AN EXAMINATION OF MR BRIGHT'S SPEECH ON LOCAL OPTION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4114, 27 September 1884, Page 6 (Supplement)

AN EXAMINATION OF MR BRIGHT'S SPEECH ON LOCAL OPTION.

(Address delivered at Leeds by Dβ. F. B. J Lm:s. , ; (Concluded.} lII.—Ma Biught's Remedy. Tho essential evil of the Licensing System, by whomsoever administered, is this: —It makes it the live-long interest of a large clas3 of monopolists (at the head of which are millionaire brewers, distillers, and wine-makers)—to tempt the ignorant, the weak, the young, the vicious, and the drunkard, to drink more and more of an article tho inevitable nature of which tends to' increase , appetite, and to deaden the sources of natural pleasure. It, therefore, without our blaming anybody, enlists a wide-spread, traffic and-machinery ..in. sensualising mankind, and in counteracting alike school and college, church and State. You know tilie fruits, how plentiful and how bitter they are, after five centuries of legislation attempting in vain, to arrest even their increase. How can a mero chango of authorities, from magistrates to Town Councils, alter or affect this system ? The existing licensing authorities are,an my judgment",:better than Town Councils. Witness the proceedings at Rotherham tho other week: The Justices refused to renew licenses to a number- of the worst houses. Tho Town Council hereupon impudently assumed that■:they were the representatives of the intelligence and virtue of the town, and moved by the croldon wires of the traffic, passed a vote of ccrisuro upon their own Mayor:and tho' Bench of Magistrates. They then called a Town's Meeting—and the .insincere objectors to a pksbiscite for a, veto, usked for a plebiscite of.coiulemnaU'on ! Three or four

thousand people assembled in the Drill Hall, and after a discussion, by a vote of six to one, the inhabitants condemned the Council for their knavish trick, and totally frustrated their politics ! All praise to the men of Eotherham, say I—and confusion to every selfish and vicious interest! All " remedies" based . upon license- have necessarily failed. " The Scottish Baillies in towns are", and have been for generations, electoral, and also the licensing authorities; vet nowhere have the people felt more the

unsatisfactory results, and in no place is the cry for tho Local Veto so univorsal and so strong. They have introduced, indeed, a Local Veto bill for Scotland," with no ambiguity about it. Nor can I wonder at the failure of town councils. You have a multitude of things to look at in tlie election of town councillors ; it is necessarily a complex affair ; and it is hard indeed to find a large number agreed upon this one point of the drinktraffic, whatever the ratepayers may be. Mr Councillor John Hope, of Edinburgh, in a very pointed letter to Mr ilright, says : — " You recommend the devolving- on town councils the working out of the result to be attained ; but you overlook, that the persons best qualified for, and willing to discharge these special duties, may not be willing to undertake the multifarious duties of a town councillor ; and that the parties elected to the town council in view of these special duties, and well fitted to discharge them, may not be qualified for tho multifarious duties of a town council. Had not, indeed, ever served in a town council, and did you you know as I do what town ooun- ; cils are, having served in one for nearly twenty-five years, you would never have made such a suggestion as a substitute for the plebiscite." Kotherlmm is again an example to the purpose. What is wanted is a short, direct lever; not. one so lengthened cut as to exhaust our force in handling it. Councillors again, like M.P.'s, are subject to all kmcU of societ manipulation, so that this quo tion cannot through them express the full intelligence, the moral influence, and the enthusiasm of the community.

