Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

WEDNESDAY.

News
Cite
Share

WEDNESDAY. The debate upon the second reading of Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Permissive Prohibitory Bill in the House of Commons ran for some time almost entirely in the old grooves, and few, if any, new arguments were ad- vanced, either on one side or on the other; but after a while the discussion,became more practical, and in the end it had the effect of throwing considerable light upon the intentions of the Government with reference to the licensing system. The hon. baronet the member for Car- lisle laid, naturally, a great deal of stress upon the extent to which drunkenness prevails among certain classes in the country, and the evils which it produces; and after alluding to the repressive legislation which has been adopted in many of the States of the American Confedera- tion, and dealing with the arguments by which his pro- posal would probably be met, warmly urged the House to give its assent to a measure which he declared was supported, and indeed demanded, by the aristocracy of the working classes. Mr Bazley, in seconding the motion for the second reading, relied mainly upon the patent evils of intoxication—which he asserted to be the cause of two- thirds of the crime of the country-and asserted that the only remedy for those evils was to be found in this Bill. Colonel Jervis founded his appeal to the House to reject the measure upon its interference with individual liberty, or rather with the liberty of large classes of people who might happen to he in a minority in their respective dis- tricts. He did not deny the prevalence of habits of intoxication among the working classes but he asserted that drunkenness, "instead of increasing, was diminishing, and warned the House that such a measure would pro- bably create greater evils than those which it would remove. Referring to the fact that the petitions in favour of the Bill were signed by young persons only sixteen years of age, he inquired, rather indignantly, Are grown-up men to be'legislated for by a parcel of children?" —Mr Osborne Morgan said that after careful consideration he felt it his duty to support the Bill. They were all agreed that drunkenness was the bane and curse of the poorer classes in this country, and the fruitful parent of crime and misery. He believed they could only meet that evil by some special enactment, and he could not help thinking that for much of it their present legislation, or he ought perhaps rather to say their want of legislation, was directly responsible. He by no means contended that the Bill before the House was a perfect measure but until hon. members could point out to him a more effectual mode of curing the evil which it sought to deal with he should support that Bill. He quite admitted that the remedy contained in the Bill was a most stringent one, but it was to be remembered that stubborn diseases required strong remedies, and the disease of drunkenness was one requiring the utmost boldness to cure. It was contended that if Parliament passed this measure it would be abro- gating its functions as an imperial court of legislation, and would be delegating its powers to local bodies. That, however, was nothing new, for even under the existing state of the law the right of the local bodies to tax them- selves was admitted and recognised. This Bill was pre- eminer.tly a ratepayers' question, and they alone should ql be left to deal with it; because as surely as pauperism begot increased rates, so eurely did drunkenness beget in- creased pauperism. His own opinion was that it was a very sound and- sensible idea to remit the principle embodied in the Bill to the discretion and decision of local tribunals. Indeed, he would 'like to see the power of these local bodies increased in this respect. He should like if the ratepayers had the power of abolishing public houses altogether in cases where they saw fit, to limit their numbers, and exercise the strictest supervision over them in those districts where it ,was thought beneficial to allow them. The ratepayers were clearly the best judges of the necessities of their own particular localities, the conditions upon which publicjhouses should be allowed, and the restrictions which it would be judicious to impose upon them. One of the stock objections urged against the Bill was that it would place in the hands of the majority of a parish the means of coercing the minority. That argument was all very well as far as it went, but the fact ,of the matter was, that it was refuted 'by everyday expe- xience. Our whole system of legislation was in a measure based upon the principle that the majority should decide controverted questions; and in that house there were innumerable examples of the minority having to submit to the wishes of the majority. Perhaps the strongest argu- ment against the Bill was that by adopting it you would be punishing the innocent for the guilty. Those who urged this objection contended that it was very hard that a man who used drink should be prohibited its use because a good many abused it. He felt that there was some force in (this argument, although it could not be supported upon strictly teetotal grounds. He admitted that there was much-truth in the objection, but he could not adopt it, because tiere was a most flagrant evil requiring to be dealt with, and as it was a greater evil than the .evil of leaving things as they were, he felt bound to support the Bill. No doift>t the remedy which this measure proposed was somewhat clumsy, and unscientific, but as there was none better at "hand he thought it would be wise to adopt it. Another favourite argument of the opponents of the Bill was that, by accepting it, they would be making one law for the rich and another for the poor. That, however, was not really the case. Those who contended that clubs should be closed 'because public-houses should be closed really begged the question. Drunkenness, it was to be remembered, was the evil that they were striving to deal with. Now, it was essential to be borne in mind that, as a rule, men got drunk in public houses, but did