-■:M 
 
 
 /
 
 'Tr. 
 
 ffin<\. 
 
 JU 
 
 4iJh^' 
 
 
 
 THE '^ TRUTH" 
 
 ABOUT 
 
 ^uiibai) Clusing aiiij yocal Option. 
 
 Being a rrplij made on the 10//^ April, 1 S83, ^V? the Town Ilall, Rur^elei/, by the 
 
 REV, R. M. GRIER, M.A., R.D. 
 
 Vicar (jf Rugclej^, and Prebendary of Lichfield. 
 TO .SPEECHES DELIVERED 0^ THESE SUBJECTS, BY 
 
 H. C. EDWARDS, ESQ., 
 
 Sccretaiy to tlie Licensed Victuallers' National Defence League, and others in the same Hall, 
 ON MAUXDAY THURSDAY, 1883. 
 
 EEPRINT FROM TilE RUaSLEY ADVERTISER. 
 
 Cn Tuopclay cvcninp:, April 1011\, a large 
 find iiitliunitial audienct! was attracted to the » 
 Town Hall, Tiiipoloy, to listen to an address by' 
 tlif Kov. B.M. Gricr, in roplyto the statcnu'iits 
 recently made at a ni^etinp,' in that ha!l, in 
 coi nection with the Licensed Victuallers' 
 Kat onal Defence Leasiue. There was a larue 
 attendance, chiefly of working . men, large 
 nrinibers being unable to obtain admission, 
 oii account of the crowded state of the room. 
 
 1). WooDUOFFK. Esq., occupied th(! chair, and 
 in a brief but telling spec'ch, iritroduced the 
 Yi(ar, ashing for him as fair a hearing as had 
 be en given to the s])eakers in connection with 
 the Licensed Victualler's Mee^ng. 
 
 Tlie Rev. R. ]\L (jeikr then I'ose, and was 
 nio^t enthusiaticaslly received. He said, Mr. 
 Chaiiman, Ladies and Gentlemen, tlu; Tem- 
 peiancc party in Rngeley, have, I think, good 
 n a en to congratulate themselves upon the 
 imjiortant meeting, which has recently been 
 held by the Licensed Victuallers in this 
 T<;wn Hall. It is, in my opinion, a very flat- 
 tering recognition of the efforts which Ave luive 
 niode to promote the sobriety of the countiy ; 
 ard I honestly think that we deserve it. For 
 it was in this parish that mainly through the 
 exertions of n.y dear and honouied friend, 
 the late Mr. Horton, neirly all the work of 
 the well-known Clerical Memorial to the 
 Archbishops and Bishops of the ('hurch of 
 England was done. Rugeley, therefore, may 
 be held responsible for the appointment of 
 the Lords' Committee on Intempc ranee and 
 i<A cfUscqueiK-es, the evidonfo whiih tli.d 
 'tee collected an*? 
 
 they issued. Let me not, however, he mis- 
 nhdcrstood. liong before that memorial was 
 thought of, long even before I became Vicar 
 here, there was in this parish a- Temperance 
 Society, Avhich was chiefly organised and 
 officered by working men. It was not I who first 
 converted any of them to teetotalism : it was 
 they who converted, me. » (Loud applause.) 
 The Temperance movement is not in its origin 
 a clerical one : the clergy, thank God, are 
 joining it in numbers now, but they were 
 not the authors of it. I wish, for the credit 
 of my Older, that they had been : but, as amatter 
 of fact, it sprang from the intelligence, and 
 was for a long time;, almost exclusively sup- 
 ported by the burning enthusiasm of the poor. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 I say this, because an appeal is now 
 being made by the licensed victuallers to 
 the poor man to defend his rights by protect- 
 ing their interests. At their recent meeting 
 here they actually imported a Working man to 
 advocate their cause. I do not complain of 
 their action : I am too deeply indebted to 
 that gentleman. He has furnished me Avith 
 a inost apt quotation for my temperance 
 addresses, in the concluding words of his 
 eloquent speech : — 
 
 The branch, that stooping to the hand, is pleasant to 
 
 heboid, 
 Giitlur not, altboun;h its fruit he streaked with gold ; 
 For bitter ashes lurk concealed bemath that golden 
 
 skin. 
 And, al'.hongh the coat be smooth, there is but rotteu- 
 
 uess witliin, 
 
 words which T think ynti will ;v ■■ o -rrith me
 
 day Closinj? anfl Local Option — (hear, hear) — 
 but very appropriate, as a warning: against 
 beverages wliich sparkle and foam ami exhi- 
 larate, and demoralise, and torture and kill. 
 However, I am free to confess that he did 
 not come here to help teetotalers : he came 
 here as — what shall I say ? a decoy duck. 
 No, that will hardly do. It is not to, or 
 upon the pure element that he would lead 
 his fellows : he evidently does not take kindly 
 to the water. (Laughter and cheers.) Let 
 me suggest another illustration. In India 
 tame elephants are sometimes trained to lead 
 their walder hrethren into the hands of the 
 hunter. Mr. Edwards and his friends are 
 pursuing similar tactics. They have trained, 
 I can hardly sav fdmnd, a working man to lure 
 his less civilized brethren into "traps to catch 
 men." I doubt, however, whether the stra- 
 tegem will succeed. (Cheers and counter 
 cheers.) I hold in my hand a copy of a 
 Statement and Protest addressed to Members 
 of both Houses of Parliament, by the Central 
 Executive Council of the Licensed Victuallers 
 National Defence League, and sign^'d on he- 
 half of the Executive Council, by Joseph 
 "Wadhams, president, and H. C. Edwards, 
 general secretary, and in it (page 38) 1 find 
 the following words — " One of us may have 
 built or rented a house costing thousands of 
 pounds, have furnished and fitted it in every 
 way for public accommodation and comfort, 
 and when all this is done, half-a-dozen peo- 
 ple — a sweep, a scavenger, a costermonger, a 
 cobbler, a coal-heaver, an errand-man — may 
 set up as our rivals, in little hovels situated 
 within a stones-throw, their licenses being paid 
 for by the brewer on c(n:litionof his supply- 
 ing." Working men, thei'e you see the con- 
 temptuous way in which the licensed victual- 
 lers, I do not say of Ilugeley — many of whom 
 are very kind hearted men — but at the 
 top of the tree, Messrs. Edwards & Co., speak 
 of you and regard you, 'ohen you cease to be 
 their patrons, and ventuic to become their 
 rivals. A sweep, a scavenger, a costermonger, 
 a cobbler, a coal-heaver, and an errand-man ! 
 (Laughter and applause.) I feel, I can 
 feel no scorn for tliese poor fellows any 
 more than I do for the licensed vic- 
 tuallers : they have been created by the 
 same God and redeemed bv the same Saviour 
 as myself, and frequently discharge the duties 
 of their humble, but honourable callings more 
 nobly than I discharge mine : and, indeed, 
 I had rather be a sweep, a scavenger, a 
 costermonger, a cobbler, a coal-heaver, or 
 an eirand-man, than the proudest mil- 
 lionaire that ever rose to fame and power over 
 the accumulated ills which strong diink 
 is inflicting upon his fellow-men. (Loud 
 applause.) 
 
