The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-05 00:00:00

HABITUAL DRUZTKARDS.

On the motion for going into cctsmittee of supply,
Mr. D. DALRYMPLE rosoito move a resolution to the
effect that it was desirable/to legislate for the proper re-
ception, detention, 9.11,41 management of habitual
drunkards. He said l', hoped the house would fo,yaur
him with its attc4ion for a few moments whilst
ho addressed, to it./V fel,v observations to_show the great

benefits which would result by adopttninsOine Inettiiii to
.-,.etsain the habitual drunkard from indtilzing in the vice
to which he had given way. He was induced to hope
hat the House would take the matte r up because
it was one that could not be called of a party character.
lie had been charged with overrating the power of Parlia-
nent to deal with the subject, and also that the
matter was one upon which he entertained a crochet,
but he was quite prepared to labour under such
an imputation if he could but induce the House to take
.;oree steps in order that the great vice of drunkenness
should be diminished. He did not believe that a
drunkard, who had lost all self-control would
ever stop in his mad career until the law had
put a barrier between him and the facility of getting
drunk, and amongst the proposals that he thought it
would be wise and expedient to adopt, he proposed that
there should be established receptacles, in which drunkards
might be kept until they were enabled to exercise
some control over their morals, which as drunkards they
could not do. Another of the recommendations was to
place the property of drunkards under the power of
trustees, until they became able to properly take care
of it themselves. It was further proposed to give
magistrates the power to commit drunkards to some refor-
• inneory ward or'workhouse, and place them under medical
control, until they were enabled, by discipline and prac-
tice, to get control over their dissipated habits.
On a cure taking place, the money that the
drunkard might , have earned during his confinement
should be handed over to him after the cost of his main-
tenance had been deducted, and with this fund he would
be able to get a fresh start in life, which he
would never be able to have if he were
not stopped in his wild and reckless career. The cost7E
these institutions, it had been urged, would be one of the
difficulties that would prevent the establishment of these
institutions, and the next objection that had been raised
was what would become of the family of the drunkard during
his incarceration. To those objections he had to say there
would be a large saving in the cost of workhouses and jails,
a circumstance of itself that by many would be thought
quite enough to justify the establishment of these
reformatories. With respect to the other objec-
tion—what would become . of the family of the
drunkard, he had to ask, could the familybe worse off than
they were whilst the drunken father was dissipating in
drink every farthing ho could rack and rend, little
caring whether the fainting mother and helpless infant had
had the slightest means of obtaining the necessaries of life.
The evil was so great, and the remedy—at all events, he
hoped to some extent—so easy, that he did hope that Par-
liament might be induced to give its sanction to the resolu-
tions he had to-morrow tomove, and then he hoped, when
the attempt was made in good earnest, to reform the habi-
tual drunkard, their efforts would be crowned with
success.
Mr. MILLER seconded the motion. The hon. member
for Bath had made out a strong case for the help of Par-
liament, and he hoped he would be succcsaful in obtain-
ing it.
Mr. BRUCE said the matter which had been brought
before them by the hon. member for Bath was surrounded
by extreme difficulty, and the attempt to frame a law to
deal only with confirmed drunkards, was a task
that appeared to him almost impossible. It appeared
to him, the hope to do so by the measure now
proposed must be regarded es the dream of a benevolent
mind—(hear, hear)—and according to his (Mr. Bruce's)
view of the matter, the only way of lessening the evil was
to be brought about by the moral conviction of the ter-
rible effects that would ensue from a long continuance
of that disgraceful and degrading vice. (Hear, hear.) He
did hope he should succeed in inducing the hon. member
for Bath to withdraw his motion, the more so as he (Mr.
Bruce) had given notice of his intention to in-
troduce a bill in which the attempt would be
made to interpose mechanical difficulties in the way
of the habitual drunkard. It appeared to him that the
evil must be met by strong means, and not by expedients
such as those proposed by the lion. member for Bath ;
and, being of that opinion, he hoped that the present
motion would not be pressed, and that the bill that was
about to be brought forward would in a great degree ex-
tirpate that which he thought might be regarded as a
national curse.
