tain amount of accommodation, but which is | and objectionable principle in the measure; very little availed of in certain quarters. Now, and I really believe that it is for the same patting these extreme cases aside, the theory reason that those parties referred to by the of prohibition is, I think, a mistake at the pre- Hon. Mr. Bolt-the Knights of Labour and the sent time, at all events; and, if the issue to be Workers political organization of Dunedinsubmitted to the electors is to be Prohibition have taken up the attitude stated,-because or No prohibition, I am certain that a large they have been misled. But I have searched number who are in favour of regulating the in the Bill for this principle that is so objecdrink traffic by bringing it under more perfect tionable, and I cannot find it. I find the Bill control would vote in favour of the existing sys- to be a very good one, and a great advance on tem as against prohibition. If the issue were, the law at present in force. The main feature whether the licenses issued should be reduced, of the Bill is, I take it, the introduction of the then I feel satisfied that the voting would be direct veto. Well, as that is one of the fundain favour of reducing the present number of mental principles of democracy, I entirely aplicenses; but were the issue between prohibition prove of it. I entirely approve of the principle and the present system, a number of moderate-that majorities shall rule; and, if there was minded men would not be prepared to go the nothing else to cause me to support the mealength of prohibition, but rather in that direc- sure, I think that in itself would be sufficient. tion. As to the theory of prohibition carried The only question is, whether a bare majority out in these districts, I think it is an entire should rule, or a substantial one; but I think, fallacy. Take, for instance, that Sydenham in introducing a radical change of this kind, District. There you have a vote in favour it is desirable that the majority should be of prohibition, but the result was that, on the substantial. There is another important feaopposite side of the street, in Christchurch, the ture in the Bill, and that is the extension of Sydenham people practically got all the liquor the districts. I have had a printed extract they required. If prohibition is to be tried it from a paper forwarded to me by the tempershould be carried out on a much larger scale ance party, in which they take exception to than this Bill proposes. If it is to exist at all it the extension of the districts. Well, looking should prevail throughout the colony. But to at the matter from their point of view, I find have prohibition, say, in Dunedin, and allow all it difficult to understand why they object to it the suburban hotels to remain in full play simply at all, because it seems to me the extension of means transferring most of the business to the the districts is quite in favour of prohibition. suburbs. There is one provision in this Bill, it I think that so long as the districts are limited seems to me, which ought to meet the case, what will happen will be that which the Hon. and that is, the franchise is extended to the Mr. Stewart has called attention to. If the electors instead of to the ratepayers. That electors of Wellington decided to issue no seems to be a very substantial advance in the licenses, would not the result be that people way of getting the full expression of public would go to the Hutt to get drink, or somewhere opinion on the question at issue. Something else where licenses and publichouses were in has been said with regard to the three-fifths existence? There is no doubt in my mind that majority required, and as to half of those on that would be the effect; and, reasoning from the roll being required to vote. Take this case: that, I can see this: If we are to have total Supposing there are two thousand electors in a prohibition it will only be when the whole district, one thousand would be required to Colony of New Zealand is made one electorate. It will only be decided by a plébiscite-that seems to me to be the logical outcome of it; and I believe the extension of the franchise is in the direction of going to meet the wishes of those who favour prohibition. As regards this question of prohibition, I am altogether against

vote.

An Hon. MEMBER.-No.

The Hon. W. DOWNIE STEWART.-And three-fifths of that number must vote in favour of prohibition: that means six hundred out of two thousand shall have to vote for it. The Hon. Mr. OLIVER.-That is six hun-total prohibition. Of course a good deal may dred against one thousand four hundred.

The Hon. W. DOWNIE STEWART.-That is, there will be six hundred active supporters of prohibition against fourteen hundred who are against it, or who are quiescent. It does not appear to me that this is an undue number to require to vote if they wish a change under the system. The Bill contains a great deal that is good, and I shall support the second reading of the Bill, subject to the excising of whatever is objectionable when the Bill goes into Committee.