 Eut the licensed victuallers are not 
 content, it seems, that their trade in this 
 dangerous drug should, like other trades, be 
 confined to week days. I again (juote from the 
 Protest (Page 17) : — " words of sym- 
 pathy with barmen and managers, in refer- 
 ence to their long hours of labour, have 
 succeeded in getting a few signa- 
 tures to petitions for Sunday Closing, and 
 these have been represented as the signatui-es 
 of proprietors, but where we have followed 
 up the signatures we have invariably found 
 that a very small percentage of actual license 
 holders are favourable to the change." In 
 other words some of those, who do the work, 
 want rest on the Lord's Day, but hardly any 
 of those who make the money, are willing 
 that they should have it, Not (Protest 
 page 10) that they want "Parisian Sundays" 
 introduced into England. Why should they ? 
 It would hardly .suit their purpose ; they are 
 far more likely to have customers if tlieir 
 shops are the only ones open : and so they 
 calmly argue, that, whereas it would be an 
 infi ingement of personal liberty to close theiis, 
 it is not an infringement of it to close others. 
 Now it is possible to talk nonsense of tliis 
 kind in England, for the simple reason that 
 it is an apology for things as they are, and 
 that naturally from the mere foi'ce of habit, 
 we are readier to submit cheerfully to old res- 
 traints, than to accept new ones. Eut go to 
 Paris and propose to the people there that all 
 theatres, and dancing saloons, and drapers, and 
 grocers' and confectioners shops shall be closed 
 by law on Sunday, and see whether they -will 
 regard it as a very slight infringement of per- 
 sonal liberty : and then proceed to suggest that 
 at the same time, one particular tra;le shall be 
 allowed to carry on its operations, and see 
 whether they will not think this the height 
 of injustice: and then explain that that trade 
 is the one in drugs, which degrade and 
 kill, and see whether they Avill not regaixl this 
 as the very quintessence of human unwisdom. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 VVe must, however, remember, in 
 justice to licensed victuallers, that (as the 
 Protest informs us, page 21) "the inn or 
 public house is not a mere drink shop." It 
 ought not to be ; and there would be no desire 
 to interfere with it, if it were not so at all. 
 (Laughter and applause.) If the licensed 
 victuallers will consent to let people meet on 
 their premises without supplying them with 
 alcohol, they will find very few voices raised 
 against their trade. What right-minded per- 
 sons object to, is not social intercourse (we all 
 desire to promote it) but habits which lead to 
 social disturbance, and domestic brawls, 
 which benefit no one except it be the 
 vendors of intoxicants.
 
 But Sunday, we learn from the Protest 
 (page 9), is the soberest and most orderly 
 of days, and the convictions for drunkenness 
 are not, "we learn from one of the speakers at 
 the recent meetinghere, more than 250 per Sun- 
 day. Not more than 250! 250personsconvicted 
 of one of the worst of crimes upon the 
 best of days week after week in this pro- 
 fessedly Christian country. 250 convictions 
 per Sunday, that is to say 13,000 convictions 
 for Sunday drunkenness in a year ! ! Is that so 
 small a matter ? The convictions for drunken- 
 ness, remember, bear but a small proportion 
 to the cases of drunkenness, and in England 
 a person charged with any offence, other and 
 greater than disorderliness, committed in a 
 state of intoxication, is not charged with being 
 drunk at all. Thousands of persons are punished 
 for breaches of the law, of which they never 
 would have been guilty if they had not been 
 inebriated, and yet they do not appear in the 
 category of those who are convicted of drunk- 
 enness. But supposing that no more than 250 
 people could be proved to be so drunk in 
 England on the Lord's day as to fall into the 
 hands of the police, I should maintain that 
 a strong case had been made out against the 
 present state of things. In the Protest we 
 are entreated to let well alone. 250 convic- 
 tions for drunkenness per Sunday in England 
 is, in my judgment, extremely ill. 
 
 But would matters be improved if liqiior-shops 
 were closed on Sunday? They have been 
 closed in Scotland since 1853, in Ireland since 
 1878, and in "Wales since September 1882. 
 "What has been the result ? The same quantity 
 of alcohol is now consumed in Scotland in pro- 
 portion to the population as before, replies 
 Mr. Edwards ; the convictions for drunken- 
 ness during the last year in Ireland were much, 
 more numerous than the year before, and con- 
 victions for drunkenness on Sunday in Cardiff 
 have increased quite fifty per cent. The first 
 statement is not quite accurate, but if it 
 were, what would it show? Why simply 
 this, that whilst in England, where public 
 houses have been open every day in the week, 
 the sum expended on alcohol has increased 
 enormously during the last thirty years, in 
 Scotland, where they have been closed one, it 
 is no more than it was. In England drinking 
 has grown with the prosperity of the people ; 
 in Scotland, which has largely shared in that 
 prosperity, it has been arrested. Certainly 
 that country is far less sober than it ought to 
 be ; but as Mr. Edwards is so fond of gaiiging 
 the intemperance of mankind by the prosperity 
 jf the business, which he so strenuously de- 
 fends, let me point out, that comparing the 
 ^ears 1880-81-82 with 1850-51-52, we find in 
 Scotland a diminution of spirits consumed to 
 ;he extent of 8 per cent, and in England an 
 
 increase of no less than 76 per cent. Scotland 
 is a whiskey-loving country, as Mr. Edwards 
 has informed us, and though more beer is now 
 drunk there than used to be the case, there is 
 still much less in proportion to the population 
 than in England. On the two items of beer 
 and home spirits the consumption is r43 
 gallons per head there ; with us, it is 2.47. In 
 the foregoing statement nothing is said about 
 foreign spirits and wine, but assuming that 
 the per head consumption is the same in the 
 two countries (as a matter of fact it must be 
 far greater here than across the Tweed), it is 
 hard to see how Scotland can be more drunken 
 than England, though very possibly the police 
 are more vigilant there, than here. It is, 
 however, sufficient for my purpose, to show 
 that in spite of greatly increased means of 
 purchasing alcohol, the Scotch are not, what 
 alas ! the English arc, a great deal more 
 drunken than they were in 1853. Do not 
 imagine that I ascribe the whole of this result 
 to Sunday Closing. I am of Mr. Edwards' 
 opinion, that other methods of restricting the 
 sale of alchol have had some effect. Inci'oas- 
 ing the duty on spirits has no doubt done 
 something. I only maintain that closing 
 public houses on Sundays has done something 
 too. One thing it has assuredly done, it has 
 greatly lessened Sunday drunkenness. In 
 Edinburgh duriag the years 1852-53, under 
 the old law there were respectively 729, 641 
 arrests for drunkenness on that day : in 1855- 
 56 under the new, there were 382, 436. In 
 Glasgow duiing the earlier years, there were 
 1330, and 1218; during the two latter 581 
 and 521. I have received the following 
 letters from Ex-Bailie Lewis and Dr. "Wallace, 
 of Glasgow : — 
 