not get drunk in clubs; so that there was really no analogy be- tween the two cases, Moreover, it should further be con- sidered that a very large proportion of the working and poorer classes themselves were in favour of some such Bill as that under discussion. No less than 2,300 petitions had been presented from all parts of the country, generally from the poorest sections of the community, in favour of the Bill, which showed that these poor people wished really, by means of legislation, to be protected against themselves. Capital was sought to be made by the ob- jectors to the measure out of the fact of the Bill being supported by the United Kingdom Alliance, on the grouud that it was unfair to allow an organised association like that to gain the advantage which its strength and wealth were likely to afford. That argument, however, cut both ways. If the United Kingdom Alliance were ranged on the one side, there were the licensed victuallers ranged upon the other, and these latter were very far from being uninfluential in Parliament, The last ob- jection which he should notice was a very simple one. It was said that large numbers of persons had been induced to invest their capital in public-houses on the security of the present law, and that if they were to be deprived of the liberty of carrying on their business they were entitled to compensation. He denied, however, that any such claim could justly be set up. This was not a private Bill in connection with which the rights of individuals might very fairly be taken into consideration. On the contrary, the Bill was one which sought to deal with one of the greatest and most important problems that ever engaged the attention of the legislature, and private interest had no claim to be taken into account. The Bill was not the best remedy that could be provided, but until a better was brought forward he should support it. (Hear, hear.) Mr C. E. Cawley could not assent to the second reading of the measure, because it would be impossible to prohibit the sale of beer or spirits throughout the whole country, [ and he did not think it right to commit to a section of the inhabitants of any district a power which could not and ought not to be exercised all over the kingdom.—Mr W. E. Forster fully recognised the demand which exists, especially amongst the elite of the working classes, for legislation of this description but he could not consent to give the majority of the inhabitants of any district power to prevent the minority from doing something which was perfectly innocent. At the same time he thought that, although the ratepayers could not be allowed to exercise prohibitory power, some authority might be permitted to them in the way of restricting the number of public- houses. At the close of his speech he appealed to the Home Secretary, not as a colleague, but as a member of the House, to take this subject into his serious considera- tion, and at as early an opportunity as possible to propose legislation upon the whole subject. This view comrc ended itself to Lord Sandon, Mr Leatham, Mr Scourfield, and Mr Walter, all of whom questioned the justice of the charge of general drunkenness which had been made against the working classes, but concurred in urging the necessity that the Government should take some measures to remove the admitted evils of the present system of licensing. -Differing entirely from these views, Mr Jacob Bright expressed his preference for a much more revolutionary measure than the one before the House, and only gave his support to that Bill because he did not see his way to inducing Parliament to adopt more stringent legislation.—Mr Bruce, in expressing the views of the Government, fairly grappled with the principle of Sir W. Lawson's Bill; and, affirming that public-houses supplied means of innocent enjoyment and comfort to very large classes of persons who could not obtain them elsewhere, maintained that what was really needed was not prohibition but regulation. Partially raising the veil which has hitherto concealed the intentions of the Government upon this subject, he informed the House that there has for some time been in the pigeon-holes of the Home-office a measure for the improvement of the licensing system, and the regulation of public-houses, the introduction of which has only been prevented by the consciousness of successive Home Secretaries that they were powerless to press it through the House. Their inability to perform this task he attributed, in part at least, to the influence which in past times licensed victuallers were able to exercise over Members of Parliament; and anticipating that this influence had been diminished by the recent extension of the suffrage, he announced that the Government intended next session to deal, and to deal efficaciously, with this subject. As to the details of the proposed measure, of course, he was silent; but he indicated generally that its provisions would be directed to improving the character of public-houses, restricting the hours during which they should be open, and conferring upon some persons, or body of persons, a power to limit their number. Under no cir- cumstances could he assent to the Bill before the House, and, in order to facilitate the measure which the Govern- ment proposed to adopt next year, he asked the House to reject it. This speech substantially closed the debate. Sir W. Lawson resisting an appeal hinted by Mr Graves, and pressed by Sir G. Grey, determined "to take the sense of the House," and, upon a division, the motion for the second reading of the Bill was rejected by a majority of 106--193 to 87. A short time was occupied in an un- finished discussion of Mr Norwood's County Courts Bill; and, after disposing of some other business, the House ad- journed.

THURSDAY.

INTIMIDATION IN WALES.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER…

- THE LITTLE AFFRAY AT ABERDOVEY.

EMIGRATION CLUBS.

ABERYSTWYTH.

BUILDING COMMITTEE.

LOCAL PROMISES AND PAYMENTS.

THE INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODDFELLOWS.

VISITORS.

OPENING OF TENDERS.

ABERDOVEY.

----l FRIDAY.

MONDAY.

TUESDAY.

COUNNTY FINANCIAL BOARDS.!