REJECTION OF THE PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 720, 20 September 1870, Page 3

REJECTION OF THE PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.

[morning post, July 14.] The second reading of Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill was yesterday refused by one hundred and twenty-one votes against ninety. In moving it, Sir Wilfred congratulated himself that, whereas he was beaten when he first brought forward this measure by a majority of seven to one, public opinion has so far been won over to his creed that he was beaten last year only by a majority of two to one. His defeat yesterday was a still closer approximation to the victory he hopes one day to achieve ; but if the figures Lad been reversed, and if the second reading had been carried by as large a majority as that which rejected it, it is simply impossible that the Bill can ever become law. It is not intemperate people only who use fermented liquors. The enormous majority of those who use them are temperate. We believe, also, that Mr Arthur Bass was right in suying that the great majority of licensed victuallers 'conduct their business as honestly and as respectably as any other class of tradesmen. Here, again, we have a case in which we are forced to ask, " Have majorities to ; rights ?" Sir Wilfrid Lawson would give to two-thirds of the ratepayers of a parish power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating i liquors. Two-thirds ef the ratepayers 1 might he a minority of the inhabitants, j yet their decision would bind the majority. Again, ninety-nine per cent, of the poor inhabitants — for the richer sort would have their private stock of wine or spirits or beer — would be deprived of a wholesoms stimulant because the remaining ten per cent, were in the habit of getting drunk. Would this be fair ? Lord Claud Hamilton, in seconding the Bill, spoke of the exertions which are being made by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and by the clergy of all denominations in Ireland, to carry out the principle of the Bill. We do not for a moment doubt the correctness of his statement, and if, by the exhortations of their clergy, people can be induced to be temperate, a very important result will be attained. But the example of Ireland, so far from being in favor of the Bill, is rather against it. Whatever success has been achieved, then, has been through voluntary effort and voluntary submission. The Permissive Bill would substitute for the second of these elements a compulsory submission ; in other words, it would try to establish temperance, nofc by persuading the people to relinquish their potations, but by constraining them to do so. We believe that it would be a mistake if the Legislature were to sanction absolute instead of permissive prohibition. Wherever the Maine Liquor Law has been tried, it has been evated. To the inivated, there is no more difficulty in getting wine, spirits, or beer in the

(For continuation of News see 4dh Piuje^

American States which have adopted it, than if the law did not exist. The modus operandi is extremely simply. Mr Sala has described it with his usual lucidity. You don't ask for brandy or whisky, he says, you inquire after the health of " the baby." This is perfectly understood. You are 3hown into a room where "baby " takes any liquid from yon yon may be in need of ; and, when you are satisfied, you don't pay for a'pint of sherry or a bottle of claret, but leave so many cents or dollars to buy "it" a coral. This may be a playful way of illustrating how the law is evaded ; but we have no reason to doubt that if Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Bill were carried, it would not be worth the paper it is printed on, as a means of preventing the use of intoxicating liquor 3.