 Koselea Villa, Grange, 
 
 Ediaburgh. April 6tli, 1883. 
 My Dear Sir, — I am favoured with your note, with 
 accompanying "Eloquent Defence of the Trade," 
 wherein, along with my fiiend Dr. Wallace of Glasgow, 
 I have the distinguished honour of being quoted by Mr. 
 Edwards as a witness "for the defence of the trade." 
 That gentleman represents' me to have said that Scot- 
 land was three times as drunken as England, although 
 they had fifty-two days less to drink in, a statement 
 which was received witli cries of ' hear, hear, and loud 
 cheers,' but which, luifortimately for tlie eloquent de- 
 fence, Mr. Edwards failed to state when or where I 
 either penned or uttered. Scotland, it must be 
 admitted, like England, is sufficiently cursed Avith 
 drunkenness, but the Scottish people iiave the satisfac- 
 tion of knowing that but for the beuigTr -tiud salutary 
 results of " Sunday Closing " the evils which we de- 
 plore would have been incalculably greater. IJefore 
 the Sunday Closing of liquor-sliops came into operation 
 iu Scotland upwards of 40,000 men, womin, and eliil- 
 dren entered the licensed liquor-shops of Edinburgh 
 every Sunday. As the result, tlie drunkenness, and riot 
 iu the public streets, were a scandal to a civilized city. 
 The police cells wore filled with drunken victims, and 
 the Edinbm-gh prison was crowded to sucli an extent 
 that a large sum of money was voted by the Board to
 
 increase the accommodation. No sooner did the Act 
 come into operation than quiet, order, and decorum, per- 
 vaded the streets on the Sundays. The police commit- 
 ments were so remarkably diminished that the police 
 were largely relieved of tlie duty of gathering drunk- 
 ards from the streets, Avhile the proposed extension of 
 the prison was found to be unueccessary, and an expen- 
 diture on that accormt saved to the ratepayers. Similar 
 results were experienced thronghout the whole of Scot- 
 land, The number of cases of drunkenness and crimes, 
 for the first three years after the Act came into opera- 
 tion, in the 17 leading Scottish towns were reduced by 
 nearly 30,000, while the mmiber of cases of drunken- 
 ness on the Sunday were reduced by nearly two-thirds. 
 For upwards of 20 years I have taken a pretty promi- 
 nent part in all the social and political questions which 
 have agitated Scotland, and during that period no 
 measure has been passed, which iu the almost unani- 
 mous opinion of the Scottish people has contributed 
 more to the moral, social, industrial, and religious well 
 being of the community, than the Sunday Closing Act. 
 I am, most faithfully yours, 
 
 DAVID LEWIS. 
 p.S. — I have communicated with Dr. Wallace, who 
 is one of the most uncompromising enemies of the 
 drink curse. We have not in Scotland a more unfalter- 
 ing enemy of Sunday trading in all its forms. 
 
 Wester Craigs, Glasgow, 
 
 9th April, 1883, 
 Rev. Dr. Wallace to Rev. Prebendary Grier, 
 
 My Dear Sir, — Scotland never got such a boon in 
 connection with the restriction of the Liquor Traffic 
 as the Sunday Closing Act has proved to be. Mr. 
 Johnston, Secretary to the Scottish Temperance 
 League, 108, Hope Street, Glasgow, could furnish 
 you with ample proof of this. As to my statement 
 in the "Defence," it has been utterly mutilated and 
 torn away from its original setting. TMs is how it 
 was. A very loose regiment occupied the old bar- 
 racks near my church, which are now abandoned for 
 those out of the city Barracks Street too was in- 
 habited by the worst characters, male and female, 
 and it was alleged that the soldiers were supplying 
 drink from the canteen. My elders, etc., got up a 
 memorial to the Lord Provost, and to the Chief 
 Constable in reference to this state of matters. On 
 the Sabbath morning referred to in the statement, I 
 traversed the whole length of the barracks to my 
 church, and found matters to be in the state as re- 
 ported, but this was amongst the very lowest of the 
 population. The commander of the Regiment was 
 at once communicated with, and a great improve- 
 ment at once took place. What would the state of 
 matters have been, had all the Public-houses been 
 open and in full swing ? Scotland will never give up 
 the Simday Closing Act. Shebeens are comparatively 
 rare, and only foimd amongst the lowest debris of the 
 city. When discovered the punishment is very heavy. 
 We have heard notliing of them for a long time, 
 and the quiet and order of our streets on a Sunday 
 are very marked as compared with oitr old state of 
 matters before the passing of the Act. You should 
 ask Bailie Lewis to address a meeting in Rugeley, 
 he is the man to set matters in a proper light, as far 
 as Scotland is concerned. I shall be glad to hear the 
 result of your reply. Meantime, with kind regards, 
 I am, yours very sincerely, 
 
 ALEXANDER WALLACE. 
 
 I now pass on to Ireland. There in several 
 counties the Assize Judges have recently 
 noticed an increase in cases of drunkenness, 
 not, mark, on the figures of 1877, but in 
 the last half year, as compared with the pre- 
 
