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 Permissive Bill

page break

The Permissive Bill.

Of all the subjects which have engaged, or can engage, the attention of the parliament of this colony (and some of them have made stir enough in this community, and have been deemed worthy of some very fine declamation) I know of none that can he compared in importance with the Permissive Bill.

It is strange, and it is sad as strange, that, while any startling and unusual form of evil excites our alarm, and prompts us by its threatening aspect, to take vigorous measures for its suppression, the very gravest evils, if they be but common, come in course of time to be regarded with all but absolute indifference.

The whole world has been stunned with the thunders of ft great European War, with the downfall of a dynasty, which seemed to have rendered itself impregnable, if not in the affections, at least in the fears of the people; the wide-spread desolations of the sword, whet with the revengefulness and hatred of national, religions, and traditional hostility; and the still more horrible desolations of a people's suicide, the sword of a nation drunk with her own children's blood. We have heard this tidings, and it has made our ears to tingle.

We have heard of the famine in Persia, of the starvation of thousands and tens of thousands; we have read the sickening recital of enforced cannibalism, a terrible illustration which afresh that word of the ancient Hebrew seer has received:—"The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her children that she shall bear." And our hearts have been wrung at the thought of wretchedness which we were powerless to relieve.

It is not wonderful that these things should fill our hearts with sorrow, and kindle in our breasts the flame of sympathy in human woe; but surely it is wonderful that there should be existing in the midst of our modern civilization an evil of ten-fold greater magnitude than these, and that we should regard it with comparative unconcern.

War may have slain its thousands, but intemperance its tens of thou sands. War is an evil of but occasional occurrence; from the ravages of intemperance we are never free. That is a calamity which thrift and industry on the part of the people, and wisdom and energy on the part of the government, can generally in time repair; which touches but a man's circumstances, his property, and at worst, hut his life; this is an evil whose night of guilt and sadness is unrelieved by any streak of dawn. Like the deadly upas tree, which tempts the wayfarer to relax his limbs under its cooling shade, it creates an atmosphere which lulls page 4 the unheeding sleeper into a sleep deeper and more deadly than even that of death. And by what restorative can he be recovered? "Who can redeem from the slavery of intemperance the hapless victim, who is the mere plaything of temptation, the ludibrium of a tyrant that "shuts the gates of mercy on mankind?" "What power can restore to fallen woman-hood her virtue? Who shall summon from dishonoured graves those over whom have been shed those bitter tears of" sorrow without hope?" Who can restore the happiness of by-gone better days, or, since this is impossible, who can blot out their bitter remembrances from a memory that refuses to forget ?

"What skill can minister to a mind diseased—
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow;
Rase out the written troubles of the brain,
And with some sweet oblivious antidote,
Cleanse the foul bosom of that perilous stuff
Which preys upon the heart?"

We have nothing to say in mitigation of the horrors of war, pestilence and famine. But they are horrors to which we are in little danger of becoming insensible. I am to-night to speak of some means of suppressing an evil, to whoso horrors familiarity has rendered us all but indifferent, and which is far more wide-spread, and far deeper in its effects; more constant in its pressure; more destructive to the fortune, the health, the reputation, the character, the life, the soul; in one word, more damnable in its power, for time and for eternity, than any of the evils which an Inscrutable Providence has permitted to desolate and curse our world.

It will (I trust) be in a spirit of becoming earnestness that we shall enter upon the consideration of the means of its suppression.

Definition.—The first question that offers itself for our consideration is : What is the Permissive Bill? The question admits of an easy, clear, and speedy reply.

It is a bill to enable" the electors or ratepayers within certain defined districts to prevent the common sale of intoxicating liquors within their districts.

It provides for a vote being taken of the electors or ratepayers in a defined district, say an electoral district, or a town, or a municipality, whether this act shall come into operation within their district or not. It shall only do so when a clear majority of two-thirds of the electors vote for its adoption.

Should the act be adopted in any such district, no license whatever shall thereafter be granted or renewed for the sale of alcoholic liquor within such district.