The Hon. Mr. RIGG.-It is only within the last day or two that I have looked at the measure now before us. Up to that time, from what I had seen in print, and from the resolutions that have been passed by temperance bodies, I was prepared to find a very vicious

be said on either side, but I have heard no arguments yet to convince me that the result which would follow would not be that the standard of comfort would be lowered, and that the rate of wages would fall. This is a point which is overlooked by the people who preach in favour of prohibition. They seem to think the money now spent in drink would be spent on the necessaries of life; but we know this: that employment is found for the bulk of the people not in providing the necessaries of life, but rather in providing its luxuries. That is where the employment comes in, and if any. body will take the trouble to look at the manufacture of alcoholic liquor he will see how every class of industry is affected by it; from those who grow the grain from which liquor is distilled down to those who sell the

iquor over the counter for 6d. a glass-or |
whatever the price may be - including the
bottle-maker, the wire-maker, the cork-maker,
the printer, and others,-also all employed in
its carriage and distribution. Its ramifications
are so extensive that to go into them would
What those people
take considerable time.
who favour prohibition propose to do is to
stop all this industry, and they do not say
what they are going to give us in place of it.
Some say if the money were not spent in drink
it would be saved; but I cannot understand
how a person can save money who is not earn-
ing any. I can understand that if people earn
money they are able to save it; but, at the
same time, we know this: that universal thrift
means universal pauperism. If a certain num-
ber of persons put aside a certain amount of
"This is food we will not eat,"
food, and say,
what would be the result? The result would
be that those who were in the habit of manu-
facturing this extra food would be out of em-
ployment, and the only advantage the holders
of the food would have would be the pleasure
of distributing it as charity to those who were
starving by their thrift. I have a good deal of
sympathy with some of these temperance
people. I do not altogether agree with those
who condemn them as agitators, as undesirable
people. They are not all that, though there
I have
may be some among them who are.
a good deal of sympathy with some of them,
because I find them honest and sincere in
their desire for reform. Still, I think they
are mistaken in their mode of reform. I do
not think, myself, that if prohibition were in
vogue to-morrow the world would be very much
better off than it is to-day. I can understand
they have in their minds the evils that exist
in the Old Country; that, in fact, they have in
mind the " submerged tenth"; but they do
not seem to understand that a lot of the vice
and misery that exist is due to other causes
altogether, that it is due, more than anything
else, to the unequal distribution of wealth. If
they could recognise that, and would devote
the energy they possess to trying to reform the
causes which give rise to the evil, in place of
tinkering with the evil itself, the result would
be more satisfactory to the people as a whole.
I think also that some of these people are too
apt to create a creature of their own imagina-
tion. They set up what has been known for
many years as the "dreadful example "-the
man who drinks all he earns and goes home
and beats his wife-and it is a strange thing
to me that this fearful example is always a
working-man. That is the picture, and they
embellish it, and point out the great evils
of drink, and, having embellished it to their
own satisfaction, they condemn it, and con-
gratulate themselves on having done a very
good thing. But the facts are these: The work-
ing-men generally are not drunkards by any
means, and crime and the consumption of drink
have for a number of years steadily decreased
in this colony-a result, which is, I believe,
due in a great measure to education. I think
that is the principal factor: it teaches men

self-respect, it gives them a sense of honour;
and then they hesitate before they will so
degrade themselves as to bring disgrace, not
only upon themselves, but also upon the mem-
bers of their family. I think, myself, if it
were possible to prevent the causes which have
led to so much misery in other countries from
being imported here, and if it were possible
to raise the standard of comfort still higher,
there would be less drinking than there is at
We
present. There is no antidote like satiety.
know it is not the men who are employed in
breweries who drink the most beer. We also
know that a boy employed in a confectioner's
shop soon gets tired of eating the lollies. That
is exactly what it would be had every one the
means at his command to obtain an unlimited
supply of drink. The less drink there is the
more value is put upon it; and so, when you
ask a man to have a drink, you consider you
are giving him a luxury-something that he
has not got at home. You would not ask him
to have a glass of milk or a bit of bread, for
he probably has as much as he wants at home.
There is one part of the Bill to which I wish
to refer, and which the honourable gentleman
who introduced the measure seems to have
overlooked. I refer to the section which deals
with clubs. I have here a communication from
the Wellington Working-men's Club, of which
I am a member, enclosing the following reso-
lution :-

"That this meeting thoroughly appreciates the action of the Committee in looking after their interests, but, nevertheless, is desirous that a resolution should be sent to the Upper House stating that they hope that all clauses that may have the effect of bringing clubs under the control of the Licensing Bench will be eliminated."

