Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1875-06-19 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNIISDAY. THE PERMISSIVE BILL. The second reading of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill having been moved by Sir Wil:rid Law son, Mr Wneetwouse moved that the bill be read a second time this day three montl,s. He argued that the adoption of such a measure w: till tot possibly put a stop to drunkenness, and that to attempt to stop the sCe of of drink in public-houses because a small percentage of the community abused the opportunity afforded by those places for the purchase of drink, was about .115 logical as to stop the cutlery trade of Sheffield, because a few people were proved to have used knives for the purpole of committing murder. Mt JULIAN GOLDSMITH contended that drunkenness had greatly decreased of late years under the fotce of education and public opinion; and he strongly objected to the permissive character of the bill, which was contrary to the ordinary principle on which legislation proceeded. Mr CARTER, in supporting the bill, admitted that there was a decrease of drunkenness in the country, but he maintained that this was owing to the persis! tent efforts of those who supported the principle of the measure. Mr ROEBUCK asked whether the bill was either wise, just, or practical. With regard to its wisdom, he pointed out that it proposed to deny to the people one of the gifts of nature, which, rightly used, they had always been taught to regard as a benefit. The same arguments wkich bad been urged might with the same force be applied to the traffic in poisons, which were used as medicines, or the manufacture of gunpowder, which was so frequently dealt with as to be a source of great danger and mischief., Sir W. Lawson spoke at great length, and contended that the necessity for such a measure had increased with the increase that had taken place in the number of eases of drunkenness. The only question before the House was whether the magistrates and publicans should establish public-houses in different districts, whether the people in those districts liked it or not. The bill proposed no change in the existing machinery for establishing publichouses, or for imposing penalties for breaches of the law. It merely prorosed to give the control of the liquor traffic to a majority of the ratepayers in the different localities of the country. There was nothing now in the principle of the bill, as there were numerous Permissive Acts in relation to all sorts of subjects on the statute-book already. He ' had onle embodied this principle in his measure, and it was quite open to the House to revise or amend the bill. He denied that its adoption would involve an interference with the property of the licensed vietuallere, because the license to sell liquor was a privilege, and the State, by whom it rds granted and by whom its duration was limited, might at any time refuse to renew it without giving rise to the slightest claim for compensation. He appealed to the mass of evidence there was already in existence as to the benefits resulting to lecalities iu which public-houses had been abolished as a strong argumennt in favour of this bill. Alderman COTTON opposed the measure as one that would unduly interfere with the liberties of the i eople. Mr