Mr. DOWNING said that most of the propositions of the
hon. member for Bath were in operation in America,
where they treated the confirmed drunkard as a lunatic.
Mr. Dar.aviireE raid, after the observations of the right
hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, he should not further press his motion. He
had but one object in view, and that was to lessen that
dreadful curse of drunkenness, which was one of the
greatest blots that had ever fallen on the country. (Hear,
hear.)
The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
LIEUTENANT CHEYNE.
Sir JOHN HAY then brought the case of this officer under
the attention of the, House. The noble lord said that
Lieutenant Cheyne had performed a gallant act, and had
saved human life at the risk of his own. He had been
rewarded by a certain appointment on shore, and now it
was proposed to abolish the establishment to which he
had been attached, and which would result in his suffering
great loss without adequate compensation.
Mr. CHILDERS said Lieutenant Cheyne had doubtless
performed a gallant act, and been rewarded ; but it
was not exactly accurate to say by recent changes
he had been deprived of the reward he had
so nobly earned. Lieutenant Cheyne had received
a pension and also a sum of money in lieu of the residence
of which he had been deprived.
The subject then dropped:
THE MALT TAX.
Colonel BARTTELOT called the attention of the House to
the report of the select committee on the malt tax, which
sat in the years 1867 and 1868 ; and moved that it was
expedient that, in lien of the present duties on malt, a
reduced charge should be made on the manufcatured
article, beer ; and it appears to this house that a licence
imposed in the same way as the commuted hop duty
should be charged on public brewers, and a licence tobrew
on all -private brewers. The hon. gentleman, in urging
his motion on the Government, said there was he was
aware the interest of four parties to consider—the pro-
ducer, the consumer, the great brewers, and the Exche-
quer, and he thought that if the malt tax were abolished,
that each of these four contending interests would
be improved. (Hear, hear.) The duty on foreign beer
had been remitted last year, and that fact alone was a
strong one in favour of his motion ; they had also last year
taken off the shilling duty on corn, and under those cir-
cumstances he thought it would be but acting in an equi-
table spirit towards the farmers. The repeal of
the duty would be an act of justice towards
the farmers, and if a small duty was placed upon beer,
the revenue, he felt, would most certainly benefit by the
change.
Mr. C. ItEAD strongly supported the motion,
Mr. DENT said he should like to see something done to
the matter, but he was afraid that the large amount of
revenue at stake would present a great obstacle, which it
would be impossible to surmount.
Sir G. JENKINSON hoped that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would this year remit the malt tax, and give
to farmers some portion of the four millions surplus which
it was stated the right hon. gentleman would have to
dispose of in the budget.
Mr. DODSON supported the motion. He said the malt
tax, as a matter of justice ought to be abolished. It acted
most unjustly, and, in fact, it came in the end to be a tax
on beer, a beverage which was favoured so largely as to
have no less than nine taxes imposed on it, The malt tax
also in the end became a tax on beef and mutton, and
whilst it was so, it did not in that shape contribute one
fraction to the public revenue. He did not think that
any Government, looking to the general public for sup-
port, ought at least to refuse to consider the malt duty,
with a view to its reduction or repeal.
Mr. GREENE remarked that, as a brewer, ho would have
no objection to the proposition that the duty should be im-
posed on beer instead of on malt.
Mr. FEILDEN contended that the tax amounted to 70 per
cent. instead of 121 per cent., and that this could be clearly
demonstrated. He bad long been of opinion that
it was a most unjust impost. The hon. member
concluded by saying be know the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer could not afford to give up altogether a tax amounting
to £7,000,000, but if ho would so alter the imposition of the
tax as to give a better and cheaper beer to the consumer,
much good would be accotrp'ished and the revenue would
not suffer.