It is hardly necessary to add anything in explanation. The measure is perfectly simple, and is easily understood. We may however just call attention to one or two of the main features of the Bill. It will be observed, that it docs not propose any regulation of the liquor traffic. It does not provide that the voters shall determine how many public-houses shall he permitted within their district: it simply gives them the power of saying whether or not they will have any at all.

It will also be observed that all vested interests are sufficiently pro- page 5 tected. The publican's is an annual license. Its renewal is never a matter of right, His vested interest legally and righteously does not exceed the period of his current license. That Vested interest is respected. The license will be allowed to run out its full term. It only will not be renewed. I am aware that some will be disposed to regard this as unsufficient. They will tell us that the publicans vested interest amounts to more than we have named. No doubt, in a sense, it does. His interest is to keep things just as they are. Every drunkard who is rescued from the brink of perdition diminishes the profits of his trade. He has a vested interest in his damnation. He has a vested interest in the poverty and destitution of his family. Every shilling that is spent on bread for them, is kept out of his till. When will our moral sense be Sufficiently strong to enable us to see that no vested interest in a people's degradation, vice and misery, has any righteous claim upon our consideration !

Lastly, the bill provides that not less than two-thirds of the electors must be in favour of the measure before it can come into operation.

Having thus briefly explained what the Permissive Bill is, let us proceed to a discussion of its merits. In doing so I shall lay down this as my first proposition—

I. That the evils of the traffic in intoxicating liquors are so great, so wide-spread, and so intolerable, as urgently to demand some legislative measure which shall, as far as possible, effectually suppress them.

I shall not waste any time in needless declamation upon the evils of intemperance. These evils are acknowledged, People do not so much need to be convinced of their existence, as to be made to feel how great is the responsibility involved in their toleration. It really amazes one in moments of calm reflection, that the sober, the philanthropic, the Christian part of the community, can take the matter sit coolly as it docs. A slight act of injustice suffices to arouse our indignation, yet the most atrocious and cruel imposture that can be conceived, is regarded with the profoundest indifference. A ghastly murder, a determined suicide, a frightful accident, a railway misadventure, a steamboat collision, the upsetting of a stage coach, these are things which send a thrill either of shuddering horror, or of sympathetic grief throughout the laud, but the ten thousand evils which follow in the wake of the demon Intemperance, a hardening familiarity has enabled us to behold with unconcern.

It is not my intention to enter at any length upon the subject of the evil effects of the traffic. And, in fact, it is unnecessary. The Traffic speaks for itself. We need no ghost come from the grave to tell us what is patent to our daily observation. There is no argument like the stern logic of facts. No one can deny that the prevalence of intemperance is the curse of our land. That it is the fruitful source of every form of disease, hastening the decrepitude of age, and stunting the development of youth. That in the retinue of the Great Destroyer are to be seen all the plagues which can embitter human existence—paroxysms, apoplexies, paralysis, idiotcy, madness, delirium tremens, and death. That it is the feeder and sustainer of every form of vice. That it beclouds the intellect, warps the judgment, silences the conscience, page 6 hardens the heart, embrutalises the soul. That it enfolds in its ghastly cerements of death the young man in all the pride of his manliness and power. That it robs woman of her virtue, and then despoils her even of her shame. That it fosters and irritates all the foulest passions of the human heart.

We know that its consequences to the national welfare are, the whole-sale destruction of grain, converted by distillation into poison, and the loss of Productive Labour in every department of occupation. That to it is to be attributed the greatest part of that ever-increasing poverty, beggary, and pauperism which are the subject of such alarm to Political Economists. That to it is to be attributed the greatest part of the prostitution which fills our streets with outcast victims of debauchery, and of the crime which fills our gaols with unhappy and demoralised inmates. "Who slew alt these?" I do not speak of an evil, the antiquity of whose existence may give scope for historical exaggeration. The ghastly and sickening spectacle is presented to our gaze even today. As in the vision of the Hebrew prophet, we look out upon a valley of carriage and blood, a valley white with the bones of an army of the dead!

Now we say that such an evil as this loudly calls for the interference of the Government—that an urgent necessity exists for some measure which shall effectually deal with an evil whose effects are so wide-spread and devastating.