 vious one. Mr. Edwards is jubilant. "Sun- 
 day Closing in Ireland has been in operation 
 for nearly five years. It has been followed 
 by a marvellous diminution in drunkenness, 
 both on Sundays and weekdays. Eut in the 
 fifth year of its operation there is in certain 
 places, a large increase in arrests for drunken- 
 ness, and we are told, ' See what your Sun- 
 day Closing Act has done ' " T^ow this increase 
 may possibly be due to the fact that the police 
 having less to do in other ways have been 
 better able to look after drunkards, and ig 
 certainly in some measure due to the fact, that 
 the people in the country districts have had 
 more money to spend upon alcohol. In 1882 
 the Irish wasted on beer and spirits £1,867,717 
 more than they did in 1880 ; but even so they 
 wasted less by £1,154,395 than they did 
 in 1877, the last year that public-houses 
 were open on a Sunday. Mr. Edwards 
 ought not, I submit, to have compared the 
 convictions for drunkenness in a few places 
 here and there in 1882 with those in 1881, 
 he ought to have accounted for the fact that 
 in 1881, the last year for which, I believe, we 
 have any ofiicial returns, they were through- 
 out the whole of Ireland 78,573 as compared 
 with 110,903 in 1877, the last year during 
 which public-houses were open on Sunday, 
 shewing a reduction of no less than 32,330. 
 Besides, even in 1882 the increase in drunken- 
 ness is by no means so general as Mr. 
 Edwards would lead us to suppose. " There 
 has been," said Lord Justice Pitzgibbon, 
 Avithin the last month at Cork, " in your city 
 a large decrease in each class of crime arranged 
 in the table, assaults have fallen from 105 to 
 77; larcenies, from 78 to 32; and convictions 
 for intoxication, from 716 to 367. It is not 
 for me to speculate as to the causes of this 
 change, a change, however, not peculiar to 
 your city." But Cork, it may be contended, 
 is one of the exempted cities : no doubt, but 
 even iu them the hours for drinking have been 
 reduced from seven to five, and a slight 
 restriction upon temptations to intemperance, 
 in a crowded thoroughfare of life, where in- 
 temperance abounds, may effect a more marked 
 improvement than more stringent measures in 
 places where it is not so prevalent. But to 
 one inconvenient fact Mr. Edwards made no 
 allusion. Whilst the general drunkenness of 
 Ireland has dimishod moi'e in the exempted 
 toAvns than elsewhere, this is not the case 
 with drunkenness on Sundays. " In the yO'""' 
 1877-78 in the exempted towns where sev( 
 hours for the sale of alcohol were allowe 
 there were 2,822 arrests for drunkennes 
 taking this year as a standard of comparisc 
 the arrests for 3J years would have number 
 9,877. Under the Sunday Closing Act 
 which the hours for sale were shortened 
 
 /
 
 two, the arrests for 3^ years numbered 6,573, 
 shewing a reduction of 3,304 or 33 per cent. 
 In the rest of Ireland there were in the year 
 1877, a year under open public-houses, 
 4,555 arrests for drunkenness, taking this year 
 as a standard of comparison, the Sunday 
 arrests for 3^ years would have been 16,442. 
 During the 3^ which followed Sunday Clos- 
 ing there were only 6,588 arrests, showing a 
 reduction of 9,854 or 60 per cent. : in other 
 words, partial closing to the extent ©f two 
 hours gives a reduction in Sunday arrests of 
 33 per cent, total closing gives a re- 
 duction of no less than 60 per cent." 
 Now, in spite of the craze based upon hypo- 
 crisy with which Mr. Edwards is pleased to 
 charge us teetotallers (I leave him to explain 
 how a craze can be based upon hypocrisy), we 
 have never maintained that closing public 
 houses on a Sunday will prevent people enter- 
 ing them on a Monday, nor that the want 
 of alcohol on the Lord's Day will prevent a 
 man who drinks enough of it from getting 
 drunk on any other. 
 
 And now, with reference to Wales. The 
 whole of the Principality, it must be remem- 
 bered, is not Cardiif . Indeed, important as 
 that place is, it is not even an entire county. 
 The arrests for Sunday drunkenness in a town 
 close to Monmouthshire, where public houses 
 are not closed, may have gone up 50 per cent ! 
 I believe that they have ; they were two, 
 they are three per Sunday ; and yet 
 the Act may be successful in the main. 
 Superintendent Wake, of the county consta- 
 bulary, has compared the number of Sunday 
 convictions for drunkenness in the county of 
 Glamorgan, the most populous county in 
 Wales, during the three months prior to the 
 closing of public houses on Sunday and the 
 three months after, as follows : — In the Neath 
 division, during the first period, there were 12 
 cases ; during the second, 14. This gives 
 an increase of 2. In the Cardiff division, 
 during the first period, there were 7 cases ; 
 during the second there were 8. This gives 
 an increase of 1. In the Merthyr division, 
 during the first period, there were 49 ; during 
 the second, 37. This gives a decrease of 12. 
 In the Pontypridd division, during the first 
 period, there were 36 cases ; during the 
 second, 15. This gives a decrease of 21. In 
 the Bridgend division, during the first period, 
 ■".here were 30 cases ; during the second, 7. 
 This gives a decrease of 23. Comment is 
 superfluous. 
 
 Mr. Edwards, however, in his great 
 Solicitude for the virtiie of the people, is 
 ^xtremely anxious that they should not be 
 fncouraged to drink in private. On page 18 
 f the famous Protest, the following (question 
 3 asked : — " Will the man (and with him in 
 
 countless cases wife and children would have 
 to be included) — will the man who is unable 
 to resist the allurements of the open public 
 house, be proof against the readier tempta- 
 tions of the home supply?" This question 
 implies that if public houses were closed on 
 the Sunday, men, women, and children would 
 get drunk at home. (Shame.) Working men, we 
 teetotallers are accused of not trusting you : it 
 is false : we do not trust alcohol, whether in 
 rich or poor : we have the highest authority 
 for saying that "Wine is a mocker," and 
 " strong drink is raging." But we trust you 
 as much as we trust any- other class of 
 society, and more than our opponents do. 
 You are told that we want to treat you as 
 children, and put you into swaddling clothes : 
 you can now judge* for yourselves Avhether 
 others do not wish to do the same. The pub- 
 licans provide the clothes, and you are to pay for 
 them (laughter). They are to stand over you, 
 and take care yoii do not take a drop too 
 much. (Laughter) .They do not object to your 
 being nursed, only they wish to have the nurs- 
 ing of you — (Loud lai;ghter) — : otherwise 
 "in countless cases" you will take strong 
 drink home, and you, your wives, and children 
 all get drunk (laughter.) It is a libel on the 
 working-men (cheers) ; and I do not believe 
 it of them. (More cheers.) They may yield 
 to the open solicitations of the.public house ; 
 but if they take drink home they are as much 
 to be trusted as any gentleman or Licensed 
 Victualler. (Cheers.) Hear the reply of the 
 Chief Constable of Glasgow before the Select 
 Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors 
 on Sunday, when asked whethcrit accorded with 
 his experience that there was an increase of 
 private. drinking there since the passing of the 
 Forbes Mackenzie Act: — (3283), "I do not 
 see any signs of it, and I believe it is not the 
 case. If persons got drunk in their own houses, 
 there would be some disturbance calling the 
 attention of the police to it." 
 
