TEMPERANCE COLUMN.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2041, 8 September 1880, Page 3

TEMPERANCE COLUMN.

TEdited by O. M. Q.l LOCAL OPTION DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, the 18th of June will bo a memorable red-letter day in the history of the temperance movement, and of the agitation on behalf of the legislative suppression of tho liquor traffic. On that day, or rather soon after its midnight hour, tho British House of Commons, by a majority of twenty-six, affirmed its approval and acceptance of Sir Wilfred Lawson’s now famous Local Option Resolution. It will be remembared that on tho 4th of March last, Sir Wilfred, after an earnest debate lasting over eight hours, divided the House on a motion for the adoption of his resolution, and that 136 voted for it, and 250 against, being a majority of 114 against the motion.

At the earliest moment on the assembling of the new Parliament, Sir Wilfred Lawson, with his usual tact and courage, introduced his Local Option Resolution, and by aid of tho ballot secured the earliest suitable day for a motion in behalf of its adoption by the House, On Friday, June 18 th, on the Government motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir Wilfrid Lawson rose at a quarter-past nine to submit his resolution ss an amendment. There was an unusually large attendance of members in their places, especially on the Ministerial benches, and the hon. baronet was warmly cheered on rising to address the House. His speech was excellent, pertinent in its points, and cogent in its arguments, and was well delivered to a very attentive and largely sympithetic audience. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, "with other Cabinet Ministers, were on the front Treasury benches, paid marked attention to Sir Wilfrid’s remarks ; and when the hon. baronet made bis strong and touching appeal to the Prime Minister not to use his vast executive authority and influence to bias the judgment and wishes of the hon. members, but to leave them just to reflect the opinions and convictions of their constituents, it was obvious that the right keynote had been sounded, and that it would be sympathetically responded to by the Premier, The address of Sir Wilfrid was shorter than usual, occupying only three-quarters of an hour. He was frequently cheered throughout, and was warmly applauded as he resumed his seat. Mr Hugh Mason, the new member for Asbton-under-Lyno, immediately rose as seconder, and caught the Speaker’s eye, though several other eager members also rose at the same moment. Mr Mason at once rivetted tho attention of the House by saying that he felt a grave responsibility would rest upon the House of Commons if they opposed the present effort to promote national sobriety. He concluded an earnest and effective speech (amid the hearty cheers of the House) by saying that the working men wanted to protect themselves, and he implored the House not to turn a deaf ear to their prayer. The Prime Minister, who had been in earnest conversation with the Speaker of tho House, rose as soon as Mr Mason had resumed his seat, and instantly every eye and ear was directed to catch tho omens of the coming deliverance, each word, as uttered, being carefully weighed. It was soon seen that Mr Glandstono was in sympathy with the proposal of Sir Wilfrid Lawson in its main principle, scope, and object, and that, though he could not under the then circumstances give his own vote against his own motion for going into Committee of Supply, he was not at all inclined to put the slightest restraint upon his official colleagues and party supporters. He made this point very clear and satisfactory, as a glance at his speech will show. He also emphatically expressed Lis adhesion to the principle of the Local Option resolution, saying “to that principle itself I am friendly,” adding with earnestness—“l do earnestly hope that at no distant period it may be found practicable to deal with the Licensing Laws, and in so doing to include reasonable and just application of the principle for which my hon. friend, the member for Carlisle, contends.” Having expressed his profound dissatisfaction with the present licensing system, and his intense antipathy to the liquor monopoly which the present system builds up, the Prime Minister concluded his address with the following significant words:—

“ With regard to the question of my hon. friend, I will only say these two things in conclusion—First, that among the great subjects to which the attention of the Executive Government shall be directed as early as the pressure of business will allow, will be the task of reforming the licensing laws; secondly, I believe that in that reform which is so loudly called for and favored by the circumstances in whioh wo now stand we shall take as an essential principle the motion of my hon. friend.” This was greeted with applause, loud and continued.

After Mr Gladstone sat down, it was felt by the frends of Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s resolution that the immediate object of the debate had been accomplished, and that, as the resolution in its essential character had been accepted by the Government, it would certainly be adopted by the House at the conclusion of the discussion.

Sir Robert Ounliffe, Mr Arthur Arnold, Mr W. S. Caine spoke in support of the resolution ; and Captain Aylmer, Lord Elcho, Colonel Baine amd Colonel Burnaby spoke against it. The result of tho division was announced shortly before, one o’clock, and the numbers were : For Sir Wilfrid Lawson's resolution 229 Against 203 Majority 26 Tho announcement was received with loud applause from the Government benches, the demonstration being taken up by the occupants of the strangers’ gallery, many of whom rose to their feet and clapped their hands. Tho House immediately was almost emptied on the Government side, the members rushing out into the central lobby to congratulate Sir Wilfrid Lawson and each other on the result of the division. The enthusiasm of hon. members who never before had been over-sanguine was marvellous and most gratifying. The crowds in the outer lobby and corridors wore also greatly elated and jubilant with the victory.—[Abridged from the “ Alliance News.”

OBJECTIONS MET. Canon Farrar has been making another of his unanswerable arguments before the Church of England Temperance Society. The stereotyped objection to teetotalism from the Bible he completely pulverised. Ho replied with keen wit to the nonsensical utterance of the Bishop of Lincoln that total abstinence vows wore “an insult to God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God tho Sanctifier ” ! The bishop had been quoting the text “Every creature of God is good,” and on it founding a shallow argument against total abstinence pledges. Canon Farrar replies : “ The Nazaritos took a vow not to take one of God’s creatures. Were they insulters of God ? It so, why did God found their order ? (Applause.) The Rechabites took a vow of total abstinence. Were they, too, insulters of God ? (Applause.) If so, why did they receive the memorable blessing of the prophet on their house for ever ? John tho Baptist, as a Nazarite, took a vow not to take one of God’s creatures. Did he deserve this awful warning ? (Applause.) If so, why was he the greatest up to that time born of woman ? (Applause.) St. James took a vow that he would not take one of God’s creatures. Was he insulting God tho Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier ? If so, why did the Church make him the first Bishop of Jerusalem ? If Matthew was a Nazarite he took a vow not to take one of God’s creatures. If he thus insulted God, why was he chosen for the first evangelist ? (Applause.) Really, ladies and gentlemen, is this to interpret Scripture, or is it not rather to abnegate the first principles of common sense ? (Applause.) Is it really seriously pretended that everything which man can make to eat and drink he must necessarily take ? Does it mean all wines, all beers, afl porters, and all spirits ; or if I don’t taka beer, am I bound to take wine ; or if I don’t take sherry, must I, to save my conscience and to save myself from being a mere Manichee, take claret! (Laughter and applause.) Surely opium is a gift of God. Now, supposing the bishop and I were in China, and, witnessing tho abuse of opium, we took a vow not to eat opium, should we be insulting God by declining that particular good creature of God ? ”