The Sun.
London, England, 1868-11-13 00:00:00

MR. BBIGHT AT BIRMINGHAM.

On Thursday AIL Bright attended a ward meeting for
the first time during this election. He was enthusi-
astically cheered. He asked them if they could point to a
single thing that their opponents, the candidates of
the other party, had done with a view of extending
the franchise. Did they ever hold a public
meeting—did they ever get up a petition ? But
they got up a petition that every elector of the
borough of Birmingham should only vote for two
men instead of three ; and Mr. Newdegate himself, when
he asked the House of Commons, in opposing that clause,
who it was that asked for it, got up and said, if he recol-
lected rightly, that he had presented a petition from
Birmingham, signed by 4,000 persons, asking the House of
Commons to give one member to the minority. What
must be the effrontery, then, of men—what must, to use
a word that they knew a little more familiarly, what
must be the courage and impudence of men who had
all the years of their lifetime not only denied them the
suffrage, but had vituperated and abused him in every
form of the English language, and mainly because he
asked that they should have the suffrage. And if they
had opposed the franchise for forty years, what assurance
had they that they would in the future complete that
parliamentary reform they now had? How could it be
expected that they would disfranchise the small boroughs,
and give the people the ballot ; for there were hundreds
of thousands of men who now had no more freedom
than if they were handcuffed or in the cells of a
prison? By some unfortunate fatality or accident the
Tories were nearly always in the wrong upon all great
questions. They opposed the repeal of the corn laws,
the taxes upon knowledge, and the French treaty.
The object of that treaty was that the two nations
should be linked together in a community of interests,
and that a perpetual peace should be created between
them. And what were their opinions in regard to peace
within the limits of the United Kingdom? Why should
Ireland be governed in such a way that an immense army
was required to keep the people in subjection ? The govern-
ment ought to be such, and might be such, that not a single
soldier should be required in the kingdom to keep the people
in subjection to the Crown or in loyalty to the law, and
he believed that if Ireland were properly governed
there would not be a single soldier required there any
snore than in Scotland. If Ireland were well treated
reland would be content; but Ireland had been governed
j4vith great injustice, and he was sure that no policy
tor Ireland—and of all policies no policy was about
the worst of all—would not receive the sanction of
the great constituency when it camp to pronounce its
great verdict on Tuesday next. Mr. Bright then
referred to the slanders poured upon Mr. Gladstone
and himself by the Tory party. No sooner was one
dirty, malicious, lying scandal trodden under foot in the
mire to which it belonged, than those ingenious gentle.
men, some of them professing to be highly Protestant
and vastly pious, got up another story of the same sort.
The instruments of their opponents, indeed, were quite
willing to grope in dirty kennels and sewers to find some
bit of dirt which they could throw at them.

MR. STANSFIELD ON THE PERMISSIVm
BILL.