 But what about the shebeens, or unlicensed 
 drinking places ? " We know nothing of them," 
 said Mr. Edwards, " in England." This is not 
 the case. There are plenty of them in England 
 under another name. "They have increased," 
 he continues, " since the Eorbes Mackenzie 
 Act was passed" : and the " Pxiblic Prosecutor 
 of Edinburgh," he asserts, " siid in hid 
 evidence before the Lords' Opmmittee, 
 that in one district of Edinb^jrgh there 
 were 127 public houses closed, and 106 
 shebeens open." But Mr. Edwards forgot 
 to state that a large proportion of these were 
 houses of ill-fame, such as may imhappily 
 be found in every large town in England. 
 Out of 101 shebeens, which were open in 
 1877, 69 were houses of ill-fame, 27 Avere 
 only used between Saturday night and
 
 6 
 
 Monday morning, and no more than five were 
 shebeens proper, which were used nightly. 
 Both Mr. Linton and the Chief Constable of 
 Glasgow, state that after the passing of the 
 Porbes Mackenzie Act, the number of un- 
 licensed drinking shops increased for a time, 
 but that since fresh powers of dealing with 
 them have been given to the police by an Act 
 passed in 1862 they have greatly diminished. 
 "The number of houses," said the Chief Con- 
 stable, of Glasgow before the Select Committee 
 on sale of intoxicating liquors (3286), "where 
 drink is supposed to be sold illicitly in Glas- 
 gow at the present time, is not one third of 
 what it was at the time the Forbes' Mackenzie 
 Act came into operation. In 1858 they 
 numbered 327, now {ie., in 1877) they are 
 122." " In 1853," said the Chief Constable of 
 Edinburgh (3548) before the same committee, 
 "there were 30 unlicensed houses in which 
 liquor was sold, and about 120 house of ill- 
 fame where liquor was supplied after the 
 public houses were shut at 11 o'clock at night. 
 in 1859 there were 117 shebeens proper and 
 125 houses of ill-fame, 242 houses in all, in 
 1876, there were 38 shebeens, and 70 houses 
 of ill-fame." Mr. Linton also stated (3553) 
 before the Select Committee — "I find that in a 
 street where there are the largest number of 
 public houses, there are also the largest 
 number of shebeens ; " and (3554) gave 
 it as his opinion that people begin drinking 
 in the public house, and go from it 
 to the shebeen. It is a fair inference from 
 his statements that the way to get rid of she- 
 beens is not to open public houses, but to close 
 them. 
 
 With reference to shebeening in Ireland, 
 which in the Protest (page 1 8) is stated to have 
 sprung up since the Sunday Closing Act, 
 I can only say that this is distinctly 
 contradicted by Lord Carlingford, who 
 has better opportunities than Mr. Edwards 
 of knowing the truth upon this subject. 
 The Government, he said in the House of 
 Lords on March the 15th, "were satisfied that 
 the Act had not yet had the effect of increas- 
 ing the number of shebeen-houses which was 
 confidently predicted." Certainly it is true 
 that in Ireland during the last two years there 
 have been 1581 cases of illicit distillation as 
 against 14 in England and Wales. But why 
 did Mr. Edwards omit to say as against 1 1 in 
 Scotland, where Sunday Closing obtains? 
 Why did he not attempt to explain why de- 
 tections of illicit distillation there, had gone 
 down from 124 in 1852 before Sunclay Closing 
 to 8 last year? Why did he not say that 
 if in the last two years during which public 
 houses have been closed in Ireland the number 
 of these offences was 1581, in 1876-77 when 
 public houses were open it was (see 20th 
 
 report of Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 
 page 10), 1775, or 194 more. I protest, Mr. 
 Chairman, in the name of common honesty, 
 against the gross and unscrupulous mani- 
 pulation of figures of which Mr. Edwards 
 has been guilty. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 In regard to Wales, or rather Cardiff (of 
 which alone we have any information on this 
 subject), there is unquestionably truth in 
 the assertion there has been some addition to 
 the drinking clubs there, pince the closing of 
 the public houses. How long this will con- 
 tinue is another question. In Glasgow, where 
 public houses have been closed on Sunday for 
 30 years the Chief Constable stated before the 
 Select Committee of the House of Commons in 
 connection with the Irish Bill, that there were 
 only ten clubs, and those not got up for drink- 
 ing pui'poses, but frequented by the upper, 
 and upper-middle classes (No. 3315, 3317, 
 3318). Still I entirely agree with the Pro- 
 test that there ought to be legal means of 
 dealing with clubs. Mr. Eairfield seems to 
 think that this can never be. The licensed 
 victuallers and Mr. Gladstone think, on the con- 
 trary, that it can be, and eveiy prohibitionist 
 will co-operate with them loyally that it maybe, 
 with the least possible delay. (Cheers.) But to 
 pretend, as Mr. Edwards does, that the Closing 
 of public 'houses on a Sunday has encouraged 
 the formation of such clubs as the Invincibles 
 in Ireland is a pure and simple fiction. The 
 headquarters of the ruffians was Dublin, where 
 public houses were not closed, and the 
 miu"derers whom they selected met in public 
 houses, both before and after the perpetration 
 of their crimes ; and the Corporation of 
 Dublin (upon which there is a large 
 number of liquor-sellers, and which 
 included the infamous James Carey until 
 he turned infonner, and which has been 
 elected for far other purposes than to 
 promote the morals of the people) is almost 
 the only public body in the United Kingdom 
 which has protested against the removal of 
 facilities for drinking on the Lord's day. The 
 petitions in favour of Sunday Closing from all 
 parts of the United Kingdom have been dis- 
 counted by Mr. Edwards. Teetotallers are not 
 merely " humbugs," and " hypocrites," and 
 " bigots," " stone-blind bigots," and " pedestal 
 piety, condescending to gutter grovelling," 
 (whatever that may mean), and sesthetical par- 
 sons arm in arm with Blue-ribbon dissenters, 
 but detected forgers too ! (Loud laughter and' 
 cheers.) Well, let that pass. We can 
 bear a great deal more abuse. But how 
 does Mr. Edwards account for these facts, that 
 hardly anywhere in Scotland would a candi- 
 date for Parliamentaiy honours have a chancf 
 of being elected, if he proposed the repeal oi 
 ,4;he Forbes Mackenzie Act, that from Wales
 
 only two members could be found to vote 
 against Sunday Closing, and from Ireland only 
 eleven ; andtliatnow, when public houses have 
 been closed on Sundays for more than four 
 years in that country, not a single judge has 
 said one word in favour of re-opening them ? 
 Mr. Edwards iscqiuilto the occasion. "Earon 
 Dowse," he asserts, "at the Limerick Assizes, 
 declared Sunday Closing to be a farce and a 
 humbug." Well, I hold in my hand a letter 
 from the baron. He writes to me : — 
 
 Dublin, 
 
 April 2ncl, 1883. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I never spoke of the Sunday Closing 
 Act as " a farce and a humbug-." I alluded in the 
 Limerick case to the alleged operations of the bona 
 fide traveller's clause, which, in that instance, was 
 followed by a riot and some assaults, 
 
 I am, yours, &c., 
 
 W. Dowse. 
 
 (Loud checi's.) 
 Quite so : it is not Sunday Closing that is a 
 ''farce and a humbug," Mr. Edwards, but the 
 boua-fidc traveller. He, if you will, is too fre- 
 quently a mala fide " humbug." (Laughter.) 
 Let him be abolished, as he has been 
 created by Act of Parliament; and the 
 vendors of intoxicants will have one less 
 argument to urge against their being 
 prevented from vending them on God's own 
 day. (Applause). And oh! do not be deterred 
 by the unspeakably horrid, monstrous notion 
 that some poor, unhappy fellows will then have 
 to slake their thirst in one way on the week 
 days, and in another on Sundays ! There is 
 really only one way of satisfying it — and that 
 is, by the use of water. If anyone thinks dif- 
 ferently, let him eliminate all the water from 
 the. beverages in which his soul delights, and 
 swallow what remains. Then if he quenched 
 his thirst, it would be by putting himself into 
 a position never to thirst again. (Laiighter, 
 and loud applause.) If he wants to satisfy his 
 thirst and live, he must use water — and I 
 advise him to drink it unadulterated 
 — (laughter.) 
 
