditure of £50,000, caused by crime and pauperism, would be cut off also; and, without question, a large portion of the £300,000 now squandered in drink, would be invested in purchase of land, and thus increase largely the revenue flowing into the public treasury from that source. Of course the gain in these respects would not be to the full extent all at once evident immediately upon the suppression of the traffic, as we have an inheritance of pauperism and crime from the past, which could not at once be thrown off, but which must remain for years a serious burden. To illustrate and enforce still further this part of my argument as to the stimulus which the suppression of the liquor traffic would give to other useful industries, the extension and improvement in which would again tend to replenish the public revenue, let me cite to you the following statement made in a pamphlet, published last year in England, entitled "An inquiry into the causes of the long continued depression in the cotton trade, by a Cotton Manufacturer." He shows that the trade with other countries has not fallen off, and that the depression is not the result of free trade, but, that the decline in the consumption of cotton is entirely at home and nowhere else, from this he argues as follows: "A moment's reflection will make it, char to the thoughtful mind that the reduced home demand for cotton goods must arise from one or two causes—either we, as a nation, spend our money on other things, or we are become poorer and have not the money to spend. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet a great portion of our population are in rags. Why is this ? Is it because they get insufficient wages and are therefore poor? No: it is because they squander their earnings in intoxicating drinks. Let us look how far this assertion is borne out by facts. During the years 1859-60-61, the money spent upon intoxicating drinks in the United Kingdom was as follows: 1859, £86,686,366; 1860, £79,541,290 ; 1861, £85,989,468. Total, £252,117,124. For the three years ending with l868, the expenditure upon intoxicating drinks in the United Kingdom was as follows: 1806, £101,252,551; 1867, £99,900,502; 1868, £102886,280. Total, £304,039,333. Being an increase on the former period of £51,822,209, or £17,274,069 per annum. Here is an a to tiding fact; in three years we spend on intoxicating drinks, £304,039,333, and yet upon cotton goods, our staple production, we spend only £28,858,000. Taking the population of the United page 23 Kingdom at thirty millions, it gives for each man, woman, and child for the three years, £10 2s. 6d. for drink, and 19s. 6d. for cotton goods. Or, taking the year 1868, we get £3 8s. 7¾. per head for drink, and 4s. 7¼d. for cotton. Taking a family of live persons, we have £1 3s. 0¼d spent on cotton, and £17 3s. 2¾, on intoxicating liquor. Here is the great secret of our present bad trade ; people cannot pour the money down their throats and put it on their backs at the same time ; and so long as we spend seventeen times as much on drink as we do on cotton goods we can never long together have anything but stagnation in trade . . . . . . The remedy, then, for our bad trade lies entirely with ourselves. If we think we can continue to squander one hundred millions yearly on drink, and by the spending thereof, increase very materially our local taxation and sap the foundations of industry, virtue, and morality, we shall be greatly mistaken. We may have an abundant and profitable trade; we may have a contented, virtuous, and happy people; but, if we are ever to secure this, we must we must remove the temptations to intemperance which are planted broadcast over the land."