I havo wondered , as to the conflict of opinion that is possible between tho Licons-ing-house or Council, and the Commons or People who sent them, whether Mr Bright will be disposedto accept the solution of the difficulty which he proposes for the settlement of a conflict between the Lords and the Commons ?-namely, that the Council shall reject the proposal of the Constituents for absolute prohibition, if they think fit, the first time the Plebiscite decides for it, but that a second veto shall be absolute, and override my Lords of the Town Council. One fatal flaw in the

reservation of Mr Blight as to the extent of prohibition, is that the proportion of Houses to be licensed must be planted somewhere, and what becomes of the rights and claims of their neighbours ? Here we shall have society in general saying—" We will save ourselves"; and to do it, casting the burdens and curses of the Liquor Traffic upon special localities!— on whom it will be

an intolerable and selfish outrage

Only one way of escape seems possible — namely, that districts shall be set apart for those who want the drink-shops and their possible sequences and associations, around which society will plant a cordon sanitaire.Jj What, however, does this limitation logically imply ? Why, just this—that Mr Bright and tho existing Parliament shall have the right and power to decree forever, that the nation shall only he its own ruler within certain limits : and such a principle and declaration is tho old doctrine of

"Divino right" in anew form—tliecardinal

principle, and, if true, tiie justification, of nil the tyrannies from which mankind has ever suffered. In conclusion, while we thank Mr Bright sincerely for his contribution of thought to this subject, wo cannot have the slightest faith iri the so-called remedy which has failed so often and so long in Europe and in America, after a trial of conturies under every varying condition of social life. An old remedy is no better because administered by a new physician. The only real remedy, as proved by facts, at homo and abroad—by facts both ancient and modern—is that which removes the temptation. Until we harmonizo our social conditions and circumstances with cur moral and political theories, it is quite preposterous to expect the good to triumph. No " kingdom of righteousness" can ever come, so long as we daily "lead" our people into " temptation," and furnish them with the facilities for gratifying their rices. We set snares and man-traps for our people, nnd then punish .them for being caught,— we dig pits for the workingman, and then blame him for falling into them, —wo set up

and license a traffic which debauches his

understanding, and then tell him that he is unfit to exercise a veto upon the cause of his ruin, —and so generation after generation goes on, and nothing effectual is clone. I may be told that the scheme I propose will not be accepted. That may be so, even if I do not believe in the stupidity of the nation. History has recorded, ere this, the decline of kingdoms that failed in their duties. Qur people may add another illustration to the sad roll of failures. What then ? All the sume, it remains the duty of the enlightened patriot to point out the path of pro»res3, to warn against the evils that destroy :i people, and to put no trust in systems that are destitute of fruits. Of one thing only am I sure—that we shall, nationally, reap as we sow. What we have sown, gentlemen, you can see in what you have reaped. Will you, at any ore's bidding, sow the same seed over again, and expect to reap a different crop, because the sower is an Alderman instead of a Magistrate ? Does the quality of the seed depend on the sower? If you have no better system than before,—better let the thing ulone than tamper with the eril, to prolong disappointment and induce despair. But there is no excuse whatever for moralists, for patriots, for Christians, at the present day, since all who care to know, can discover that the true remedy is, even now, in a thousand localities of the Western World, showing its

power to bless the community, by striking down the chief factor of social degradation and national disgrace. The claims of this measure of Local Veto are momentous

beyond precedent, and urgent beyond parallel ; for while we are palavering, in and out, of Parliament, the steam of tendency is sweeping vast multitudes, of our citizens, male and female, down to misery and perdition, and, in the horrible process, wasting our material resources, while impeding all the great agencies of civilisation. Whoever else, gentlemen, makes, or refuses to make, this large question one of; urgency—l shall put it beforo you as the condition of oil sound and satisfactory legislation in .all other directions—as that which alone can ensure the triumphs of knowledge and the genuine liberty of our people. If our plan bo tho true one, tho great ovil will not vanish until it is adopted, and hence- the postponement of the true remedy, by a lardy philanthropy of talk, is, in my view, both weak and wicked ! Tn the physical world a too long calm is followed by a tornado of purification, and it is quite possible that the time may come when a " hurricane " of public opinion may break up the political calm which fosters a vice and a crime, the results of which are more terrible than thoso of " war, pestilence, nnd famine combined." It is the weakness and the sin of human nature—of which well-meaning persons are often the most striking illustrations—that it allows intervals to elapse between convictions,and the carrying of them out,—whereas, in the true and perfect patriot, volition and action should instantly follow tho perception of duty. The truth, the prayer, the vote should be a continuous, unbroken chain ; and not until it is so, can (he triumph come. Since tho people, as a whole, are alone strong enough to cope with tho traffic, I hope that they will soon awake to their truo; and great interests in this matter, and by the power and persistency of their agitation for the local veto, prova onco again that Parliament follows, not leads,' the earnest and patriotic portion of our Nation. • : ; ■ So shall your voice Of Sovereign choice Swell the deep baßs of duty done ; . And strike the key Of Time to be When God and Man shall epeak as One ; Fai/t-acifs of the Pall Mali. Gazette. ; Tn its issue for August 30th, 1883, this leading. Badical newspaper, had a leader i upon MrJJright's speeob.ientitled 'Thetrue ! Lines of Temperance Reform.' The article evinces nn astonishing.ignorance of the whole question. It begins by. saying, with Mr Bright, that fcho.Temperance agitation is ' a great.cause,.more,intimately;connected with the real advantage of. the people than almost