The objection at once arises : "Why look for the remedy at the hands of the Government? People cannot be made moral by Act of Parliament. If you wish to reform the drunkard, do not attempt it by the coercion of a legal prohibition, but by the cogency of your argument, the persuasiveness of your appeals."

The reply is obvious. What is the use of argument and persuasion in the case of a man, whose judgment is already convinced, who admits the full force of your appeals, but who is not his own master ? Why pour vinegar upon nitre by proving to the slave that his condition is one of degradation, and by urging him, while the chain is clanking on his limbs, to arise and walk forth in freedom? We demand the interference of Government on behalf of men, who are no more guided by the voice of Reason, who can no more be entreated, than the merest madman? We demand the interference of Government on behalf of multitudes, chafing in the thraldom of a habit which they cannot put off, helpless under the bad spell of an enchantment which they cannot break.

But, it is said; "for those in whom habits of intemperance are confirmed, legal restraint is powerless; men cannot be made sober by act of parliament." We boldly answer, an act of parliament may remove those frequent sources of temptation, which overpower the feeble resolution of the drunkard struggling with his great enemy. But we may turn the tables. We may well ask, if an act of parliament cannot make men sober (and no one contends that it can do this except approximately) does it therefore follow that acts of parliament should be tolerated which encourage and seduce men to get drunk? If the passing of a Permissive Bill will not ensure the sobriety of every confirmed inebriate, are we to remain satisfied with legislation, which, by facilitating the multiplication of public-houses, drags into the ranks of page 7 drunkenness those many hundreds annually, who perpetuate the ghastly succession of its victims ? Men may be made drunken by act of parliament. And by an act of parliament more wisely, more justly, more humanely conceived, men may be kept sober.

II. My second proposition is one on which I will waste no argument. It is this : That any attempt to Regulate the Traffic, will,: permitting its continuance, its shown by the history of past Legislation to be ineffectual and unsatisfactory.

The wisdom of our Law-makers, perplexed and exasperated by the constantly-increasing character of this evil, has for ages been directed to its Regulation. And, we ask, with what result? What is the final issue of all those bulky statutes and ponderous blue-books extending over the history of the last 1500 years? Where has the matured wisdom of the ages landed us ? The question needs no reply. The Giant Evil still stalks forth with more than the strength and fatness of its youth? Its victims are numbered by annually increasing thousands. Nor need we wonder : Who shall give law to the very fountain of lawlessness ? How is it possible to regulate a system whose bare existence means disorder, whose breath is pestilence, whose shade is death? It is not making men pay £50 or £500 for a license, nor providing that the house in which the traffic is earned on shall have six rooms or sixteen; that will extirpate, or even mitigate, so stubborn an evil. It is no pet lamb to be tethered by a silken cord of regulation. There is no remedy but the sharp remedy of the knife. The evil demands excision. Nothing will serve but a provision for its absolute prohibition. This brings me to my third proposition, which is this—

III. That to effectually remedy and remove, this great evil, what is imperatively demanded is, a Permissive Bill.

We reserve our discussion of the question of its justice, and its constitutional character. Let us at present enquire: What advantages would such a measure secure? Of course the benefits of the measure would be confined to those localities where a majority of two-thirds of the electors had voted for its adoption. And so long as adjoining districts retained their public-house, there can be no doubt that the beneficial effects of the measure would be but imperfectly realised, even in those districts in which the Bill was adopted. There would still be thirsty souls, whom no journey, however long, would deter from getting their accustomed grog. And having obtained it, they would return to their own neighbourhood, carrying the effects of their over-imbibing with them. But we have no hesitation in saying that in these localities in which the Act would be adopted, the Permissive Bill would secure:—

1. The Suppression of Intemperance. There would be no distilleries, no breweries, no public-houses. There would be no alcoholic liquors bought or sold. Heavy penalties of fine or imprisonment, or both, would secure obedience to the law. Drunkards would either have to gratify their depraved appetites by taking a wholesome "constitutional" of two or three miles journey, or they would have to remove to some neighbourhood in which drunkenness was legalised; thus causing so large au influx of such characters into such neighbourhoods us would, let us hope, page 8 lead their inhabitants also to long for the protection of the Permissive Bill, to save them from such a rugged and disreputable immigration.

