The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-19 00:00:00

.I.t7LILE STOURBRIDG-E OBSERVER.

Mr. Macdonald also opposed the Bill, and Mr. Bull sup•
ported it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. .0 f • GI 86
• • Against . , . 371

_Majority .. 285
The Bill was therefore rejected, amid loud cheering.
[lt may be stated that last year the Bill was rejected by 301
to 75 votes, or a majority of 226.]
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.

EARTHQUAKE IN NEW GRENADA.-

ONE THOUSAND LIVES LOST.

NEW YORK, June 12.

The New York papers publish intelligence of a ter-
rible earthquake in the Cucuta Valley, Itepublic of
New Grenada, in which a thousand persons are re-
ported to have perished.
Further advices received by the New York papers
state that Cucuta has been entirely destroyed by the
earthquake, and only a few families were saved. Five
other towns were nearly destroyed.
Out of the population of the district thus visited,
numbering 35,000, 16 000 are reported lost,

THE PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY
LIQUOR BILL.

_
A crowded and enthusiastic meeting in support of
the second reading of the all we Bill was held on Mon-
day evening at Exeter Hall, which was filled. On the
platform were Cardinal Manning, Sir W. Lawson,
M.P., Mr. Whitwoah, M.P., Mr. S. D . Waddy, M.P.,
Mr. W. S. Allen, M.P., Mr. Wilson, M.P., Rev.
Basil Wilberforce, and the Rev. Jabez Burns. The
chair was taken by Sir Walter Trevelyan, and after
some introductory. observations by him,