Now, I do not think that those gentleman who sent the resolution have really read the Bill. I have taken the trouble to compare it with the Act of 1881, and I do not see anything very undesirable in these clauses which are intended to apply to clubs. For instance, if the applicant is of drunken habits, or of bad character, or if the house is conducted in an improper manner, or if the conditions upon which the license has been granted have not been fulfilled, the renewal of a license may be If constables are harboured on the refused. premises or served with drink, or if cock-fighting, et cetera, are permitted, a penalty is imposed. I can see no objection to these provisions applying to clubs. I do not think that any honourable gentleman here who belongs to a club would object to these provisions. Nor do I think that there can be any objection to the provision giving power to constables to enter clubhouses for the purposes of the Act. I do not think the gentlemen belonging to these clubs fear the police officers; and, speaking of those who belong to the club I am connected with, I do not think that there is one there who would have reason to fear the inspection of the police. There is no gambling, no drunkenness, and the club is conducted, I venture to say, as well as any club in New Zealand. I do not know why

they should object, as they have done in the
resolution, to police inspection. For my part,
I think it is a very useful provision. The poet
has said, "The thief doth fear each bush an
officer"; and I think it is only those who have
something to conceal-something to fear-from
the inspection of the police who should make
any objection. I intend to support the Bill
generally, and I shall vote against the amend-

ment.

censing Act, 1881," the Licensing Acts of 1882 and 1889, the Amendment Act of 1889, and this Act—that is, five Acts, all of which have to be stitute an extremely complex condition of the read together, and when read together they conlaw. I think it would puzzle any Licensing Bench upon which I ever sat to understand what the law really is. If this Bill comes into force it will practically mean, I think, that the The Hon. Mr. PHARAZYN.-Sir, the honour- very largely to lawyers on almost every quesordinary Licensing Bench will require to refer able gentleman who has just sat down has tion which they have to consider. Sir, I did told us that he will support the Bill, and yet, hope that when the Government brought in a I think, nearly the whole of his arguments new Licensing Bill, at any rate, they would went in the direction of favouring the amendment. Of course that was not his intention; endeavour to consolidate the existing law, and but when he told us that there was no great whole, and especially to those who have to to make it fairly intelligible to the people as a amount of drunkenness amongst working-men, administer it. that it was decreasing, and, in fact, that were question of defining the poll. It has already been I need not enlarge upon the things left to their natural operation there stated that it would result in giving three-tenths would be no necessity for imposing this very of the electors the control, either to the extent stringent law upon the people of this colony, he of prohibition, or of closing publichouses altoreally admitted that the Bill was not required. gether, or of making a certain reduction. I beAnd he went further and said he thought that lieve that, as this Bill stands, the opinion of nothing in the nature of prohibition under this Prohibitionists, and of the Alliance generally, law is intended to apply to us. he said, if it means anything, would have the in its working, and especially unworkable in its Prohibition, is that the Bill would be actually inoperative effect of lowering the standard of living, and administration. of reducing wages, and altogether injuring brought into operation an agitation would be I have no doubt if it were the working-classes of the colony as a whole. got up and the Act would be so amended as to After expressing these views, I should have make it exceptionally tyrannical. That is one thought he would be prepared to support the of the dangers of passing Acts in this way. amendment very heartily. of the law are likely to produce the effect the If the provisions Very little importance may be attributed to a honourable gentleman objects to, he ought to tion, and people bring pressure to bear,—and measure at the time; but if you have an elecbe heartily glad to see this Bill rejected. It during a heated election they are able to exseems to me to be carrying out what I should ercise great influence, the final result is, call the democratic craze to extremes to in- possibly, that a minority of the population are sist that majorities shall rule in every detail of able to exercise a most arbitrary and tyranlife. I know that is the popular doctrine, and, nical power. I am one of those who, I am within certain limits, it is perfectly proper; sorry to say, are rather in the minority, and but I think those limits are such as, in my who consider that the direct veto is wrong in opinion, should be very strictly maintained, principle. I believe that the whole procedure and we ought not to unnecessarily interfere with individual liberty. this Bill with some attention, and it does seem right whatever-to coerce a minority on matSir, I have studied majority have no right whatever-no moral is absolutely wrong in principle, and that a to me that the title of the Bill-namely, "An ters which mainly concern the minority. Sir, Act to give the People Greater Control over the Granting and Refusing of Licenses"-is of view, it really does seem monstrous that, when we look at the question from that point somewhat of a misnomer. Instead of this because a small minority of the people indulge measure giving the people greater control than in a harmful excess, a great majority shall be the present Act, in many respects it gives them deprived of a harmless indulgence. That, Sir, less than the Act of 1881 gives them. Instead is the intention of those who argue in favour of its producing any amendment, we have of prohibition, and who wish to deprive been told that it would practically leave things others of this moderate indulgence in the conexactly as they are. That view of the Bill, sumption of what they are pleased to call inSir, has been enlarged upon very effectively toxicants because they themselves dare not use by the Hon. Mr. Bolt, who showed what would them. They are perfectly right to regulate be the result of a poll which requires a majority the traffic; but, when it comes to compelling of electors to vote before it can be considered other people to do exactly as they do, really a legal vote. It was also further enlarged upon I do not see why we should not carry out the by the Hon. Mr. Oliver. Well, the Bill as I read it appears to me to go very much in the I have known vegetarians as enthusiastic as same principle in every department of life. direction of leaving things as they are as far teetotalers; and if we had a majority of vege as possible. That is the practical effect and tarians we should have them coming down and the probable effect of it. In reading this Bill insisting on shutting up our butchers' shops in connection with the other Acts to which it and making our population live upon vegetable refers, I find that they are four or five in num- products absolutely, and prohibiting the use of ber-namely, the principal Act, called "The Li-meat in any form. Sir, that point seems to be

