The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-03-15 00:00:00

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

'•' • •

Sir Wilfrid Lawson moved: "That, inasmuch as the
ancient and avowed object of licensing the sale of intoxi-
cating liquor is to supply a supposed public want without
detriment to the public welfare, this House is of opinion
that a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of
licences should he placed in the hands of the persons most
deeply interested and affected—namely, the inhabitants
themselves—who are entitled to protection from the in-
jurious consequences of the present system by some efficient
measure of local option." Sir Wilfrid said that whatever
ight be thought of that resolution, there could hardly
be two opinions as to the importance of the ques-
tion with which it dealt. Everybody admitted the
serious evil to the community at large caused by the enor-
mous quantity of intoxicating drinks consumed by the
people of this country; and he was afraid that none of them
could get up and say that that evil had very greatly
diminished of late years. Indeed, he thcught it was more
than doubtful whether, in spite of all the efforts made to
check it, the evil was not as great now as it had been
at any previous period of our history. They all knew
that the greater part of our crime arose from intoxi-
cation_ An enormous number of persons were taken up by
the police every year simply for intoxication. In the
last year for which he had obtained the returns
about 350,000 persons were arrested for drunkenness. It
appeared to him that the evil of intoxication arose simply
and solely from the consumption of drink. (Laughter.) A.
very old advocate of temperance, Mr. Joseph Liveley, ex-
pressed an opinion the other day that the cause was not
making much progress, and he remarked "When the
Chancellor of the Exchequer brings out his yearly account
I am always checked by that." (Hear.) The Times of
this mornirg contained a short statement respecting
the quantity of intoxicating liquors consumed in this
country. It appeared that £.142,000,000 was spent on them
every year. in 1878, which was a year of bad pay, men
striking, banks breaking, and relief committees all over
the country, we, as a nation, spent on intoxicating drinks
no less than than £lBl,OOO more than in the preceding year.
Strange to say, the increase was in beer—a circumstance
which showed that the bulk of it was consumed by the
working people who were in suck great distress Lord
Aberdare, he believed, was right when he said the other day
that, notwithstanding all that had been done during the last
ten years to promote temperance, intoxication was worse
now than it was ten years ago. His own doctrine had
always been that in proportion as we increased
the facilities for drinking we increased also the
amount of drinking. All who had long advocated tem-
perance were coming to the same conclusion. in pro-
posing this resolution, which he (Sir Wilfrid) hoped might
lay the basis for some satisfactory dealing viith this great
evil, he should endeavour to prove—first, that the state-
ments contained in the resolution were true; and, secondly,
that it was desitable for the House to affirm them by a vote.
It had been said he was not correct in atajing that it was
the ancient design 02 Accusing that pnblictouncs should be


licensed for the benefit of the community. He thought,
however, that he was right. This licensing system was first
mentioned in the year 1504, and curiously enough it was
mentioned in an Act of Parliament concerning vagabonds.
The seventh clause of that Act contained the following
proviso :
"And that it be lawefull to 11 of the Justices of relic
where of oon sbal be of the quorum within their auctoritie
to rejecte and put awey comen ale sellyng in townes and
places where they shall thynk convenient, and to take
suerties of the kepers of ale howses of their gode behavyng
by the discression of the seld Justices, and in the same to
be advysed and agreed at the time of their sessions."

Another Act of Parliament passed in 1552 said :
" Forasmuche as intollerable hurtes and trobles to the
Common Wealthe of this Realme dothe dune growe and
encrease throughe such abuses and disorders as are had and
used in commen Alehouses and other houses called Tiplinge
houses. It ys therefore enacted by the King° our Soveratgne
Lorde, withe thassent of the Lordes and Commons in this
present Parliament assembled and by thauctoritie of the
same.

"That the Justices of Peace within everie shire, eittie,
boroughe, tonne, corporate franchese and libertie within
this Realm° or two of them at the lest whereof one of them
to be of the quorum shall have full power and auctorite by
vertue of this Acte within evens shire, cittie, boroughe,
towne, corporate franchesse, and libertye where they be
Justices of Peace, to remove' discharge, and putte awaye
common sellinge of ale and bare in the said common ale-
houses and tiplinge houses in such towne or townes and
places where they shall thinck mete and convenyent :

"And that none after the first daye (of Maye) nex
commynge shalbe admytted or suffred to kepe any common
alehouse or tiplinge house but such as shall be thereunto
admytted and allowed in the open Sessions of the Peace or
els by tvvoe Justices of the Peace whereof the one to be of
the quorum."