Cardinal Manning moved the first resolution :
'That whereas the abounding and disastrous intemper-
ance of the United Kingdom is mainly produced and sus-
tained by the legalised facilities far the sale of intoxicating
liquors, this meeting is of opinion that the Legislature should
either deal directly and effectually with the evil, or enable
the community to do so on the principle of local option,
being convinced that the national drinking will otherwise
remain as a source of the greatest social abuses, a corrupter
of family life, a burden upon the national resources, and a
powerful impediment to every form of educational, sanitary,
and moral progress."
Ile said when the Secretary of the United Kingdom Alli-
ance wrote to him to take part in this meeting, he promptly
answered, "With all my heart." He did so because for
some time duties over which lie could exercise no control
had rendered it absolutely impossible for him to take part
in the proceedings of the Alliance. (hear, hear.) Ile
rejoiced that the time had come when he had the oppor-
tunity etce more of taking part in this great movement.
Ile was glad to be there for general and for special rea-
sons. The general reasons he would pass by. As to the
special reasons, he would say at once that he believed that
the public opinion of this country was already awakened
in reference to this subject. But if the public opinion of
the country was awakened, the will of Parliament was
not moved; and what they had to do was to move that
wilL He hoped he should not depart from the duty of
his office if he said that his purpose was not to make a
religious speech, and it was not to make a moral speech,
nor a speech on the broad commonplaces of drunkenness.
But he was there with the purpose of making a political
speech, not is party speech, or he should carry with him
only one half of the meeting. For the details of politics
he had no heart, but as to those great politics which were
the constructive lines of our whole commonwealth, he
might say that every religious man, and every moral man,
was bound to be a politician; and the legislation which
affected the sale of intoxicating drinks, was, he main-
tained, one of those constructive lines. His special reasons
were these. He believed first that the evil against which
they were contending was increasing every year. The
amount of capital invested in the production of intoxi-
cating drinks was increasing every year, and the political
influence of the confederation of the manufacturers of
intoxicating drinks was increasing every year. It was be-
coming is dominion; it was spread over the three kingdoms;
It was in every electoral hotly; it stood side by side with
every body of voters that exercised a controlling influence
over every election. It had a power in Parliament, and a
power over Government itself. His second specialreason
was that he knew of no organisation which could cope with
this confederated monopoly but (he United Kingdom Alli-
ance. (Hear, hear.) The Alliance was spread over the whole
kingdom. It knew what it meant, and it meant what it said.
It was a body that had persevered through evil report—a
good deal of that—and through good report, and mighty
little it had had. He hoped and believed that the
United Kingdom Alliance would press the Permissive Bill,
and he was happy to say that all those who were either
under his charge or were connected with him had on every
occasion unanimously declared their determination to give
their utmost support to the United Kingdom Alliance. His
third and last special reason was that he was convinced that
the principle embodied in the Permissive Bill was the only
one by which they could effect their object. The police had
been called upon to put down drunkenness, but had they
done it? He found no fault with men for not doing that
which was impossible. The magistrates had been appealed
to, and they had been at work ever since the reign of
Edward VI., and what had they accomplished, and what
would they ever accomplish? Government had been appealed
to, and Government could not do it because Parliament
would not do it, and Parliament would not do it
because the electoral body would not let it. What they
wanted, then, was the will of the people, and he was con-
vinced that the working men of England, when they once
came to know what the evil of this system was, would not
allow it to continue. He believed that by appealing to the
peopleathey would enable Parliament to do that which he ac-
know! dged was legislatively impossible so long as the people
were not willing. They were met by objections. One kind
of objectors were the political economists, who had been rid-
ing to death the notion of free trade, who, because the free
Importation of corn was good for the people, argued that the
free manufacture of intoxicating drinks must also be for
their good. But when political economy came in contact
with moral law It must be repulsed and cast back. Another
objection was that the Permissive Bill would enable a majority
to tvramiise over the minority, but that was what the ma-
jority did in every free country. They have been accused of
imputing drunkenness to the working men of this
country. They did ,not. There were some who drank
but they were a minority, and the minority who drank tyran-
nised over the majority—the women and children and neigh-
bours, who did not drink. It might be that the United
Kingdom Alliance would be beaten this year and next, and
hi the next Payliament, but he was confident that the day
would come when the people of England would take upon
themselves the power of determining whether their homes
should be tainted and ruined by the traffic in intoxicating
drinks. A sober people was a people thriving in peace. A
sober people was a people that must prosper in a time of
peace, and be fearless in the inevitable but mournful time of
war. But a people whose brain reeled and whose hand
trembled was good neither for war nor peace. (Hear, hear.)
Sir W. Lawson, on rising o second the motion, was
received with loud and reiterated cheers—He said it seemed ,1
to him they were getting on. Ile had never expected to live
to see the day when he should attend a meeting of the
United Kingdom Alliance and find himself on the platform
supported by a Cardinal and a Pope. (Cheers and laughter.)
Two days ago a leading journal said the agitation for
any change in any direction had ceased for the time and
the country, weary of years of turmoil, had sunk into
a deep sleep. But that meeting showed that there were
questions on which the country was not asleep. Was
there any other question on which they could have