any other public question that can possibly be discussed,' and then proceods to consider ' two methods of Temperance work. One is immediate, practical, and simple ; the other remote, theoretical, and complicated." Now, exactly .the contrary. ..ofrpvhat is meant happens to be the truth.' Licensing, in various forms, iis as much as any other proposal —it!is complicated' beyond parallel —and it never, at any time, in any country, succeeded in preventing '"■ the evils of drinking ; and hence the discussion of to-day. No one discusses " cures," or calls consultations of doctors to consider I'health." License has never been anything but a practical failure —and it has been tried from ages very remote. The only real, simple, and practical method, in the sense of success, is the plebiscite. I challenge tho Pall Mall Gazette to give me an example of any other ? 'i he writer next displays his utter ignorance of the history of the Temperance Reformation. He says : —

" It is only of lato years that the former has been able to command much attention from temperance men. To ' compete' with the public-houses in their own field, to afford accommodation and refreshment without stimulants, and, in short, to minister to the ' necessities' of the community without pandering to its vices—this is now being done by the various coffee-tavern companies on a scale which would, a few years ago, have been deemed impossible. . It is forty-five years since the early teetotalers proposed temperance taverns and coffee-houses; so long since they started some, which did not then always pay ; and now the world's papers accuse the temperance men of not doing what they did! It, was society that was not prepared for them —because enough of men to suppo.it them had not then been enlightened. • But it is a still madder blunder to suppose that we " compete with drink-shops in their own field " — for license only concerns the " pernicious drink," the sale of which in the community is now admitted to bo " pixnclering to its vices" ! "Every new coffee-tavern opened is a step in the direction of temperance reform much more important than the signature of thousands of petitions, or the passing of an indefinite number of drastic resolutions in favour of 'all, or nothing. . The publichouse supplies an imperative social want. Until its opponents are prepared to fill its i place, they are practically out of court'(!!!) I Tin's sentence is very funny indeed. Where would We been the wholo agitation, popular or parliamentary, if no one had petitioned, or passed resolutions, about the matter? Is the Pall Mall Gazette one of those curious Radicals who believe in roots where seed has never fallen, or in trees where no roots have ever struck down ? Just before, it was distinguishing between " necessities" and "stimulants" — and behold, now, the "pernicious drink," as Mr Bright calls it., becomes "an imperative social want!" But, in the name of wonder, if this " want" for alcohol be an imperative one, how can water, milk, or cocoa " fill its place?" The Temperance Reformers hold that tho want is abnormal, and will, therefore, die out when you eenso to feed it, and on no ot.her condition. If wrong here, wrong all around and nil through ; if right, then the evil can be cured only by abstinence from tho two factors of causation—use and sale. The use can only bo partiall.v. got rid of by scientific enlightenment—the sale or temptation only by law. The writer still goes on blundering in the history : — " The second method of temperance nction hn3 far too long almost exclusively absorbed the attention of the reformers — that of restrictive legislation. Tho Permissive Bill has long been a serious stumblingblock in the way of progress in this right direction. Whatever its intrinsic merits or demerit?, no one will deny that 'in the present state of opinion, and the present condition of Parliament, it is absolutely impossible that it should succeed.' That is enough to condemn it, in the eyes of all who are anxious to provide a prompt remedy for a pressing evil." Why, there never wns so much attention paid, and so much information distributed, on tho physiological question, as during the last ten years ! The temperance reformers know