The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-11-01 00:00:00

PROFESSOR FAWCETT ON THE
PERMISSIVE BILL.

On Tuesday Professor Fawcett met • number of his
conAituents at the Tonplar•hall. Windior•street,
lirnthtoo, in orier to discuss the merita and principles
of the Perruibsive

In reply to the arguments urged in favour of the
measure, Professor Fawcett said he wee glad of an
opportuelty of discueeing this rubject with them,
elittough whet he was going to say he should
like to have esil on the pretious night, in the face
ef the whole of the constituency. He was anxious
to brine forward points on whice there was a difference
between himself and his constituents before the
meeting, and he purposely endeavoured to devote him'
self, as far as possible, to those sufijects on which he
thought any difference of opinion would be likely to
arise. (Hear). He wished it to be distinctly ouster.
stood that he was not in favour of the Permissive Bill.
It would be unreasonable to think that his mind would
ever be changed on the subject, but he would only say
this,—as long as his opinions remained the same art
they were—and he was bound to tell them that they
hail not been changed by that interview—not only
should he vote against the Permissive Bill, but he
should take very great care to continue to vote agaleet
it at every division. They might ask why he was so
decided upon • subject upon which he remained at one
time neutral becatem he felt that he had not given •
eutlioient amount of attention to the question. He
could not pretend to warder every question that was
brought he fore the House of Commene, and therefore
at the risk of being supposed sometime, to be, perhaps,
an inattentive member, he avoided voting on those
questions which he thought he bad net thoroughly
studit el. lie should rather see himself occupy a lower
place in the Bell hook ,than that which he did before he
would give • great number of votes simply :t the die-
tatien of a party, without considering the eubject.
They might ask what induced him to devote to much
attention to the Permissive Bill? Ile began con-
sidering the subj-et eel-loudly, when be found the•
the Pi-rmiseive Bill was to be made • test ques-
tion by very many at an election. When the
electure in a body came forward and said, 'We
c rnsiiier this question so important, we regard it
as of such inhuitely greater importance than all
other question, put together, that a member or
candidate who is tot with us or against us can-
not have our votes," it then became the duty of a
candidate to study that queetion. (Hear, hear.) The
fact that he heard it was going to be made a test roes.
tion by a certain section of the constituency induced
him to study it, and the result had been that—what-
ever might be the consequences—he had come to so
positive a conclueina that this Bill in not just in prin-
ciple that he should feel it his duty to them, although
he was once neutral, to give against it a meat positive
and unhesitating vote.
The chief argument in favour of the measure seemed
to be that the abuse of intoxicating liquors prc (laced
great mischief ; therefore, the use of them ought to be
entirely suppressed. Now, he would ask them for one
moment to consider to what extent this principle, if
logically carried out, would lead us? Where were
we going to atop in this legislative career? Were
there not other things which also produced
great mischief to the nation? They spoke of the
effect produced upon poverty by drunkenness. Was
not poverty also produced by imprudenoe ? And
what led more to imprudence than a man who wont;
not save money when he had the opportimity of saving
it! Were they, then, to pass an Act of Parliament
that every one be compelled to save? Then, again,
they knew perfectly well that nothing would tend to
bring greater poverty upon a person than improvidence
and an imprudent marriage. They weresurely not g iing
to propose that marriages were to be controlled by Act
of Parliament, however desirable it might be to society
that no one should marry before he was in a Wei-
tion to take a wife and maintain • family. They
were not to say that the circumstances of every one
were to be inquired into to ascertain if he was in a
position to marry, and yet he believed it would be early
to prove that no smell amount of the misery and the
poverty we were suffering from in this country was
not simply due to druukenness, hut due also to impru-
dence resulting fern people not saving, aril also due