One might have thought it would scarcely be necessary to show that the abolition of public-houses would result in the abolition of intemperance. One would have thought the statement almost self-evident.

"How often the sight of means to do ill deeds
Makes ill deeds done."

Remove the cause, and the effect will disappear. This, however, has been strongly denied. The effect, it is said, would be, not to diminish drunkenness, hut to call into existence such a system of sly going selling as would turn us into a community of knaves, and cowardly sneaks—our great concern being "not to leave undone, but keep unknown."

My first reply to the objection is, If this be so, surely the necessity for prohibition of the traffic: is even greater than it appeared. If, as a community, we are so enslaved to this accursed thing, that, even when the people in any district, by a majority of two to one, have themselves closed the public-houses, they yet cannot abide by the consequences of their own act, if the people will thus seek to obtain clandestinely what they have by their own act excluded themselves from obtaining honestly and openly, the people would really seem to be in a slate of deeper degradation and more abject enslavement than we imagined. If it be so, how necessary must that, legal restraint be, which, even when severest, proves to be barely effectual. If even prohibition itself will not suppress intemperance, how vain are any expedients which fall short of prohibition. If even the bridge can hardly be attempted with safety, what madness to plunge into the surging tide.

But we deny the statement. We fearlessly take the position that the removal of the public-houses would be the" end of drunkenness. It so happens that the evidence upon this point is so ample as even to make selection a matter of difficulty

One of the most striking proofs of our proposition is a Report to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, presented some years ago. From this it appears :—
(a)That the absence of public-houses in a district is accompanied by an almost total absence of drinking.
(b)That the presence of many public-house is attended by much drinking.
(c)That the increase of public-houses id followed by a proportionate increase of drunkenness and debauchery.
(d)That the suppression or decrease of public-house or dram-shops la followed by corresponding improvement in the drinking habits of the people.

This report expresses the substance of returns from nearly five hundred parishes of Scotland.

The next proof to which I shall call your attention is this:—Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury, having determined to obtain reliable evidence on the question of the drink traffic a committee an pointed which arranged and forwarded certain forms of enquiry throughout England and Wales, not only to the heads of the church and parochial clergy, but to the magistrates, heads of goals, chaplains, the constabulary force, masters of workhouses, and lunatic asylums; in fact, to every person who it was imagined could page 9 supply any information on the subject. These forma of enquiry were scat through twenty-one dioceses, embracing thirty-two counties, with 14,000,000 inhabitants. The result of this vast amount of labour has been the production of one of the most valuable documents ever possessed by the British people, shewing as it does, the real weakness of the nation, and the means of remedying the same. On this document, the committee drew up a report urging the adoption of the following clauses :—

"Firstly, The repeal of the Beer Act of the year 1830; and the total suppression of beer-houses throughout the country.

"Secondly, A great reduction in the number of public-houses throughout the kingdom, it being in evidence that the number already licensed far exceeds any real demand, and that in proportion as facilities for drinking are reduced, intemperance with its manifold evils is restrained.

"Lastly, That as the ancient and avowed object of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors is to supply a supposed public; want without detriment to the public welfare, a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licenses should be placed in the hands of the persons must deeply interested and affected, namely, the inhabitants themselves—who are entitled to protection from the injurious consequences of the present system. Such a power would, in effect, secure to the districts willing to exercise it, the advantages now enjoyed by the numerous parishes in the province of Canterbury, where according to reports furnished to the committee, owing to the influence of the landowner, no sale of intoxicating liquors is licensed."

A few specimens of the evidence on which the Report was based may be cited out of about as many hundred similar ones.

"(1) You have been rightly informed that there are no public-houses or beershops here. The village is orderly and quiet, and only once during my incumbency of six years have I seen a drunken parishioner. Indeed drunkenness is hardly known. The labourer is too tired of an evening to go two miles in quest of beer . . . This sobriety has a great effect upon the harmony and comforts of home. Every labourer is able to keep a pig, and several have cows. They are able to keep their children at school longer than usual. They belong, as a rule, both men and women, to some friendly society."