better than the Pall Mall that the veto is of no use unless we have a popular conviction behind it ; hut however strong a man's conviction may he that the deeprooted dockens in his garden are hostile t,o the growth of flowers and fruit, the conviction—' the mornl suasion,' as the cant goes— will not uproot them. The Veto is our spade for uprooting social weeds. The Permissive Bill—the Local Option Jvoto of the people—is nothing more than tho instrument for doing what is necessary to health ; and how can that be an obstruction in the way of progress towards recovery? It is of no use working at anything in a wrong way, and with inadequate means. The "intrinsic of the bill are, that it proposes nn effectual cure, through the veto —if the people choose to use it. The Alliance says (and, at any rate, I say), that everything short of deletion is quackery, and will assuredly fail in the future at it has done in the'past. When it. is shown, ■where, and when, license to sell intoxicants ever stopped intoxication, I also shall bo ready to call it " a prompt remedy ;" but until that is done, I desigmte the proposal as a folly and a fraud. Rut see the strange ambiguity in the sentence cited ! —" It is impossible that it should succeed," "Does this mean that thebill cannot be successfully passed ? or does it mean, that if passed the veto will not succeed in sweeping away temptation? The Pnll Mnll had said that we demanded "nil, or nothing." On the contrary, we never demanded "nothing"—though, of courso we asked for all we wanted, while we take all we can get in the way of restriction. But ■why does the Pall Mall confuse (his simple question, even more than Mr Bright? We ask, who makes tho Parliament ? Th.* voters! These, therefore, can elect men who agree with them —of whom plenty are to be found ; and if they do not think with Mr Bright that this is a" supremo question. Tn that case, we shall have to wait awhile, until we have produced that conviction upon the constituency. But that has nothing to do with the value and validity, nnd therefore success of the remedy. God has determined the fitness of things, and confusion must reign in the isle until we have patience and thought to learn the law of cure. " Mr Bright would limit the power of qhese local authorities in several directions, and it io upon the justice and policy of these imitations that the wholo controversy will turn. That he is right in demanding that the town councils and county boards should be entrusted with the settlement of this question will not be seriously disputed." Another absurdity, for two reasonsFirst, because no settlement is possible save on tho grounds of truth and fitness— whether attempted by a plebiscite, a parlia- ; •vent, a board, or a council. If the medicine is rot fitted to cure, it will not cure, even if arcl angels administer it. Second, it cannot be a • settlement' by the people, or by anybody, if limited by an autocratic power behind. Now, our position is this, — as long as i/5U license, you curse • so soon as you prohibit, you cure. He whodenies the right of protection to the whole people is a tyrant, and a defender of tyranny—disguise it as he may. , . 'Parliament will have to define the limits within which the will of such authorities shall be supreme. This difficulty is not peculiar to the licensing question—it lies at the root of the whole problem of the _ devolution of responsibility by which Parliament alone can hope to lighten its present burdens.' T, for one, deny the right of Parliament to rule the people—except at the will of (he People. They are, in right , , supreme Otherwise, oligarchy —tho government of Classes—will be set up. Radicals may go for this, but not true Conservatives; for such a principle leads to alternate tyranny and revolution. On a question like this— involving one fact and one observation—l would relievo both Parliament and Justices of all their trouble, by devolving the responsibility of drinking shops upon those who have to suffer and to pay : the people themselves. Give them the opportunity of vetoing the cause, and' then they cannot throw the blame of the sequences upon other people! Here is a method at once simple, uncomnlicated. and effectual. F. R. L..