Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

especially in the manufacturing districts, though they were chiefly confined to the working classes. In the United States of America they obtained still greater currency; so much so, that Neal Dow, the mayor of Portland, U.S., had succeeded in carrying a law for the state of Maine, of which that town was the capital, and which is known by the title of the 'Maine liquor law.' This law was passed in 1851. In 1852 Nathaniel Card, a member of the Society of Friends, a pledged total abstainer, but who had not hitherto taken an active part in promoting the views of the advocates of total abstinence, wrote to Mr. Neal Dow for information respecting the Maine liquor law. The reply that he received to this communication made him resolve to endeavour to establish in England an organisation to agitate in favour of a similar measure. He succeeded in inducing Mr. Alderman Harvey of Salford, Mr. James Simpson of Fox Denton, Mr. J. Brotherton, M.P. for Salford, and Mr. Pope, a young barrister, to embark with him in the proposed agitation, and to form with some others a provisional committee. In February of the following year they opened offices in Manchester, and came before the public, with Mr. Walter C. Trevelyan as president, Mr. Harvey as chairman, Mr. Pope, honorary secretary, and Mr. T. B. Barker, who has ever since been the soul of the agitation, as working secretary. The first step this committee took was to endeavour to unite those who were favourable to the movement throughout the country into a general council, of which Father Mathew, Mr. Silk Buckingham, the Earl of Allanton, and several others whose names had become widely known on account of the efforts they had made to promote the cause of temperance, became vice presidents. On the 1st of June, 1853, the council was constituted; and in October next a great inaugural meeting was held, at which the following propositions were unanimously adopted as a basis for the agitation, and as indicating the character and scope of the movement.

1. That it is neither right nor politic for the state to afford legal protection and sanction to any traffic or system that tends to increase crime, to waste the national resources, to corrupt the social habits, and to destroy the health and lives of the people.

1864.J

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

243

2. That the traffic in intoxicating liquors as common beverages is inimical to the true interests of individuals, and destructive to the order and welfare of society, and ought therefore to be prohibited.

3. That the history and results of all past legislation in regard to the liquor traffic abundantly prove that it is impossible satisfactorily to limit or regulate a system so essentially mischievous in its tendencies.

4. That no considerations of private gain or public revenue can justify the upholding of a system so utterly wrong in principle, suicidal in policy, and disastrous in results, as the traffic in intoxicating liquors.

5. That the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic is perfectly compatible with rational liberty, and with all the claims of justice and legitimate commerce.

6. That the legislative suppression of the liquor traffic would be highly conducive to the development of a progressive civilisation.

7. That, rising above class, sectarian, or party considerations, all good citizens should combine to procure an enactment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating beverages, as affording the most efficient aid in removing the appalling evils of intemperance.'

The methods adopted by this body to promulgate its principles and promote its objects were:

1. Lectures and public meetings.

2. Essays, tracts, placards, handbills, and periodical publications, including a weekly organ, the Alliance News (price 1d.).

3. Petitions and memorials to parliament, to government, to local authorities, and to religious bodies.

4. House-to-house canvasses, to ascertain the opinions of heads of families and other adult members.

5. Conference of electors, ministers of religion, Sundayschool teachers, the medical profession, and other important bodies.

Nothing in this agitation was more striking than the saccess which attended the public meetings held by the Alliance. They were usually convened in the largest buildings in the cities, towns, and villages in which they were held; they were frequently called and presided over by the mayors of the towns in which they were held; were

freely open to all classes; discussion was invited, resolutions submitted embodying the principles and aims of the association: and in nearly all cases were affirmed by enthusiastic and unanimous votes.

Resolutions and memorials from public meetings were continually sent to the home office, and to various influential members of her majesty's government, urging them to bring in a comprehensive measure, dealing with the whole licensing question, and giving the ratepayers of each parish a power of veto on the local issue of licenses by a vote of two-thirds.

In the year 1855 the executive offered prizes of one hundred guineas, fifty guineas, and twenty guineas, for the three best essays of those sent in, advocating and defending the principles and policy of the organisation. The essay that gained the first prize was written by Dr. F. R. Lees, and published in 1856. It constituted a volume of 320 pages, and an edition of 11,000 was rapidly sold off. Second and third editions followed, large issues of which were absorbed. Subsequently, to meet the still increasing applications, a condensed edition of the prize-essay argument was issued; and since then two other editions have been called for, making in all upwards of 100,000 copies. In addition to these, a sequel to the argument, containing an answer to all objections, and a history of the Maine law, written by the same author, was issued by the Alliance, and several large editions of it have been called for.