 "Honest water which ne'er left man in the mire." 
 
 A short time is left me for the consideration of 
 Local Option. In the Protest — which, as 
 requested, I have read, and marked, and pon- 
 dered — the licensed victuallers speak of them- 
 selves as badly used, because all the evils 
 which flow from the use of strong drink are 
 laid to their charge. They misrepresent pro- 
 hibitionists. "VVo object to anyone selling a 
 potent and demoralising poison. To us the 
 controversy between Mr. Edwards, the repre- 
 sentative of the licensed victuallers, and Mr. 
 Gilbey, who may be regarded as the represen- 
 tative of the licensed grocers, would be a very 
 entertaining if it were not a very painfxil one. 
 Years ago Sir Alexander Cockbuiii, who was 
 
 on a visit to Sir Eichard Bethel in the country, 
 went out one morning to join a sliooting party. 
 Beaching the ground, lie was sliocked to find 
 the gamekeeper at full length and evidently in 
 pain, and his host in high alteixation with his 
 eldest son, llichard. " Who did it, who shot 
 him?" asked Sir Alexander. "Eichard," 
 said the father. "Papa," retorted Eichard. 
 "Now, Eichard," said tlie Solicitor-General, 
 "if you say that, you add tlic sin of men- 
 dacity to what may very prol)ably prove to 
 be the crime of murder." Greatly perplexed, 
 Sir Alexander went to the ganxkecper, who, 
 fortunately, was more frightened than hurt, and 
 said, "Whodidit?" "Both on 'em"— (a laugh) 
 — replied the fellow : and this is what Eng- 
 land — poor sprawling and peppered England — 
 will, I trust, say with reference to the two 
 parties in the pretty quarrel between various 
 retailers of alcohol. For we teetotallers 
 arc perfectly impartial : it is with strong 
 drink that we are at war, not with men. 
 (Cheers.) We assert that all experience 
 proves it to be poison, and poison of 
 the worst kind. This, however, is, I find, 
 denied by Mr. Fairfield. "Men," he is re- 
 ported as having said, "could not take strych- 
 nine and arsenic without the poison being 
 dangerous ; but they could take drink in mode- 
 ration without running any risk of bein"- 
 killed." Mr. Fairfield, I suppose, has never 
 heard that in Styria ladies take arsenic 
 as a regular thing to imjirove their com- 
 plexions, and that far less harm comes 
 of_ it than comes of their sisters' 
 drinking wine in England. Any poison, 
 even strychnine, may be taken into the system 
 day after day, if sufiiciently diluted, and no 
 known poison, I say it deliberately, is ca- 
 pable of inflicting so much misery upon the 
 human race as alcohol. Alcohol does worse 
 than kill : it demoralises, brutalises, maddens, 
 and incites to every species of crime. Mr. 
 Edwards knows this : He has signed a pro- 
 test, in Avhich free trade in strong drink 
 is vehemently opposed. " The theory 
 (Protest, page 45) it is said sounds Avell, 
 and that is all ; but the exceptional 
 nature of our trade fully justifies a de- 
 parture from strict economic rules." So 
 far we agree with him — the nature of his 
 trade is exceptional — but we hold that there 
 should be no departure from strict economic 
 rules. It appears to us an incontrovertible 
 axiom in political economy that when 
 a trade is good, it cannot ' bo too free, 
 and when it is exceptional, as he calls it, or 
 bad as we should say, it cannot be too re- 
 stricted : and, observe, ho quito admits that 
 it is bad, as carried on by all other people 
 except his clients. (Hear, hear.) He abso- 
 lutely quotes with approval (Page 40, Pro-
 
 test) the following words from the Eeport 
 of a Eoyal Commissioii on Off- Licenses in 
 Scotland — 
 
 "It appears to us that the comhination (spirit 
 sales -with groceries) is fraught with great danger, 
 and has been productive of great evil, and we incline 
 to believe that the only perfect solution of the diffi- 
 culties or complete cure for the evils complained of, 
 ■woiild be the entire separation of the two trades." 
 
 "We thoroughly agree with him: but, "with 
 what measure ye meet, it shall be measured 
 to him again:" we feel that similar evils, 
 equally complained of, can only be cured by 
 the entire separation of the licensing vic- 
 tualling trade from that of the sale of liquors. 
 Por I would have you remember, why beer 
 houses and grocers were licensed. It was 
 because public houses were the source of so 
 much mischief. The Legislature hoped that 
 if the people were encouraged to drink beer, 
 they would cease to drink spirits, and that 
 if they were able without diflSculty to get 
 drink, they would avoid the contamination 
 of the public house. It was a huge blunder ; 
 but the fact that it was made, proves con- 
 clusively, that the public houses of the good 
 old times were not such homes of Arcadian 
 innocence as Mr. Edwards would have us 
 believe, and, surely, if the increase of intem- 
 perance during the last 40 years, is in any 
 measure due to the fact that grocers and 
 beer house keepers have had licenses, the 
 intemperance which induced the legislature 
 to license them, must in some measure be 
 due to the fact, that others had licenses be- 
 fore them. Why then, when Mr. Edwards 
 says neither grocers nor beer house keepers 
 ought to have licences, should he feel so very 
 much aggrieved with us for adding, no more 
 should your clients? (Laughter and cheers.) 
 He and his friends go a very long way with 
 us in the belief that measures of restriction 
 upon the trade, would be beneficial and arc 
 right. They point out that raising the duty 
 on spirits has checked the use of it. We 
 agree with them. They believe that the 
 want of means to purchase alcohol is one 
 reason why less is used. We agree 
 with them. They object to drinking clubs : 
 so do we ; and to off-licences : so do we ; 
 and to grocers' licences : so do we. They 
 are of opinion that the closing of 520 drinking 
 shops in Dublin is the real cause of the dim- 
 inution of intemperance there. So are we. 
 They would like to forbid the sale of new 
 spirits, (Protest page 55). So should we, and 
 of old as well. (Laughter.) They propose that 
 a temporary Suspensory Act should be passed, 
 as applied to licenses of all kinds. We hail 
 them ; we welcome them ; we embrace them 
 as allies, and when it is passed we will do our 
 very best to make it permanent, and appli- 
 