Mr. Stansfeld, on Wednesday, gave the electors or
Halifax his opinions on theTermissive Bill. There were
three actual theories, and only three possible theories,
with reference to legislation on the liquor traffic. One
was the theory of free trade, another was the theory of
absolute suppression, and the third was the theory of
regulation and restriction. He need not detain
them for a moment in considering the theory of free trade,
because they would universally assent to the proposition
that the principles of free trade did not apply to the
question of the liquor traffic. The second theory was the
theory of the United Kingdom Alliance. In their view
the consumption of drinks which, if taken in excess, in-
toxicated, was something intrinsically and essentially
inadmissible and bad. They looked upon the traffic in
those drinks as a traffic utterly incapable of restrictive
legislation. They regarded it, in fine, just as others
regarded the institution of slavery, as something bad in
principle and wicked even in its conception ; nay, in fact,
to use their own language, "it was a traffic which repre-
sented bell, in the contest between heaven and hell in
which they were engaged." But what was the meaning
of the total suppression of the liquor traffic ? Many people
imagined that it meant the closing of public-houses and
beershops. It not only meant that, but a great deal
more. It meant that no beer, wine, or spirit merchant
stould be allowed to sell, even for consumption in
private houses, any beer, wines, or spirits. It meant
that the brewer should cease to brew, that the
distiller should cease to distil, and that the importer
!should cease to import, in order that the end of the
United Kingdom Alliance should be attained, viz., that it
should become a physical impossibility for any human
being in these isles to drink too much, because it should
be impossible for him to find anything to drink at all.
They disregarded entirely all questions of interests
involved, and the question of the hardships which a
sudden and total suppression would heap upon the hun-
dreds and thousands of persona who were employed,
directly or indirectly, in the industry connected with the
traffic, and they also disregarded the rights of property
and the very large capital which was involved in it.
With such a principle, and with such ultimate objects,
he could not agree. He would not say that he had no
sympathy with the promoters of the Alliance move
ment, because, as far as he was concerned, he knew of no
individual sacrifice, whether of means or independence,
that he himself would not willingly incur, if by such sacrifice
be could banish intemperance from this land. But he
held that the original conception of the men (whom he
believed to be earnest in their cause) must be a dream. It
must have been conceived in absolute ignorance of human
nature, and of what human nature would submit to. He
looked upon the Permissive Bill as simply a method by which
the United Kingdom Alliance, true to its own principle and
object, endeavoured to realise that principle and to realise
that object. He had found that the Permissive Bill had
recommended itself to the minds of many, upon the under-
standing that it paid respect to the principle of local self.
government. There never was a greater mistake or a
greater delusion than that. He objected to the Per-
missive Bill, and he should not be a party to it.
because he contended that it sinned against the
principle of local self-government. It originated with
people who were wedded to one object. On the other
hand, whilst he did not believe in suppression, he
believed in regulation. With respect to what might
be called " merchant traffic"—he meant delivery for
consumption at home—he did not think there should be
any restriction ; but when they came to houses of public
entertainment—because that was the true meaning of the
word " public-house "—the case was utterly changed. He
did not think that any sensible man would deny that the
needless multiplication of these houses was a great temp•
tation and a great abuse. He did not think anyone could
deny, on the other hand, that excessive competition
induced the owners and occupiers of those houses to devise
attractions which were mischievous in the extreme. His
object would be first to lessen the number of houses,
and to weed out all save those which could and ought
to be respectably conducted to a profit. He would
desire to revise carefully the conditions and regulations
under which licenses should be granted, suspended,
or refused. Above all, he would seek to obtain soli('
guarantees of good conduct, and, in his opinion, the best
guarantee for good conduct was a money guarantee. He
was in favour of placing beerhouses, as well as public•
houses, not only under police supervision, but magisterir
control.

Two trains on the Irish North-Western line have
been brought to a stand, almost at the same moment, nu tip
pit VA ski% t.y
.tko_ deli l@ =lad of raila

~~

SPORTING INTELLIGENOE.

SHREWSBURY RACES-YESTERDAY.

The Forester Plate of 50 sovs (Handicap), for two year
olds and upwards ; winners after the deolaration of the
weights 71b extra ; about one mile.

Vespasian
1
President Lincoln 2
John Leech
Eleven ran.

The Longleate Handicap of 5 sovs each, for all ages ; win.
ners after the declaration of the weights 71b extra.
A bout three furlongs, straight.
Sphynx..... 1
Spitfire 2
Mathilde 3

Ten ran.
A Selling Nursery Plate of 100 sovs (Handicap), for two
year olds; winners after Nov. 5 (at ten a.tn.) 51b, twice
or 100 sovs 101 b extra; the winner to ba sold for 200
sovs; half a mile, straight.
Al tisidora
Iniperatrice colt
Pompeii....

I.

3

Five ran.
The Newport Gold Cup, value 203 sovs, by subscription
of 10 soya each, with 50 added ; two year olds 6st 11b,
three Bst 41b, four 9st 31b, five, six, and aged 9st olb ;
once round, .‘bout ono mile one furlong.
Mercury
Knight of the Garter
Cocoa Nut

1

a
Eight ran.

The Caldecott Nursery Handicap of 10 soya each, 3 ft,
with 100 added; winners after Nov. 5 (at ten a.m.) Sib
extra, twice or of 100 soya 101 b extra; about half a mile
straight.

Onyx
Scout
Glen Rosa 3

Nine ran.
The Wrekin Handicap of 10 sous each, h ft, with 50 added,
for all ages; winners after the declaration of the weights
71b extra ; the winner to be sold for 50 sous; about half
a mile, straight.

Suonnerside colt
Sir Oliver 2
Cheddington