gathered such an assembly? There they had a Cardinal
of the Romish Church, eminent men of the Established
Church of this country, judicial men like his friend Mr.
Pope, ministers of religion of all denominations, politicians
of various lines, some calling themselves Conservatives,
some Liberals down to the desperate Radical who was now
addressing them. What had brought them all together?
The ministers of religion came because they knew that their
teaching and preaching was comparatively vain when they
addressed drunken people. His friend Mr. Pope came be-
cause from his judicial experience he knew that the greatest
proportion of the crime of this country arose from drunken-
ness. The medical men—the sensible ones—were with them,
because they agreed with Sir E. Thompson, who said
drunkenness was the great cause of the diseases with which
he had to do; and members of Parliament, like Mr. Whit-
worth and Mr. Waddy, were there because they agreed with
Richard Cobden, who said years ago that the temperance
movement lay at the foundation of every social and
political reform. He was glad that the Cardinal had
put the case so clearly before them. He explained that
this was not a meeting solely of teetotallers. He dared
say there were a few misguided teetotallers amongst them
(laughter)—but they addressed them as citizens of the
greatest country in the world, and told them that they be
lieved that was mischievous legislation which allowed
180,000 houses to be open in this country for the sale of
strong drink. The Permissive Bill was simply a Bill which
enabled a locality so minded to tell the magistrates and pub-
licans that they should not set up their chaps there. He
might be told that it was a very small measure. So it was.
Let them begin with small things. They would get on. It
was only intended for those places where they had got the
people to be sensible enough to say "we do not want these
drinking shops." But the House of Commons had hitherto
said "No, the magistrates and the publicans know a great
deal better than the people; we will leave it solely in their
power to establish drinking shops or not. Let them alone.''
He was sorry that the House of Commons took that view. But
the laws were not made by the House of Commons. They put
the finishing touch to them there, but in a free country the
laws come rough hewn by the press and on the platform, and
what the Alliance had to do was to create a public opinion
which should say to Parliament, "You shall no longer allow
magistrates and publicans to do this great evil in their
localities." They had got a great deal to do before they
brought public opinion to that point. Next Wednesday's
vote will measure the distance they had arrived at. In one
of the papers of the party opposed to the Bill, it was stated
that if Sir Wilfrid Lawson dared to bring on his Bill again,
he was to be met by braying and hissing. But they had re-
flected, and now they said the supporters of the present sys •
tern had better not argue it at all. (Laughter.) They said
the Bill was brought in without the circumstances having
undergone any change whatever. Why that was exactly
the reason that he had brought it in. (Cheers.) The
selling of drink was going on, the amount of crime
was kept up, the prisons and workhouses and lunatic
asylums were still full. The situation was not changedeand
he should go on till he made a change. (Cheers) He knew
how he should be met. For along time the opponents said
the Government was going to bring in a Bill, and that the
Home Secretary was going to grapple with the subject.
When they got into the House of Commons they were sure
to hear about some one grappling with it—(laughter)—be-
cause no one knew what that meant. They had had two
great grapplers. (Laughter.) One was Lord Aberdare,
formerly Mr. Bruce, and the other was Mr. Cross
Both these great grapplers had done their best to tinker
up the licensing system, and it was as bad now
as it was before they meddled with it. Then they
would have the education argument and the adulteration
dodge. Then they would have the old "liberty of the
subject" trotted out. He should not take much time in
replying to that, but he would give five shillings reward to
any man who would bring him any Act of Parliament that
ever was passed which did not in some form interfere with
the liberty of the subject. Then they would have the old
respectable argument that it was the thin end of the wedge.
Of course it was ; no one could drive in the thick end of
the wedge first. (Laughter.) Then he had no doubt they
would have the standing dish, the comic man, the member
of Parliament who had spent his recess in America and
who went to some State where they had a prohibitory law
in force, and who stepped out of his hotel late some night
and saw a man with a dark lantern, who told him to go
to the. right and then to the left, and then down some
stairs, and then into a dark room, and there he saw a
man with a mask on, and asked whether he could kiss the
baby, and he then managed after all his exertions to get a
glass of whisky—(laughter)—and having got it he came
back to the House of Commons, and said that prohibition
was a failure. (Laughter.) But he did not tell them how
much crime and pauperism and lunacy had diminished.
Well, the Cardinal said it would be a long time before they
got the Permissive Bill. That was not his concern nor
theirs. Their business was to do their duty. Still, with his
usual sagacity, he thought the Cardinal might be right in
his prophesy. Ile was not sanguine of carrying it by a large
majority on WedDesday—(cheers and laughter)—because
there were a great many members in the House of Commons
who conscientiously believed it was their duty to support
the publicans. The struggle might be long and he knew it
would be hard, but they would have to sustain them the
knowledge that they had done their duty in their day and
generation, and that they had made every effort to promote
the lasthig happiness of society and of the world. (Laud
cheers.)
The Rev. Basil Wilberforce, in an ardent speech in support
of the resolution, spoke of alcohol as the devil, and said he
preached to total abstainers, and he had never heard one
single valid argument against total abstinence.
The resolution was then put and carried with one
dissentient.
Mr. S. I). Waddy, M.P., and Mr. Allen, ALP., moved and
seconded, and Mr. Pope supported, the next resolution,
which declared that the Permissive I ill is a just and consti-
tutional method of enabling the inhabitents of each district
to secure for themselves the protection now afforded to
many places by landowners and public bodies.
The resolution was passed unanimously.