"(2.) The public-house was done away with about eleven years ago, shortly before I became incumbent. I am assured that when there was a public-house it was the occasion of much intemperance, of much riot and disorder, and of much poverty and distress. From the experience of ten years' intercourse with the people and residence among them, I believe I may confidently say that we have no habitual drunkard. I do not remember to have seen a parishioner in a state of intoxication more than once or twice, and the freedom of the village from those riots and disorder which are, perhaps, inseparable from a public-house is very observable, and often spoken of with satisfaction."

"(3) The influence has been for good. I consider this as one of the reasons why the people here are so sober and well conducted. There is only one drunkard amongst us; he is an old Waterloo man. But he page 10 would get much worse if he had not to walk two or three miles for beer."

In addition to the cases named in this Report, take the following culled from the pages of Dr. Lee's "Condensed Argument for the Legislative Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic." In these cases, the districts named had no public-houses, in consequence of the several landlords refusing to allow them to he established.

1 Johnstone, in Dumfries-shire, with a population of 1230. There are three public schools in the parish. Then; are no persons above six years of age who cannot both read and write.

The report adds : "We have neither Public-house, nor resident surgeon, nor prison, nor lawyer, nor beggar."

Saltaire: near Bradford, in Yorkshire. Area : About a square mile.

Population : About 3000. Habits of the people : Honest, industrious sober. Drunkenness rarely seen. Crime very rare. Pauperism almost unknown. This has been the ease for about ten years.

3. Scorton, near Lancaster. As the village was not wholly in the hands of Mr. Fishwick, two attempts were made to establish a public-house. But the people would neither go, nor send to it: so it was soon closed, and the village is free from the nuisance to this day. Now, what is the state of this village? Pauperism is almost unknown. There has only been one ease of crime before the magistrates for twenty years, and then the whole village felt itself disgraced, through the breaker of the law was a stranger among them. If a policeman happens to pass through the village, the: children run out to look at him as a curiosity.

What Scorton is, without a public-house, thousands of villages might soon become if we had a Permissive Bill.

Now it is upon this evidence that we take our stand, and fearlessly assert, that, though the Permissive Bill cannot he expected to afford any exception to the universal character of human legislation, though it will in many respects, no doubt, disappoint the expectations of the more sanguine, it will have the general effect of doing what no regulation of the abominable system has ever done yet, or ever can do; it will suppress intemperance.

2. It will be a preventive as well as a remedial measure. It will enable the people in a quiet, sober, and respectable neighbourhood to protect themselves from some low blackguard, some pimp or prize-fighter, who would endeavour to break in upon their prosperity, and with Bacchanalian orgies to destroy their peace.

I am not yet sufficiently acquainted with this province to be able to take an illustration of this statement from any locality here, but I can do so by citing a locality close to the parish in New South Wales which I have left. It is a part of the municipal borough of Marrickville.

The inhabitants consist of some few persons having their business in the city, but chiefly of market gardeners. These market gardeners are a remarkably sober, industrious, self-respectful class. There is no public-house in the neighbourhood, and the little community is a perfect model of sobriety, industry, and domestic and social happiness. But where is their security. Some wretched character might establish a public-house, page 11 set up a dancing saloon, and entice the young people into his den, tomorrow; and that in spite of their protestations. Give these people a Permissive Bill, and those sober gardeners would soon settle the question whether they would have any public-houses or not. They would exercise their right to self-protection.

3. A further advantage of the passing of a Permissive Bill is that it would secure the ground already won by the Temperance Reformers. The hundreds of children now enrolled in connection with juvenile temperance associations, and the hundreds more whoso names are enrolled in connection with our bands of hope, we should keep them. No multiplied temptations would seduce them to the formation of a clinging habit, a hellishly consuming last. The uncontaminated taste would he maintained. What attractions for me has the seducing wine cup? Being "simple concerning the evil," having been mercifully preserved from even tasting of the inebriate's cup, I can smile at the magician's rod which has no spell of enchantment for me. And as with myself, so with those thousands of uncontaminated children. A Permissive Bill would keep them so.