That showed that the Justices were to license these places
only for the benefit of the community. (Hear, hear.) That
Act of Parliament conferred the power of restraining—
the same power which he advocated in his resolution.
Tne magistrates had possessed that power for hundreds
of years, and he was not about to bring any accusation
against them. They had done the best they could, but
like every other human authority they were liable to
error, and he wished to have their mistakes rectified by
those who now suffered from them. (Hear, hear) If the
proposed power of restraint had been exercised during the
last year or two, he did not think we should have had all the
distress which prevailed in the country. Nobody knew this
better than the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who was not deluded by the fallacies about
injuring the revenue. In bringing forward his Budget, the
right hon. gentleman said, according to the report of his
speech in The Times:—

"I ask again, in what circumstances could it be expected
that the consumption of spirits in this country would fall
off to such an extent as seriously to injure the revenue? It
must be from one of two causes—either from some general
failure of the consuming power of the people—from some
failure in their ability to purchase spirits, the will remain-
ing as it wax—or from some great change in the habits of the
people, inducing them to abandon the use of such enor-
mous quantities of ardent spirits. If it were the former,
it would tell upon all the sources of revenue, just as well as
upon that derived from spirits. But if the reduction of the
revenue derived from spirits be due to the other cause,
if it should be due to a material and considerable change
In the habits of the people, and increasing habits of tem-
perance and abstinence from the use of ardent spirits. I
venture to say that the amount of wealth such a change
would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade
the amount of revenue that is now derived from the spirit
duty, and we should not only see with satisfaction a aiminu-
then of the revenue from such a cause, but we should find
in various ways that the Exchequer would not suffer from
the losses which it might sustain in that direction."

(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite
right. When the liquor trade flourished other trades set-
fered.—After some further observations, the hon. member
said that great efforts had been made to keep the trade
within proper limits, and when those efforts were based
on local option they had been eminently satisfactory,
The Forbes-Mackenzie Act and the Irish Sunday closing
Act were instances in which Parliament had practically
sanctioned the principle of local option. (Hear, bear)
The interest of the country in this question was reflect. d
in the interest of the House itself ; otherwise, why should
members attend to-night in such numbers? He had
had many incinirit s, in the lobby and elsewhere, as to
the meaning of his resolution. What he meant by it was
that in legislation on this subject it was necessary to make
the desires and interests of the people superior to the desires
and interests of the traders in drink. (Cheers ) That was
the principle of his resolution. The words of it, he admitted,
were wide enough to include the Permissive Bill, but it die
not necessarily pledge those who might vote for it to the prin-
ciple of that measure. It left the question of compensa-
tion quite open. That it did not go necessarily so far as
the Permissive Bill was proved by the circumstance that,
although that measure was not approved by Mr. Fors-
ter, Mr. Bright, and the Bishop of Peterborough, all
of them, he believed, were in favour of his resolution. Most
of the representative Church bodies had also passed resolu-
tions in support of it. The Presbytery of the Church of
Scotland seemed to have hesitated to do so, because one
member of the Presbytery told them that "Sir Wilfrid
Lawson is a Radical, and has some designs for uniting the
Liberal party." He had often been accused of break-
ing up the party, but never before of uniting it.
(Laughter). A number of amendments to his resolu-
tion had been given notice of, and although it might
be possible to form one decent one by putting them
altogether, as they stood they were hardly germane to his
resolution. To the amendment of the noble lord the member
for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord F. Hervey) he had no particular
objection; there was not much in it, font simply said we must
wait for the final report of the Lords' committee. We had
heard enough about the Lords' committee. S: me one said
long ago, " Thank God we have a House of Lords;" and
during the last year or two the Home Secretary must
have repeatedly exclaimed, "Thank God we have a Lords'
committee." If any body asked a trifling question about
the drink trade, the answer had been, "This is a matter
which cannot be touched until the House of Lords' commit-
tee reports ; " and the same answer had been given to depu-
tations of temperance societies and of brewers and licensed
victuallers. He was rather doubtful about this Lords'
committee, for when it was appointed Lord Salisbury said
the Government assented on the understanding that it was
appointed with a view to inquiry and not with a view to legis-
lation. Yet it was now said that all legislation was to depend
upon the report of this committee. He had another reason
for doubting whether anything was to come of the Lords'
committee, for a committee of this House was appointed to
consider whether certain towns in Ireland should be ex-
empted from the Sunday closing law, and although the
committee reported in favour of no exemptions, the
House straightway passed exemptions at the instigation
of the Government, and there were now In Ireland five
cities of refuge for the drunkard established by the Govern-
ment. Sir Wilfrid thus concluded his speech—

"The defeat of his resolution would simply mean that he
had not succeeded in making out a sufficient case of injustice
to warrant the House in dealing with it at present. The
adoption of his resolution would decide that it laid down the
right principle of legistation ; and then, if the Government
did not act upon it, others must consider what course
they would pursue. The only systematic and formulated
opposition from a class Caine from the publicans. (Hear, hear.)
The list of " objections " sent to members came from their
protection society. Those objections complained that the
resolution was destitute of details; of course, a resolution
must be. A Bill was objected to because of Its details, and
the resolution because it was devoid of details. It was
said the resolui ion would admit of the adoption of parts of
all schemes; and that ought to be a recommendation. It
was said it was subversive of individual liberty: of course
—all Acts of Parliament were ; they sat there to subvert
individual liberty and to prevent any one doing wrong to
the public. It was said the resolution was not
acceptable to the constituencies; that was a prophecy, and
he should cheerfully leave it to the next election. So
far from being an attack on the magistrates, which the
tone of his speech would disprove, the resolution was
intended to assist the magistrates in finding out what the
people wanted. No doubt, as the objectors said, the
whole licensing question would have to be teken up de
novo ; and the sooner the better. There could be no cenfls-
cation of property in licences that were granted only from
year to year. If the great drink interest could not bring
forward better arguments than these, they would not deter
the people from pressing this demand. It was well that
the right issue had been put forward by the action of
the trade itself. The question was, British interests versus
vested interests. The latter were overgrown and were
almost paramount in political power, but they could not
suecessfully withstand against growing public opinion.
(Cheers) He could say, as the right hon. member for
Greenwich once said, Time is on our side ; you can-
not fight against time.' Great social forces were
marshalled on his side, and, strong in the conviction
of the certainty of ultimate triumph, he asked the
House to take a step which would not discredit itself, but
which would encourage those who were working for the
welfare and happiness of England, and would do simple
justice to the people, whom it was their duty and privilege
fearlessly and faithfully to represent in that House. (Cheers.)

Mr. Birley seconded the Resolution, which he regarded as
opening the way for a settlement of this vital question on a
reasonable basis.

Mr. Wheelhouse moved as an amendment a counter-
Resolution setting forth the undesirability and inopportune-
ness of changing the present arrangements, and urging that
any tribunal subject toiperiodical election by popular canvass
and vote would lead to continuous turmoil. Notwithstanding
the moderation of Sir W. Lawson's speech, he maintained
that his Resolution was nothing but the Permissive Bill in
disguise, with the Gothenburg system and all the other ob-
jectionable legislation superadded to it, and the movement
in its favour meant, not temperance, but teetotalism pure
and simple. It was a declaration that the magistrates had
not done their duty, and, so far from promoting sobriety,
it would stand in the way of useful and practical legislation
for that purpose. He denied that drunkenness was on the
increase, and attributed the mischief not so much to the
legitimate licences as toogrocers' and other "off " licences.
Sir M. Ridley, the Under-Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, explained the position taken by the Government on
the question. He enttrley failed to detect in Sir W. La.wson's
speech any reasons in support of the resolution submitted;
and he maintained that the mover had not shown sufficient
respect for the right of individual liberty. The only
occasion upon which excessive drinking could be dealt
with was when it interfered with public order. Besides
objecting to the abstract form of the resolution, and that its
cnaracter was vague and unmeaning, he submitted that any
proposition for local option altogether invalidated the first
principle ot a licensing authority if they were to have one.
The attention of the Government had been directed to the
necessity of regulating the sale of liquors for consumption
off the premises, and certainly some steps should be
taken—whether in the form of more pollee supervision, or
greater magisterial discretion, or a higher rental qualifica-
tion, he would not say—if they were anxious to act up to
their expressed desire to do what could be done by legislation
for the cause of temperance. He opposed the motion, and
could not accept the absolute non possuntus of Mr. Wheel-
house's amendment.
Mr W. E Forster said that though he had always opposed
the Permissive Bill, believing it to be oppressive and im-
practicable, he intended to support this Resolution because
It emb idled the principle of local control. Although he did
ntdhruoitnige ks;:netuncetts
s as somesboemdounceh and
nrodmpeitolpweglaeiilation in the prevention of
imhepobsseilbielevefdor trhaartliasmomenet-
to allow the evil to go on without some attempt to check
it. This, he believed, could be most effectually done by
those who had the local knowledge: and he also held that
the wishes of the inhabitants of a district ought to be con-
sulted. At the same time he held himself perfectly uncom-
mitted as to the mode in which this control was to be exer-
cised.

Mr; M. Stewart, though opposed Co the details of the Per-
missive Bill, supported the Resolution as a mode of affirming
the principle of local control.
Mr. lilagan spoke in the same sense; and Dr. Kenealy
warmly SUppOrted the motion.
Earl Percy and Lord J. Hervey, speaking in the terms o
resolutions they had placed on the paper, urged that the
House should decline to commit itself to legislation on the
subject till the Lords Committee on Intemperance had re-
ported.