In June, 1857, a conference of 400 clergymen and other Christian ministers of all denominations was held in the town-hall Manchester during three days. The circular convening the conference received the written sanction of not less than 11,000 ministers of religion. Amongst the resolutions adopted by this assembly was the following declaration :

'We, the undersigned ministers of the gospel, are convinced by personal observation within our own sphere, and authentic testimony from beyond it, that the traffic in intoxicating liquors as drink for man is the immediate cause of most of the crime and pauperism, and much of the disease and insanity that afflict the land; that everywhere, and in proportion to its prevalence, it deteriorates the moral character of the people, and is the chief outward

1864.]

THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

245

obstruction to the progress of the gospel; that these are not its accidental attendants, but its natural fruits; that the benefit, if any, is very small in comparison with the bane; that all schemes of regulation and restriction, however good so far as they go, fall short of the nation's need and the nation's duty; and that, therefore, on the obvious principle of destroying the evil which cannot be controlled, the wisest course for those who fear God and regard man is to encourage legitimate efforts for the entire suppression of the trade, by the power of the national will, and through the force of a legislative enactment.' This declaratior received the adhesion in writing of upwards of 3000 ministers of religion.

During the years 1858 and 1859 a system of house-tohouse canvass was adopted in numerous localities in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales; the result of which was as follows:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This expression of opinion was in every case recorded in writing, on printed papers explanatory of the principle and object of the proposed law; the canvass was conducted by voluntary agency; and all replies to the queries were carefully scrutinised by local committees of clergymen, Sundayschool teachers, and other well-known and respectable persons having the confidence of the community; the results being immediately published, and all inquiries frankly responded to.

At the annual council-meeting of the Alliance in October 1857 a draft of suggestions for a permissive prohibitory liquor law was adopted, and put into extensive circulation; at the council-meeting in 1863 it was confirmed; and in the session that followed, a bill founded on it was submitted to the House of Commons.

The preamble of the bill set forth, that 'Whereas the sale of intoxicating liquors is a fruitful source of crime, immorality, pauperism, disease, insanity, and premature death, whereby not only the individuals who give way to drinking habits are plunged into misery, but grievous wrong is done to the persons and property of her majesty's

subjects at large, and the public rates and taxes are greatly augmented; and whereas it is right and expedient to confer upon the ratepayers of cities, boroughs, parishes, and townships, the power to prohibit such common sale as aforesaid: be it therefore enacted,' &c.

The bill went on to provide that, on application of any district, the votes of the ratepayers shall be taken as to the propriety of adopting the provisions of the act; but that a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes taken shall be necessary in order to decide that question in the affirmative. The act itself would, when once adopted in any district, prohibit within that district all traffic in intoxicating liquor for common purposes.

The first reading of the bill, though strongly opposed, was carried by a large majority, after a brief debate. The second reading, as expected, was defeated by a large majority, but forty members voted and paired off in favour of the bill. This was a much larger number than had been expected by the promoters of the measure. Petitions in favour of the bill were sent in, bearing upwards of 482,000 signatures; whilst the opposing petitions were but few, and chiefly emanated from interested parties.

In 1869, on the motion for a second reading of the bill, 94 voted and paired in its favour (an increase of 54).

The large number of persons who were engaged in the agitation, the wealth and social position of many of them, the enormous funds which had been subscribed to support the Alliance, and the influence which it exercised in the election of members to parliament, obtained for its proposals a very attentive and respectful consideration. It was felt by many who were not prepared to go the full length of the permissive bill, that something needed to be done to reduce the immense amount of pauperism and crime which was distinctly traceable to drinking habits which the public-houses engendered. Others were of opinion that the principle of local control which the permissive bill embodied was the only one calculated to contend with the gigantic evils which the liquor traffic was producing, and were willing that the bill should be read a second time in the hope that amendments would be introduced in committee which would modify those features in it which they regarded as affording a too-violent remedy

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »