[Debate on drunkenness and alcohol licensing in Liverpool.].

Date:
[1876?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: [Debate on drunkenness and alcohol licensing in Liverpool.]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/30 (page 37)
    leave no room for local option ;—whereas the Permissive Bill would leave all to the peoples’ choice. These be thy advocates, Oh John Barleycorn! Do you think it is a wise principle to leave to the majority the destruc¬ tion of property already sanctioned by Act of Parliament—to leave property already protected and promoted by it, to be struck down ? Can you show me any case on record where property already created and maintained—already sanctioned by Parliament and by usage, being left to a majority in a district to destroy the whole of it ? A Voice.—The Established Church, Mr. Redmond.—Not without compensation (hear, hear). Are you prepared to deal with it in that fashion without strong evidence being given you that any such principle has ever been established? What we say to Mr. Redmond and his fellow publicans is—prove your claim to compensation and it will be duly considered by Par¬ liament. How the “ property ” of the publican can be said to be protected by Act of Parliament in Mr. Redmond’s sense is not quite clear, Mr. Redmond has a government docket of license to sell liquor for one year. He argues as if this gave him a life interest. Had the Incumbents of the Irish Church been licensed for each parish only by the year, how would they have fared ? I will give you an instance, with reference to the Maine Liquor Law, for after all that is what this is coming to. I hold that gentlemen’s motives mean one thing or another, and I assert, without fear of con¬ tradiction, that their object here is to get rid of the sale. Their attempts to carry this proposition by a side wind is not an honest or logical mode of coming to a conclusion. At the call of the vast majo¬ rity of the people in the State of New Brunswick, the local Parlia¬ ment introduced the Maine Liquor Law into that State; but before the end of twelve months they found it necessary to repeal its pro¬ visions, in consequence of finding that the sale had become such a nuisance. The men who were anxious to get the law into force were found to apply it to their own purposes, so that more mischief than good resulted therefrom. If it comes to pass here, you will find unscrupulous parties resorting to the same means (hear, hear). This is a good argument against an Imperial Prohibitoiy Act, where not thoroughly supported by the people. It is no argument against a local act such as the Permissive Bill, supported as it must be by the public opinion of each locality. I would like to know if they are honest, what is the shortest way of