In this argument I have taken no account of the domestic, social, and moral evils which result from intemperance. I have written as a commercial man; and I appeal to the manufacturers of Lancashire, and of the United Kingdom generally, to consider the question thus imperfectly put before them, and if only a tithe of what I say be true, it will furnish abundant cause for immediate reform in a system so fraught with evil as the liquor traffic." The immense disproportion set forth in the foregoing extract between the amount spent annually in Great Britain on intoxicating liquors and that spent on cotton goods, is certainly very astounding—I might say appalling; and it cannot for a moment be doubted but that a large portion of the money squandered on the one ought to be usefully laid out on the other, and doubtless would be so laid out if the traffic in intoxicating drink was suppressed, or even greatly restricted. Other brandies of trade and commerce would also receive a share of the now wasted 100 millions, and with the increase of trade and general comfort and prosperity thereby induced, an increase in the public revenues of the country would also take place through other channels to counterbalance, and in a very short time, I believe, to overbalance ho drying up of the revenue at present derived from the liquor traffic. Permit me, in still further illustration of this point, to call your attention to the following curious and interesting calculation (which I believe first appeared some years ago in that most admirable paper devoted to the promotion of the cause of Total Abstinence, the British Workman) as to what might be done with the money now spent annually in Great Britain on intoxicating liquors. The calculation is based on the annual expenditure being only 60 millions, which, however, falls short of the expenditure of 1868 by nearly £43,000,000, but even at that smaller amount as the several items are read over, just think of the gain to the State, to trade, and to the domestic comfort of millions, by such an expenditure of the money. It would pay for—
4 million coats at 40s. each £8,000,000
4 million trousers at 20s. each 4,000,000
4 million waistcoats at 10s. each 2,000,000
4 million hats at 6s. each 1,200,000
4 million boots at 10s. per pair 2,000,000page 24
4 million stockings at 1s. 6d. per pair 300,000
4 million shirts at 5s. each 1,000,000
4 million blankets, 12s. 6d. per pair 2,500,000
4 million gowns at, 12s. 6d. each 2,500,000
4 million bonnets at 10s. each 2,000,000
4 million caps at 2s. 6d. each 500,000
20 million chair's at 4s. each 4,000,000
4 million tables at. 20s. each 4,000,000
2 million bookcases at 40s. each 4,000,000
20 million books at 1s each 1,000,000
4 million clocks at 22s. 6. each 4,500,000
5 million bibles at 2s each 500,000
Total £44,000,000
Or in other words it would start two millions of married couples with a new rig out to each, and 2 pair of blankets, 10 chairs, 2 tables, a bookcase, 10 books, 2 clocks, and 2 bibles for each house—not a bad start for a young couple! But even that would not exhaust the 60 millions; it would leave 6 millions to meet the poor rates raised over the kingdom, and another 10 millions to be devoted, to what purpose think you?—to pension off at the rate of £100 per annum, and enable them to live like gentlemen for the rest of their days, each of the 100,000 sellers of grog, who would be thrown out of employment by the suppression of then-traffic! Besides which we have the extra 43 millions to lay out in providing better accommodation for the working classes, public parks, drinking fountains, and many other such like most desirable things. Surely, in the face of such facts as these this cry of loss to the revenue should never be mooted. It is a sad thing, indeed, if an apparent paltry loss to the revenue is to be allowed to stand in the way of a reform so fraught with untold blessings to millions of subjects and to the general welfare and happiness of the State as a whole. Cowper has, with most biting sarcasm, exposed and denounced this defence of the traffic on the ground of the revenue drawn from it, and with this quotation from him I will for the present take farewell of my subject, boiling that what I have laid before you to-night may possibly enlist some new friends into the cause, and help to inspire those already in the ranks with greater fervor in the good work of Temperance agitation and reform, and prepare you for going in with heart and soul to demand in one voice from our legislators a revision of the licensing system as at present existing among ourselves; and, if we cannot get them all at once to suppress it, we may get them to restrict within much narrower limits this most pernicious traffic. The passage from Cowper to which I have alluded is as follows :—

"Pass where we may, through city or through town, village or hamlet of this merry land,
Though lean and beggar'd, every twentieth pace, conducts the unguarded nose to such a whiff,
Of stale debauch forth issuing from the styes that law has licensed as makes tempeperance reel.
But————vain the attempt, to advertise in verse a public pest
That like the filth with which the pleasant feeds his hungry acres, stinks and is of use.
The excise is fatten'd with the rich result of all this riot and ten thousand [unclear: casks]
For ever dribbling out their base contents—touch'd by the Midas finger of the state.
Bleed gold for ministers to sport away,. Drink, and be mad then! 'Tis your country bids.
Gloriously drunk, obey the important call; her cause demands the assistance of your [throats,
Ye all can swallow, and she asks no more."

G. Watson, Printer, Maclaggan Strt., Dunedin.