But why do I speak of these. Look at that large, that frightfully large class of inebriates whom no moral force seems efficacious to preserve. Look at those hapless drunkards who have signed the pledge and broken the pledge of abstinence, till men begin to say it is impossible to save them. Look at those poor slaves of the bottle, whose, constant failures are the occasion of such frequent and anxious discussions in the several Divisions of our Sous of Temperance. As it is, it is almost impossible to save them. Who can resist a temptation urged by all the ingenuity of selfishness, on the part of the tempter, and backed by all the power of the habit of a lifetime in the victim? The passing of a Permissive Bill would enable us to keep them. Those wretched harpies, who stand at the doors of those hells of demoralisation to lure the shackled slave to his destruction, (I speak only of course of those to whom such a description will apply) those spiders who now stretch their web, and lie in wait for the unheeding fly—there would be an end of them. The poor wretch would have a chance. There would be no bend in human form to knock him down as soon as he got upon his legs : there would be some hope of his salvation.

"By my troth," you may say, "these are bitter words." Bitter!—how should they not be bitter, when the occasion of them is so bitter! I envy not the retailer of ardent spirits the fortune which hardheartedness and cupidity have enabled him to acquire. It smells of blood. In the strains of the grand piano which this blood-money has purchased methinks I hear a wail deeper than that of any Æolian harp—the wail of starving children, the bitter wail of woman's love despised. The dazzling array of the Bacchanalian palace will not blind me to the view of that home, whose hearthstone is cheerless and bare, where sits the victim of a too-confiding trust, and the neglected children of want and of despair. In the words of a great American preacher, "I had rather inherit the bowels of Vesuvius and make my bed in Etna than own those estates which have been scalped off from human beings as a hunter strips a beaver of its fur."

page 12

But I am digressing. I was remarking that the third advantage of a Permissive Bill was that it would secure the ground already won, by Temperance Reformers. There would no longer be the sickening discouragement of having the same thing to do over and over again. We should no longer have to inquire three weeks after the poor drunkard had signed the pledge, "Is Jones keeping steady yet?" We should no longer be confronted at the Secretary's table with the familiar faces of the same old drunkards, whose promises, like piecrusts, are made but to be broken. The multiplied temptations would be removed, there Would be hope of their stability. On this point I have just one other illustration to allege.

Wherever this measure is adopted, its beneficial effects would so speedily become manifest, that each new district, which adopted it would furnish an additional argument for its wider extension. The people of Tokomairiro would be beginning to ask "If the Taieri guts on so well after putting an arrow through its "Baldfaced Stag," why should not we put a bullet into our "Tied Lion?" If Dunedin dismissed her publicans and found herself waxing more and more prosperous in her buxom youth by sticking to the teapot, surely port Chalmers would soon be following in her wake, and even Invercargill might not be far behind.

The last advantage of this measure which I shall mention is, that it would remove the great hinderance to the progress of human society.

A horrible pestilence would no longer rob the strong and vigorous of health, and decimate society by its poisonous breath. The wealth of society would no longer be wasted upon what is worse than useless. We should no longer spend tens of thousands of pounds in order to turn ourselves into boasts and madmen—a sum of money equal to the amount required to support in comfort, a large percentage of our entire population.

The productive labour of our people, and the produce of the land would no longer be wasted in the manufacture of a worse than useless product, but would be used to maintain and feed our population.

Our rising generation would not be suffered to grow up in sottish ignorance, but would be educated for the right discharge of their duties of manhood and citizenship.

Above all, religion would not have to hang her sacred head in bitter lamentation over the sins and sorrows of a drunken community, but would rejoice in the ever-widening conquests of the Gospel of Christ. The song of the heavenly host would seem already to have found in part its blessed fulfilment: "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, and good will towards men."

IV. The concluding section of this lecture I had intended to devote to the consideration of objections. But of these, in addition to such as have been already noticed, only one is deserving of any serious attention. I shall not insult the moral sense of this audience by even discussing the question of the, loss of Revenue. We will not consent to make the question of the destruction of thousands of our fellow men a question of money. The soul of a drunkard is worth more than the fraction which the state makes out of the transaction when he sells himself to the Devil. page 13 I therefore pass at once to the consideration of the one great objection to the Permissive Bill—The Objection to it as Unjust and Tyrannical. Let us then ask :

Is the Permissive Bill a Just and reasonable measure? Does it come fairly within the province of government to deprive a minority of a source of enjoyment, whose evil effects are considered by a majority to warrant such a deprivation ? What are the limits to the authority of society over the individual? The battle-ground of this controversy is John Stuart Mill's Essay on "Liberty." It is there that the principles of those who differ from us find their strongest, most cogent, and best expression. Let us consider them.

