The permissive bill debate : House of Commons, Wednesday, July 13th, 1870.

Date:
[1870?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The permissive bill debate : House of Commons, Wednesday, July 13th, 1870. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1/16
    THE PERMISSIVE BILL DEBATE. House of Commons, Wednesday, July i^tk, 1870. ON the order of the day being called for the Second Reading of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill, an enormous number of petitions were presented in its favour, some of them being extremely large. Great amusement was occasioned by the presentation of one from Glasgow by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, which was of so bulky a character that it was obliged to be brought up to the table by the combined efforts of the hon. baronet and Mr. Candlish, who fairly bent under its weight as they walked up the wide space between the Ministerial and Opposition sides of the House with it. Sir WILFRID LAWSON, on rising to move the second reading of the bill, was greeted with a cheer from his supporters on both sides of the Llouse. He said : Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am obliged to bring this question before the House at so late a period of the session. It is not from any wish of mine that I have been unable to bring it forward at an earlier period, but the House will remember as well as I do that at the beginning of this session we were all in expectation of Her Majesty’s Government, in accordance with the promise made in Her Majesty’s gracious speech from the throne, bringing in some measure for the purpose of dealing with the licensing system, and I thought it would not be respectful either to Her Majesty’s Government or to the Home Secretary if I introduced my project for the purpose of dealing with the subject of intemperance when we were all in daily expectation of the Government bringing forward their measure. But we all of us now know that that bill has not been brought forward. I see that my right hon. friend has just now come into the House, and I will say at once that I do not wish in anyway to reproach him for not fulfilling the promise which he made last session. No doubt he intended to do so, but the force of circumstances was too strong for him, and he found that he had neither time nor opportunity to carry his bill this session, and therefore he deemed it better to postpone it. But I must say that I do not think that it was good policy for him to do so. I think not; but at the same time I am quite sure that he has acted conscientiously, and it is not for me nor any one else who may happen to feel strongly on the matter to reproach him. I must express my regret at the course he has taken, for however important may be the measures which have been brought before Parliament this session, there is, I believe, no measure approaching in importance, or which is calculated to do so much good to the kingdom in general as a measure dealing with the subject which we are now discussing. (Cheers.) No one is more alive to the importance of this subject, I am convinced, than the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary himself; for he has actually stated that it is a question “ affecting the whole happiness of the community.” However much I and those who are acting with me may feel gratified at this recognition by the Government of the importance of the subject, still believing, as we do, that we have a special remedy for the evil which afflicts us, we cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of sitting still while we see the extent of the evil which is going on around us without making some attempt to remedy it, and therefore I think I am justified in bringing forward my bill. (Cheers.) Now, in the first place, I will take the opportunity of reminding the House that this bill has only been twice before it. Many hon. members think that it is a very old question, and one which has been repeatedly discussed in this House. That is not so, and the fact is that it was only brought forward for the first time in the year 1864, and then it was defeated by a majority of no less than seven to one. A new Parliament intervened, in which I had not the honour of having a seat; but last year, in the first session of the first Parliament which was elected under household suffrage, I again introduced this bill, and the result was that instead of being defeated by a majority of seven to one, the House only divided two to one against the measure. That shows the rapid growth of public opinion on this important subject. One reason, no doubt, why there was such a majority against the bill was because many hon. gentlemen very naturally looked forward to the measure which the right hon. gentleman intended to introduce. No doubt the same argument will now be used as was used on a former occasion with respect to the passing of a very useful measure ; but I hope that the right hon. gentleman will not be led to fight against this bill to-day, because he may be as tyNiTED Kingdom Alliance, Offices, 41, John Dalton-street, [PRICE 3d Manchester.!