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

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, June_ 16,_ after some pre-

liminary business had been disposed of, Sir W. Lav:ison
having moved the second reading of the Permissive Pro-
hibitory Liquor Bill, in favour of which a large number of
petitions numerously signed had been presented,

Mr. Wheelhouse rose to move the rejection of the measure.
He asked why a Bill of the kind was again brought forward,
when three-fourths of the members of the House had gone
into the lobby to vote against it. The Permissive Bill told
its own story, and by its own principles was self-condemned.
It had been argued that the sale of drink should be pro-
hibited altogether, because some persons under its influence
did great harm, but it would be just as reasonable if the sale
of Sheffield knives were stopped because outrages and mur-
ders had been committed with them. Pass the Bill, and
they would keep a district in a continual agitation until, if it
were decided to put it into operation in a certain place, its
opponents would be unable to repeal it for three years.
But if there were places where it would be approved,
he asked what right the majority of the ratepayers
had to say that the minority should not consume beer, wine,
and spirits if they chose? Means, however, would be found
to evade the operation of such a measure, for all the restric-
tion and all the legislation in the world would not prevent
people getting drink if they wanted it, or, indeed, getting
drunk, if they ere fools enough to do it. This was essen-
tially a poor man's question, for it could not interfere with the
club of the rich. The public-house was the poor man's
cellar, and they had no right to deprive him of it. This
Bill was, in fact, neither a rational nor a national mode of
dealing with the question. It was coercive in its character,
and as such he felt bound to oppose it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. Goldstnid seconded the amendment. He remarked
that the argument that those who were In favour of the Bill
were opposed to the publicans, while those who opposed the
measure were on the side of the publicans, might appear to
be very good in theory, but was not warranted by practice,
because he believed that there were many persons who
opposed the Bill who had nothing whatever to do
with the publicans, and only desired to see no
Interference with the public until real necessity was
shown. This necessity, he contended, did not exist,
more especially as of recent years drunkenness had
greatly decseased ; indeed, he believed that that vice among
educated workmen was not more common than among gentle-
men. The Maine Liquor Law had been a failure, and could
not be relied upon, and ought certainly not to be introduced
into this country. The proper way to further decrease
drunkenness was to bring home the vice to those who did
give way, and to strengthen them in mind, and to show the
foly of such proceedings by education.
After remarks from Mr. Carter and Mr. Roebuck,
Sir W. Lawson remarked that the united wisdom of this
House had been brought to bear upon the licensing question,
but the result was that drunkenness was increasing. He
could see no ground for the condemnation of those who had
been present at the banquets of licensed victuallers. Be
had never been invited to attend such festivals, but if he
were he certainly should attend. (A laugh.) The whole
question was whether it was an advantage to the cause
of freedom that magistrates should, agamt the will of
their fellow-citizens, establish gin-shops in every district.
That was bringing no charge against the publicans.
They were commissioned to sell, and his case was that
they had made a mistake, and that they had sold a great
many people a great deal more than was good for them.
He proposed no revolutionary change, and did not suggest
' a single new penalty, in which he did not believe to any
great extent, but all he said was that in places where there
was a large majority who thought that upon the whole they
could get on better without drinking shops they should be
enabled to say to the magistrates that they should not set
this elaborate machinery in motion, not for the good of the
public, but for the good of the publicans. He met a right
hon. gentleman in the lobby yesterday who had stated to him
that he would vote against the Bill, but remarked that he had
recently closed all the public-houses on his estate, and
that therefore the Bill was not necessary. He had in reply
asked him why he would not extend to other villages the
privilege of doing that which he had given to his own, and
the right hon. gentleman was speechless, Upon the ques-
tints of compensation, he would only remark that that was
a detail, and could be settled in committee, though he cer-
tainly held to the opinion that he could recognise no
vested right in a system which, in the words of the right
hen, member for Birmingham, assisted to promote crime,
disorder, and madness throughout the country. Among
those who had taken up the question of temperance was
a society amongst the members of which he saw the
name of the Bishop of Peterborough, who had once
signalised himself by a very remerkable utterance upon
the question of licensing. That association, he con-
sidered, went much further than he did, if he might judge
by a paper before him. The Bill was called the Permissive
Bill; he did not know why it should be " the " Permissive
Bill, because there were many measures that were of that
character, and could only assume that it bore that title be-
cause the public felt that it would do more good than all the
remainder of the permissive measures put together. It would
have, if passed, a moral effect upon the publicans, who would
feel that there was a sword of Damocles hanging over them,
Which only a breath would bring down and throw them
over. They might be told that they would cure drunken-
ness by education, but he did not know that that was taught
In their board schools at present, and he said that it was
cruel to let the means that now existed remain, and yet go
to church every Sunday and pray to be removed from tempta-
tion. In conclusion, he commended his measure to the
House, and although he thought it would be deftated this
year, he trusted the time would come when the House would
show itself to be in favour of legislation which would de-
crease the drunkeness and pauperism of the country.
After remarks from Alderman Cotton, Mr. Knatchbull-
Hugessen, and Mr. Sullivan,
Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson rose on behalf of the Government,
and expressed his regret that Sir W. Lawson had not ac-
cepted the verdict of the new House of Commons pro-
nounced so emphatically last year. He wished to see vice
and demoralisation diminished quite as much as the
promoters of the Bill, but he objected to the means
by Which they sought to give effect to their
wishes. He believed that education was gradually
decreasing drunkenness, and that wese they to adopt
the measure before the House they would defeat the
object they had in view. As to the power sought
to be given to the ratepayers under the Bill, this was
objectionable, because they were only one fifth of the
population of the country, and NI ere therefore, not a fair
expression of public opinion. For these reasons he trusted
that the decision of 'the House would be in conformity
with previous decisions with regard to this measure, and in
conclusion he expressed a hope that the hon. baronet would
devote his great energies and talents to bring about a feeling
of self-respect among the working classes, which would do
far more to decrease drunkenness than a renewal of a useless
agitation.