Mr. Mill says, "Neither one person, nor any number of persons is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. . . . The interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect. . . . In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action."

"There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any con duct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings. . . . But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than there is between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person's taste is as much his own peculiar concern us his opinion or his purse."

Finally, passing some strictures on what we cannot but regard as a most lame and impotent justification of the principles of the "United Kingdom Alliance" by its Secretary, ho says: "Here is a theory of 'Social Rights.' the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language : being nothing short of this—that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect as he ought: that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. . . . The doctrine ascribes to ah mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard."

I have purposely selected these—the strongest passages which occur in his essay—because, dear as are to me the interests of this great movement, the interests of truth are higher; and I am anxious to be fair.

Mr. Mill's jealousy of the interference of government with individual action is highly commendable. The quotation which he makes from Baron von Humboldt is, I think, an expression of the profoundest wisdom: "The object towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts, and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow men must ever keep their eyes, is the individuality of power and development, with its requisites—freedom and variety of situations,—whence arises individual vigour and manifold diversity."

But Mr. Mill himself acknowledges that this Individuality has its limits; and, indeed, he makes such ample concessions to the other side, page 14 that it may even be possible to show, that, on his own principles he need not offer any opposition to a Permissive Bill. Those concessions we shall have occasion to notice immediately.

The great difficulty in the settlement of such questions as these is to determine the limits of the province of government. What course is the government to steer so as to avoid upon the one hand the Scylla of neglect of the public: well-being, and upon the other, the Charybdis of undue interference with private liberty? Undoubtedly the Government has no right to interfere with freedom of thought and discussion. Undoubtedly the Government has no right to interfere with the private conduct of any man, so long as that conduct does no direct and consider able mischief to the community. If a man theses to get drunk every day in the privacy of his own home, he should be free to do so. The Times is, I think, quite right in saying, "It is the inalienable birthright of every Briton to make a fool or a beast of himself as much as he pleases, so long as he does this without interfering with the safety, comfort, and morals of others." Government has no business to prevent him. But the case is very different when the conduct of a man exercises a pernicious influence upon society. To use Mr. Mill's own words: "As soon as any part of a person's conduct effect prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it; and the question whether the general welfare will not be promoted by interfering with it becomes open to discussion."

The circle of a man's private and exclusively personal conduct should be sacred. But Mr. Mill again acknowledges : "It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, hut on other; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate upon him."

Now we take these admissions of Mr. Mill, and, if we mistake not, a very slight extension of them will suffice to justify the principle of a Permissive Bill.

It is quite true that, such a measure would diminish the facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquor, as well in the case of the moderate drinker, as in that of the drunkard. This would so far be a curtailment of the personal liberty of many a temperate and respectable man. Such a curtailment of personal liberty we deeply regret. But we maintain that the necessities of the case are so urgent as to leave us no other alternative. We would gladly leave the moderate drinker to the fullest means of gratifying his private taste, if we could do so, and yet Stamp out this abomination of Intemperance. But we cannot do it. It we are to tolerate houses for the public sale of intoxicating drinks, we cannot say that only temperate people shall frequent them. We cannot even ensure that they shall not be made centres of public demoralisation. The thing has been tried-it cannot he done. And, therefore, we must get rid of these pests at any sacrifice. We regret the interference (so far as it is such) with a private taste, but we cannot consent to endure any longer this public mischief Salus populi supreme lex. "The safety of the people is the highest law."

page 15

We should not have to be very fastidious about curtailing personal liberty if an invading fleet were at Port Chalmers, and we cannot afford to be too fastidious about it while a still more destructive intestine foe is in our very midst. In the presence of an invading army citizens must be willing to forego the freedom of action, which under other circumstances, we would most strongly claim for them—nor does it make any difference whether the invading army be an army of Russians or of licensed victuallers.