Mr. Whitworth, M. P., in moving the adoption of
a petition to PArliament in favour of the Bill, said
the concern in which he was engaged paid more
than £(O,00 a week in wages, and th:-.y had seven or
eight thimsand men, but they never commenced work
on the Monday, because they found that men did not
come to work in sufficient numbers to make it worth
while to get up the steam to turn the machinery. That
was a loss of £35,000 a year to that concern, equal to
4 per cent. on the capital employed. They were competing
with the world, but they would not be hble to compete with
thou long if they were to sustain such losses. Mr. Laing,
the Chairman of the Brighton Railway, told him a few
days ago that the Brighton Company had had an offer to
supply fish plates at 153. a ton less than they could get them
from any Engli,h manufacturer.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Raper, and
carried.
On the motion of Mr. Richard, M.P., seconded by.
Mr. Wilson, M. P., a vote of thanks was then given to
Sir W. Trevelyan for his conduct in the chair, which
brought the proceedings to a close.

A meeting of trade delegates belonging to the
Licensed Victuallers' National Defence League WM
held on Monday, at the Westminster Palace Hotel,
the subject for cmsideration being the Permissive Bill.
The chair was taken by Mr. Joseph Wadhams, of Bir-
mingham, and the meeting was very fully attended.
The Chairman in his opening remarks regretted yery

much that the trade should again be called together on this
question after the positive expression of opinion of the House
of Commons last year against it. He said that the Bill, as
he understood it, proposed to give to two-thirds of the rate-
payers of any parish or place the power of vetoing the com-
mon sale of intoxicating liquors. The proportion of rate-
payers in a parish was about one-fifth, and he would ask
what right had two thirds of that number to dictate to
the rest of the inhabitants what they sttould eat and
what they should drink, and when they should perform those
operatigns ? He had no doubt if the Bill passed it would
keep the trade of any district in a constant state of turmoiL
The Home Secretary was perfectly right in stating that the
Bill was perfectly impracticable, and could not be worked
out. He defended the trade from the stigma of causing so
much misery and crime, a great deal of which he thought
was attributable to the'-Wine Licensing Bill of 1860. He
thought that it should be in the power of the magistrates to
refuse grocers' licenses in the same way that they could re-
fuse those of licensed victuallers.

Mr. Watson pr( >posed the first resolution, which was of a
comprehensive character and generally condemned the pro-
visions of the Bill. He imagined that any parish in which
this Bill was passed would become one unchanging scene of
stratagem and strife. They might make a nation of hypo-
crites by law, but they could never make a nation of teetotal-
lers.

The resolution was seconded by Mr. Wakerley, and sup-
ported by Mr. Bi,hop, of Birmingham, who commented on
the manner in which the signatures to the monster petition
in favour of the Bill had been obtained. Ile thought that.
more than. half of them were those of Sunday School chil-
dren of ten or eleven years of age.

The resolution having been Ep-,ken to by Mr. Coon
cillor Wilcock (Wolverhampton), and Mr. Caudalet
(Manchester), it was carried unanimously.

A second resolution protesting against the agitation
on behalf of the Bill as unhealthy and venal was car-
ried.

A vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the
meeting.

Mr. Cross, at the Home Office on Tuesday, received
a large deputation from the United Kingdom Alliance,
in favour of the Permissive Bill, and, in reply, while
giving the supporters of the measure every credit for
their good intentions, said that the opinion of the Go-
vernment on the subject remains unchanged.