to the improvident:a that was tor often exercised in
marriage.
Bcference had been made to the injury done to pro-
perty by having the publichouse next to it. No doubt
that was the cue, but what he maintained was this,
that the principle they could not carry out. There
were other boamersea which were disagreeable to be
carried on close to one', belief., and people were
obliged to run all these kinds of rinse. He did not be-
lieve a pablichouse, it well conducted, need ne:essarily
be • nuieence. Ile lived himself once very nears welb
conduced house, and he did not tied it any greater
nuisance than the roaming on of any other business he
could name, and if it had been proved to be •emissince,
all that he could say was it tiught to be put down.
(" Heir, hear," and applmse.) No one while d that
the sale of intoxicating liquors eh-itild be carried on so
as to produce a nuisance to those people who were
living near the place, any more than they would wish
that a butcher's shop, or a 6ihmoriger'e aeon, or green-
grocer's shop, or any other butiness, should cause a
nuisance to those living in the neighbourhood.
But the most important argument was the liberty of
the individual. Insupp et of this The Ames was tooted,
cud MI far as Mr. Fawcett could uuderstauti the
quotatien it was this, —that you had a perfect
right to interfere with an individual's liberty if
the exercise of that libeity WM a harm to his
neighbours. That was a principle which ought
to be carefully watched before it was uuiveraally
applie 1. Now, the point on which he rested his case
weal this—that if he went into • publichouse anti bought
a Owe of beer he might recline, to quench his thirst,
Or to take a glees of wine which he might require as a
1411'1'11mA, he did no more harm to his neighbours than
he dtd if he went into a baker's shop and bought a
loaf of bread. If he went into • publichouse and got
into a state of drunkenness, he then became a nuisance
to himself anti to other j eople ; but the mere fact
of oh going into a!publichourte and calling for • gleam
of beer, he distinctly stated there was no more !
in that act than in his going into a shop and buying
loaf of bread; and this was Lis fundamental objection
to the Bill. Because certain people abused the use
of publichouses, they hail no right whatever, tar
has they were prepared to say that the drinking
of • glees of beer was in Itself wrong—(Cries of "It
is.") Well, if they maintained that, then they were
logical; but then they ought to go further and say
that the trade in intoxicating liquors was a trade in
Poisons. (heer, hear.) He now understood them.
But that being the case, the Permissive Bill ought to
have gone further than it did ; they ought not to allow
private drinking. If alcoholic liquors were a poison,
then it was as bad to take them in a private house
as it was anywhere else. However, they were
•nt arguing that point. It seemed to him that
u_ni;,' :s. they were prepared to treat it as a poison—
w". - were not, according to the principles of the
Permissive
e,thetr whole cease fell to the ground :
imbed they c um ,
. • iw red were prepared to utaintin
umil going into -
e and buying a glees
°tof bbei...er 117:gem% ty.
He believed he did not do an; and 1,V.°,17,t-L,el44hbourit
that it eeen,ed to Hui out if the moat
intsrferences with individual liberty to Pay that"tr
liked to get a glass of beer he should not be Me. to d'o'
so.
Although he should always most carefully listen to
every orgnment that might be advanced and madly

_
attend to evilly eeentninioation he might receive on the
subject, yet .GIN as his opinion on this imbject WY con-
cerned there was one thing which ought not to infloence
him—end that was the way in which they would vote in
cocaequence of the viewe he had ex2ressed. In reply
t, • queation with regard to the Habitual Drunkarde
Bill, Mr. Fawcett said he did not vote for the one
whiah was brought before the Home, because it seemed
to him that the Bill was very ill-drawc. That Bill,
however, appeared to him to involve a totally different
principle from the principle of the Permissive Bill. If
it could be proved that a man wee an habitn.l
drunkard, he said that he then proved as mach as if
he were a innate that he WM unfit to take care of him-
self ; and therefore he should certainly be prepared to
accept the princi,le of placing him under restraint if
necessary. To the principle of the Bill he was in no
way ooposecl. His vote with reference to any Bill
would be determined by the details of the Bill. (Ap-
plause.)