 cable to the renewal of old licenses, as well as 
 the granting of new ones. (Cheers.) But here, 
 alas!, they part company with us; what is more, 
 though they would be perfectly content that not 
 another license was ever granted, they would 
 actually like to have the power to carry 
 their ruinous trade into the happy and well- 
 ordered parishes, where at present there is no 
 sale of intoxicants, and consequently no 
 drunkenness and very little crime. On page 
 20 of the Protest there is the strongest con- 
 demnation of the landowners, who have 
 tyranically introduced what is tantamount to 
 a Maine law on their estates, and of 
 teetotalers for supporting them in their 
 feudalism. To the virgin soil of these now 
 protected villages the licensed victuallers 
 would wish, it seems, to remove their injurious 
 business from more exhausted districts. Now 
 I say nothing about the inconsistency of 
 gentlemen who prohibit the liquor trade in 
 certain localities and vote against allowing 
 others to do the same. They must defend 
 themselves, but we teetotalers are perfectly 
 consistent in saying that if feudal powers are 
 exercised at all, it is better that they should 
 be exercised to save people from unnecessary 
 temptation, than to tempt them ; and that if 
 it be right (and few people out of the trade 
 will pretend that it is wrong), for landed 
 proprietors to protect the people on their 
 estates from proved incentives to evil, it is 
 still more right that people should have the 
 power to protect themselves. (Hear, hear, 
 and loud cheers.) But " white is white, and 
 black is black," says Mr. Edwards, "right is 
 right, and wrong is wrong ; if it is right for a 
 man to sell liquor on one side of the street, it 
 cannot be wrong for a man to sell it on the 
 other." So say we who would like to prohibit 
 the sale of alcohol everywhere, and so says 
 Professor Leoni Levi who wishes to allow it 
 everywhere. But how can Mr. Edwards say 
 it, who defends things as they are ? At this 
 moment in Bow Street on the one side there 
 is a house in which it is right to sell alcohol, 
 on the other side it is wrong for any one to sell 
 it ; and if at the next Brewsters' Sessions a 
 person from the latter applied for a license he 
 would no doubt be opposed by the publican 
 who lives on the other. Mr. Edwards 
 approves, but really nothing can be plainer than 
 that if it be fair to allow the sale of 
 alcohol to one person and refuse it to another 
 who eagerly desires it, it is much more fair 
 that, though it be allowed in one place it 
 should not be allowed in another which 
 strongly objects to it. (Hear, hear.) Prohibi- 
 tion, however, we are told, has been tried in 
 America and found wanting. " In the State of 
 Michigan a prohibitory law had been on the 
 Statute book for 20 years and was then
 
 repealed !" The fact is tliat Michigan adopted 
 the provisions of the Maine Law in 1853 ; and 
 that recently, that law has hecn changed for 
 what we want to get here, a Permissive Pro- 
 hibitory Liquor Act, or Local Option, i.e., 
 the power of suppressing the trade 
 where the people do not want it. In the 
 TJnited States every kind of experiment in 
 licensing has been made ; and some years ago 
 the Canadian Parliament sent commissioners, 
 one a Prohibitionist, and the other an Anti- 
 Prohibitionist, into the States to investigate 
 the results, and^coUect evidence. At the con- 
 clusion of their visit they were both Prohi- 
 bitionists ; and the Canadians, who live much 
 nearer to the States than we do, and are far 
 better able to judge of the effects of legal 
 restraints there, than any stray English tra- 
 veller, whether Mr. Plimsoll or Mr. George 
 Dawson, from the mother country, were so 
 convinced by their report and evidence that 
 they adopted a Permissive Prohibitory Liquor 
 Bill, which is now in operation throughout 
 the Dominion. (Applause). Do you want 
 further evidence ? In Switzerland there is 
 free trade in drink, and the result is so disas- 
 trous as to cause grave anxiety amongst joeople 
 of all classes. In Sweden many years ago, 
 there was the same, Avith the same 
 consequences. Since then, however, a Per- 
 missive Prohibitory Liquor Act has been 
 passed, and Sweden has thereby emerged 
 from " the moral and material prostration 
 to which drunkenness had sunk her." 
 
 From the Saturday Review, December 
 23rd-, 1882, p. 833, I take the following ex- 
 tract : — 
 
 ' ' In the whole course of liis travels, Mr. Seebohm 
 seems to have found only one model village. In it 
 ' order reigned, and a hundred Kttle details be- 
 tokened industry and civilization.' Thehoxises were 
 comfortable, their occupants were tidy, the com- 
 m.unity was free from ciimc, di-iiilv, and illness. 
 These model villagers turned out to be Skoptsy, the 
 gloomy fanatics, whose asceticism, Mr. Seebohm 
 somewhat quaintly describes as ' teetotalism carried 
 out to the bitter end.' " 
 
 From an article on "Siberia in Asia," by Heniy 
 Seebohm. 
 
 Veiy well then, it is said, but if you suppress 
 the trade you must be prepared to compensate 
 those who are engaged in it, and Captain 
 Graves, Avhose letter in last week's local 
 paper I desire to commend to the attention 
 both of licensed victuallers and teetotallers, 
 believes that this would be fair. Xow all that 
 I can say is, that if the vendors of intoxicants 
 could make out a fair claim to compensation, 
 oven though it were to the extent of half the 
 jS'ational debt, the £400,000,000, which they 
 modestly ask for, it would be better to pay 
 them and have done with tliem. I bear thera 
 no ill will, and would do them no wrong ; but 
 I must boldly state my opinion, that the de- 
 
 mand is an inequitable one. Why should we 
 compensate them? Is it for having enjoyed 
 a privilege which has been denied to others ? 
 Is it for having carried on a trade disastrous 
 to the country ? Is it for the wholesale de- 
 preciation of their neighbours property ? Is 
 it for being freed at length from a part of their 
 business, which degrades the rest, and has en- 
 dangered their lives, and too often made 
 desolate their homes. (Loud applause.) 
 At a public meeting at which I had the 
 honour of speaking some time ago, an elaborate 
 attack was made upon Local Option by a 
 Licensed Victualler, who was, I am told, one 
 of the most respectable members of the trade. 
 The meeting was a noisy, not to say an up- 
 roarious one, and no one but the publican and 
 his friends could get a hearing. Still I felt 
 sorry for the man, Avho seemed to be distinctly 
 of opinion that his business was a useful one, 
 and I thought well at any rate, this good fellow 
 has never suffered from it. Judge then of my 
 surprise and horror, when I afterwards 
 learned that his own wife had more than 
 once been treated for delirium tremens, and 
 threatened to take her life, and had not long 
 before been killed by a fall, the doctor de- 
 posing at the inquest held upon her that she 
 smelt terribly of spirits. 
 