Mr. A. Peel supported the revolution ; Mr. Rodwell
opposed it as impracticable; Mr. Sdrjeant Simon thought
the population and the number of existing licences should
be taken into consideration by the magistrates when grant-
ing new licences.

Sir J. Kennaw—ay was not prepared to submit the licensing
question to popular vote but thought the representatives
of the ratepayers might advantageously be associated with
the magistrates in dealing with the licences.

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. D. Davis supported the Resolution ;
while Mr. Pell spoke vgainst it, because he believed it meant
the Permissive Bill, which he regarded as a selfish mode of
brinaing about temperance. Re doubted whether the
drunkenness in a,dist-rxt corresponded with the number
of publichouses, and looked confidently to An improvement
in the habits of the people for a diminution of drunken-
ness

Mr. Stansfeld supported the Resolution, which he ad-
mitted was general, though not vague. It did not neces-
sarily lead to the Permissive till, and though wide enough
to cover a variety of measures it embodied one principle
which recommended it to Lim—local control.
Sir Selwin-Ibbetson said that legislation would un-
doubtedly
to necessary before long, but he thought the
questionwould be more wisely and advantageously dealt
with on the lines indicated by Sir M. Ridley and by in.
creming the powers stud dinretion of the magigtrates, than


by the local option shadowed out in the Resolution, the
practical difficulties of which he pointed out.
The Marquis of Hartington congratulated the House on
the entire absence of party feeling which had characterized
the debate, and remarked that though after the last elec-
tion the Licensed Victuallers ought not to be sur
prised if some little hostility were manifested to
them on the Liberal side, he had always depre-
cated attacks upon them, and stood up for a just
and equitable treatment. Although he was not so hos-
tile to local option as the members of the Government
who had spoken, the Resolution, as he read it, meant not
only local option but a good deal more besides. When
first he read it he took it to mean the Permissive Bill; hut
at any rate, it was quite clear that those who supp,,rted it
did not in the least agree as to its objects. Sir W. Lawson
believed only in prohibition, while Mr. Forster had no
faith in free trade or prohibition, but believed in
regulation, and be was at a loss to understand
what either of them thought he could gain by going out in
favour of an abstract Resolution to which each attached a
different meaning. The question was one which must be
dealt with, not by abstract Resolution, but by practical
legislation, and if he sympathized with any of the Amend-
ments it was with those which anticipated that the Lords'
Committee might make some useful practical suggestion.
After some remarks from Mr H. B. Samuelson and Mr.
Dodson, which were inaudible in the cries for a division, the
House divided on Sir W. Lawson's Resolution, which was
negatived by 252 to 164.
lir. Wheelhouse proposed to withdraw his Amendment,
but Sir W Lawson and his friends objecting, it was nega-
tived without a division: and Lord F. Hervey then moved
his Amendment for postponing all legislation until the
final report of the Lords' Committee has been pre-
sented. This also was negatived by 169 to 121; and Mr.
Serjeant Simon next moved an Amendment which provides
that the licensing authority shall take evidence on oath as
to the necessity of new licences. Mr. Cross supported it, but
Sir G. Campbell interposed with a motion to adjourn the
debate, which was agreed to unanimously.
Colonel Stanley brought in a bill to continue the Mutiny
Acts for three months.

Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at five minutes past two o'clock.

In the Horn OF COMMONS, March 12, at the time of
private business, the East Incitin Railway Bill was read a
second time and referred to a hybrid committee.
Dr. Lush moved the second reading of the Medical Act
Amendment Bill, which gave rise to a discussion, in which
Mr. Errington (who seoonded the motion), Serjeant Simon,
Mr. Burt, Sir J. McKenna, Mr. Cowper-Temple, Dr.
Cameron, Lord G. I.lmilton, Dr Lyon Play fair, Mr. B Hope,
and several other hon. members took part. Eventually the
debate was adjourned.
Mr. Goldney moved the second reading of the Clerical
Disabilities Bill, which proposes to re-establish the ability
of clergymen to occupy the seats in the House that existed
prior to 180 L

Mr. Beresford Hope moved the rejection of the Bill; Mr.
Hibbert thought the Bill a step in advance; Admiral
Edminstone opposed the Bill; and after some remarks
from Mr. Newdegate,
Mr. Cross said he was sorry he could not vote for the mea-
sure. If clergymen wished to come into the House they
should take advantage of the Act already passed (the Act of
1870). He saw no reason why this Bill should pass; but,
on the contrary, believed it was fraught with difficulty and
danger.
Sir J. M'Kenna opposed the Bill.
The House divided, and the Bill was rejected by 135 to
60; majority against, 69.

The other business having been disposed of, the House
adjourned.

IMMomim