We may well ask : Is it to be tolerated that the wealth, the health, the productive labour, the vital energies of this community, shall be wasted upon what it would be a public blessing to pour into the sea as soon as made, except perhaps that it might injure the fishery trade ? Is it to be tolerated that a wretched and ragged regiment of degraded drunkards shall be allowed daily to recruit itself out of the finest of our sons?' Is it to be tolerated that children shall be allowed to grow up in ignorance and vice—that (to quote words familiar to some of us) "the tenderest ties of social life" shall be torn asunder, that "the sweet endearments of home" shall be exiled, our "earth shorn of its loveliness," and our people, of their strength ?

Are these abominable dens of infamy (I do not speak of all under that designation, but I speak unhesitatingly and sadly of many under that designation) these pests of society, these drinking hells, to be allowed to rise one after another in our midst, to sap the foundations of our prosperity and demoralise our land ?

Is it to be tolerated that crime shall continue to send her hundreds of guilty children to our prisons, the hulks, and the gallows?—that lunacy shall snatch her victims, one by one, into her "land of darkness as darkness itself, and of the shadow of death without any order, and where the light is as darkness:" Shall famine lead forth her gaunt, and ghastly train, whose pallid faces and hollow sunken eyes utter their mute prayer for the death that stays too long?

Shall the glare of our midnight gaslight still reveal to the eye of philanthrophy, dimmed with the tears of sadness, these creatures of sorrow and shame, whose hollow laugh of affected unconcern has in it the very echo of perdition's wail ?

Must all this be tolerated in order that there may be no diminution of the moderate drinker's present facilities for obtaining his bottle? That he may be put to no inconvenience in the indulgence of that luxurious sipping of the port, and stirring of the toddy. Personal liberty, the liberty to do what one likes—the liberty to buy and sell what one likes, when and how one likes, may be a thing most precious, but even gold may be bought too dear.

We need not call your attention to the numerous instances in which government has already recognized the necessity of a similar interference.

The restraint upon the liberty of the crew and passengers of a ship detained in quarantine in consequence of a single case of cholera, the shutting up of unwholesome graveyards, the removal of nauseous kerosene works, the suppression of lotteries, cock-pits, gambling-houses, prize-fighting, and of obscene print-shops—all these furnish examples page 16 of the exercise of this power of interference with personal liberty on the part of the Government. Yet none of them can present so forcible a case for such interference as does the traffic in intoxicating liquor.

But, in fact, the law has already virtually recognized this principle in the present Licensing System. The purpose of that system is to prevent drunkenness. All its restraints are framed with that, end in view. Now, if it be right to interfere with the traffic at all with the view of preventing drunkenness, it is right effectually to interfere, and if there can be no effectual interference except by providing, with the people's consent, for its abolition, then such provision for its abolition should be made.

We conclude, therefore, that the Permissive Bill is a fair, just, reasonable and constitutional measure. We have already shown the urgent necessity that exists for such a measure, and have pointed out how effectually it may be expected to fulfil the end which we are all so anxious to secure.

We rejoice in the agitation that is now being made to get the measure passed by the Parliament of this country. I rejoice to find that there has been sent into Parliament such a petition in its favour as has never yet been laid upon the table of the House. The ladies of the colony, mothers and daughters, have joined your ranks, in holy rivalry with yourselves.

Let us address ourselves to this work with hallowed enterprise and enthusiasm. Let us seek to strike from our fair escutcheon the foul blot of intemperance, to purge this land from this wide-spread, and deeply festering plague. The blessing of him that is ready to perish will come upon us. The slave of the demon drink, redeemed from his bitter and galling bondage, shall walk forth in the freedom of his new recovered manhood; the sister rescued from the paths of vice and sin shall sing her song of gratitude. Children shall find a new world opening around them in the strong guidance of a father's wisdom, in the newly found tenderness of a mother's love. And this land shall arise from the dust, gird herself with the strength of dauntless enterprise, stretch forth her hand of diligence and power, uplift her brow of intelligence and wisdom, and realise more than the proudest of her sons has dared to hope:—A Greater Britain in another world.

G. Watson, Printer, Maclaggon Street, Dunedin.