The CD ANCELLOR of the ExcurQuEn admitted that he had
no case, inasmuch as lie could not answer all the argu-
ments put forward by the lion. members who had spoken
against the operation of the malt tax ; but he yet could not
so alter the tax as to meet the views of those hon. gentle-
men, seeing that when it was levied on malt there were
a great number of persons engaged in collecting it, and then
the Government did not get very much out of it ; while now
the collectors of it'were infinitely less numerous, and the
operation of the tax was more satisfactory. He promised
to give Col. Barttelot's proposal careful consideration before
he made his financial statement, and expressed a hope that
the motion would not be pressed.
The amendment was withdrawn.
The House then wont into Committee of Supply on the
Navy Estimates. Some votes were egreod to, tied the
House shortly afterwards adjourned.

171.1 Justice issued his decree in August last calling upon
Ithe prelates to exert their authority over the clergy
in order to suppress the Carlist movement many
c),clesiastics resented the action of the Minister, and
the Archbishop of Santiago denied the authority of the
Government to interfere in religious matters. He also
published a manifesto in the Ecclesiastical Bulletin, which,
it is alleged gave encouragement to the Carlists.
Tine priests have always favoured that party, a
fast which no doubt makes the Government more in-
clined to prosecute the Archbishop. The debate
in the Cortes has lasted a week, concluding on
th 25th ult., and has been very animated. Singu-
laxy enough the cause of the Archbishop was
su:Torted by several Radicals, and even by Castelar
lt !nself on the ground that it was desirable the
Courch should be independent of the State. Senor
Corovel y Artiz, who spoke strongly in favour of granting
the authorization, argued that the Minister had full right
to issue the decree of the sth of August, and that the
great majority of the Spanish prelates had obeyed it. The
Archbishop of Santiago and the Bishops of Asma
and Urgel had protested. With respect to
the two last he had nothing to say, as they did
not belong to the Cortes, but Senor Garcia de la.
(Mesta had committed a series of acts not authorised by
the Constitution. Senor Cisneros admitted that the
question, like all those affecting the relations of Church
awl State, was a complex and difficult one.
IL denied that there was any relation between.
the Archbishop's protest and the Carlist rebel-
lion of last year. - If such a charge could be
proved, the Archbishop should bepunished as a conspirator
and rebel •, if it could not be proved,- he could not be
brought there. With respect to the competency of the
tribunal, Senor Cisneros contended that it had been under-
stood for a long time past that ecclesiastics were only
amenable to the civil tribunals for flagrant offences. This
was nothing of the kind. Could the protest of a prelate
against the interference of the Minister with his pastoral
be a criminal offence? No ; it was a juridicial act
on account of which it , was impossible to sub-
ject a bishop to the ordinary. tribunals. Senor
Castelar contented himself with very few words.
The Republican minority, he said, were opposed
to the-authorisation,:not because of the superiority of
the priesthood, which should be in their judgment sub-
ject to the civil authority, but, first, because they wish to
preserve the inviolability of a deputy ; and, secondly, be-
cause they professed the piinciple of the independence and.
liberty of the Churell77The Minister of Giade aird jiiS-
tice (Senor Itivero) maintained that the safety of all liber-
ties depended on the integrity of the judicial power,
and they were called upon to acknowledge
the absolute inviolability of a prelate in Spain,
whatever offence he committed. But they
could admit no such 'immunity. After some further
arnunents on both sides—some speakers acknowledging
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Tribunal, but denying the
existence of any offence—the vote was taken, and shewed
93 for the authorisation, and 59 against it.
The Epoca denounces the conduct of the GoVernment
in the matter as highly. impolitic. Ninety-eight votes
were recorded for them it is true, but the absentees were
numerous and important, while among the fifty-
nine of the minority who defended with their votes
the inviolability of Parliament and the independence of
the Church, were Republicans, Liberals, and Conservatives.;
who were more illustrious and greater friends of the civil
power and the Democratic Constitution. It is not politic,
contends the Epoca, to excite unnecessarily grave questions
which are likely to be fruitful of difficulties and conflicts. It
wauld be wiser, more prudent, and more liberal to con-
form to the principles proclaimed in the revolution of
S.lpteinbcr, and to-respect in the Archbishop of Santiago
and the other prelates the freedom which has always
re =ogniied an independent jurisdiction.