entirely forgotten; but I really must trouble the
Council with a short extract from Mill's ad-
mirable essay
"On Liberty," which I think will
please my honourable friend opposite, who used
to twit me with quoting Mill. Mill seems to
be now almost forgotten. The New Liberalism
seems to have ignored him. Speaking of the
limits to the authority of society over the in-
dividual, he says,-

it. The secretary, however, says, 'I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another. And now for the definition of these social rights.' If anything invades my social rights, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder. It invades my right of equality by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support. It impedes my right to free moral and intellectual development by surrounding my path with dangers, and by I have a right to claim mutual aid and intercourse.' 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 in

every respect exactly 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. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one's lips it invades all the social rights' attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all 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."

"But, without dwelling upon supposititious cases, there are, in our own day, gross usurpations upon the liberty of private life actually practised, and still greater ones threatened with some expectations of success, and opinions pro-weakening and demoralising society, from which pounded which assert an unlimited right in the public not only to prohibit by law everything which it thinks wrong, but, in order to get at what it thinks wrong, to prohibit a number of things.which it admits to be innocent. "Under the name of preventing intemper-dividual that every other individual shall act in ance, the people of one English colony, and of nearly half the United States, have been interdicted by law from making any use whatever of fermented drinks except for medical purposes, for prohibition of their sale is in fact, as it is intended to be, prohibition of their use. And, though the impracticability of executing the law has caused its repeal in several of the States which had adopted it, including the one from which it derives its name, an attempt has notwithstanding been commenced, and is prosecuted with considerable zeal by many of the professed philanthropists, to agitate for a similar law in this country. The association, or 'Alliance' as it terms itself, which has been formed for this purpose, has acquired some notoriety through the publicity given to a correspondence between its secretary and one of the very few English public men who hold that a politician's opinions ought to be founded on principles. Lord Stanley's share in this correspondence is calculated to strengthen the hopes already built on him by those who know how rare such qualities as are manifested in some of his public appearances unhappily are among those who figure in political life. The organ of the Alliance, who would 'deeply deplore the recognition of any principle which could be wrested to justify bigotry and persecution,' undertakes to point out the broad and impassable barrier' which divides such principles from those of the association. All matters relating to thought, opinion, conscience, appear to me,' he says, 'to be without the sphere of legislation; all pertaining to social act, habit, relation, subject only to a discretionary power vested in the State itself, and not in the individual, to be within it.' No mention is made of a third class, different from either of thesenamely, acts and habits which are not social, but individual-although it is to this class, surely, that the act of drinking fermented liquors belongs. Selling fermented liquors, however, is trading; and trading is a social act. But the infringement complained of is not on the liberty of the seller, but on that of the buyer and consumer, since the State might just as well forbid him to drink wine as purposely make it impossible for him to obtain

I presume even the extreme teetotalers will admit that moderate drinking is innocent. I do not know how far they will go, but I presume they would not consider drinking a glass of beer anything more than innocent. I hope it is not absolutely a crime. These principles I believe are as absolutely good now as they were when Mr. Mill wrote them, and I hope that some day or other, even in this democratic community, they will be recognised. In this case, where it is only proposed to prevent the sale of drink, the manner in which persons are prevented from indulging in moderationwhich even the opponents of moderation admit is not, at any rate, excessively harmful-is concealed from us, being indirect. If it were possible to bring a policeman to the elbow of a man who is about to drink a glass of beer, or whiskey, or wine, and he was enabled by law to prohibit him from using it, it would result in something that no body of Englishmen would stand for a moment; but the thing is practically impossible, and, until it is carried out in this way, I believe the attempt will fail, and, with all the supposed prohibition, we shall not have it. But if it were possible to pass such a measure it would be a most monstrous interference with individual liberty. I do not know in these days, when theosophists and theosophical societies, and so forth, claim to possess almost miraculous powers, whether