 There is, I believe, no class of persons who 
 would gain more by the abolition of the trade 
 than those engaged in it. Morally, they 
 would be amply compen'^ated. But as for 
 pecuniary compensation, what right have they 
 to expect it? When did the State promise it 
 to them, or encourage them to believe that 
 they would receive it ? The hours for drink- 
 ing have been shortened; public houses have 
 been closed in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales ; 
 grocer's licenses and beerhouse licenses have 
 been issued ; the duty upon spirits has been 
 raised ; and no compensation lias been given to 
 the publicans. At the next Ei ewster Sessions 
 the magistrates might so multiply the liquor 
 shops of Bugelcy as to render valueless eveiy 
 license in the place, or, as I believe, might 
 withdraw all or any licenses within the limits 
 of their jurisdiction. The factitious value of 
 public houses is wholly due to the action of 
 the Bench. Their occupiers Imld their licenses 
 for one twelve-months and no more. If, 
 then, their licenses be taken from them before 
 the expiration of the year, they should have 
 compensation to the full anvoiint of Avhat 
 tliey would have gained if they had re- 
 tained them till to its clost^ : more they 
 cannot fairly claim. (Hear, and applause.) 
 At the Edmonton Licen,^ing Meeting, 
 March 9th, ]\Ir. Besley ojjposed the renewal of 
 many of tlie off-licenses and the granting of 
 new ones, on behalf of the licensed victuallers, 
 and boldly maintained that the only vested 
 
 m
 
 10 
 
 interest which apcrsonnow licensed, possessed, 
 was an interest for the current year. The 
 publicans, who instructed him, did not propose 
 to compensate those whom they wished to de- 
 prive of their licenses, although they them- 
 selves would have been greatly benefited by 
 the transaction. Again in the Protest (page 
 13) are the following striking words "Mr. 
 Russell has explained that since Sunday 
 Closing came into force, 559 drinking shops 
 have been suppressed in Dublin. We admit 
 the truth of this and think the explanation 
 very valuable as shewing the real sources of 
 drunkenness, and how tliat evil can be dealt 
 with, apart from Sunday Closing ?" Precisely 
 so, Mr. Edwards; let drinking shops be closed 
 every day, there will then be no necessity for 
 a special A-ct to close them on Sundays. " Those 
 520 houses," continues the Protest, " ought 
 never to have existed, and we supported Mr. 
 Meldon's Bill, which has almost annihilated 
 them." Mr. Edwards and his friends are 
 practical prohibitionists. What compensation 
 then was given by the Bill which they 
 supported ? Absolutely none ! Not one 
 penny, though the people from whom a trade 
 was taken, were poor and needed it, far more 
 than the gentlemen Avho can spend a thousand 
 pounds in furnishing and fitting up their 
 houses for public accommodation. But it was 
 just this that made the difference. These dis- 
 possessed people had houses that were rated 
 at less than £15 per annum in town, and £8 
 in the Country : they were only sweeps and 
 scavengers, and costermongers, and coal- 
 heavers, and cobblers, and errand 
 men. (Loud laughter and cheers.) ! ! 
 Mr. Edwards is in favour of one law for the 
 rich and another for the poor. Indeed it is 
 because the liquor trade is so rich that we are 
 warned against lifting up our hands against 
 it. Professor Leoni Levi has stated that 
 more than £117,000,000 is invested in it. 
 This no doubt is true, but it is not so invested 
 that it would be all lost if the trade were 
 abolished. At least £51,000,000 of the 
 £^7,900,000 which he estimates as the fixed 
 capital of the trade would be available for other 
 purposes, and out of the £78,400,000 which 
 he represents as its floating capital, no not 
 more probably than one half would be lost. 
 But this is not a question into which I care to go. 
 We say, and prove, that their business is a 
 nuisance aud a curse, and the bigger it is, the 
 bigger the nuisance, and the bigger the 
 curse. How great it is, none but those who 
 live amongst the people, as the clergy ought 
 to do, know, and, now mark well these words, 
 they are from the Protest (Page 8.) "What 
 happens in connection with the drinking 
 habits of the people, the abuses which occur 
 and their attendant evils, these are matters 
 
 which no legalised method of public supply 
 will ever be able to prevent or considerably to 
 influence. " That is our case. That is what 
 we say, and, therefore, we demand, in the 
 name of simple justice, that at least, in 
 places where a majority of the people 
 desire to do without it, there shall be 
 no method of supplying it at all. If, indeed, 
 strong drink, like speech, were essential to 
 to society, we should have to put up with the 
 evil for the sake of the good which it does ; 
 but if it be not necessary, and the existence of 
 some 3,000,000 of teetotallers, no less intelli- 
 gent, or vigOT'ous, or^^clubbable than other peo- 
 ple, proves that it is not ; and if the misera- 
 ble consequences of it be equal, as Mr. 
 Gladstone has told us, to the woes which 
 war, famine, and pestilence combined, in- 
 flict on other nations, we should be foolish 
 and inhuman not to endeavour to get rid of 
 it. (Loud applause.) Are these words an 
 exaggeration ? Listen : a few weeks ago 'a 
 woman, in Chester, returned home intoxicated, 
 she found her little child of 14 months old in 
 charge of a neighbour ; going to his cot she 
 lifted him up and deliberately put him upon 
 the fire ; her friend was just in time to save 
 him; again she seized him and thrust him back 
 into the flames ; again her friend rescued him, 
 and then the infuriated mother took the kettle 
 and poured boiling water over her little- 
 one and her friend. Oh! when you talk 
 about interference with liberty and the rights 
 of man, have you no thought of the tyranny 
 which strong drink exercises over the minds, 
 even of gentle women, and of the wrongs 
 which it inflicts upon innocent children ? is 
 the only liberty which Englishmen can under- 
 stand, the liberty to use alcohol, and the only 
 tyranny which they dread, the tyranny of 
 being deprived of it ? Ah ! often and often in 
 some humble cottage, where the hardest 
 labour can just supply the scantiest fare for a 
 large and growing family, have I watched with 
 admiration a poor mother, her eyes spark- 
 ling with love and delight, dance and dandle 
 her laughing, crowing child, as proudly as if he 
 had been born in a palace and were heir to a 
 noble title and a great estate ; and the words 
 of Holy Scripture have come into my mind — 
 ' ' Can a woman forget her sucking child, that 
 she should not have compassion on the son of 
 her womb ?" The story which I have told 
 you suggests the context — " Yea, they may 
 forget." Forget ! Under the influence of a 
 noxious drug which we permit to be widely 
 circulated, and for the sale of which Ave license 
 houses all the country over, they may hate, 
 and starve, and mutilate, and torture, and kill 
 him. My God ! when shall these horrors 
 cease from amongst us ? When shall the 
 spirit of Thy dear Son so permeate all hearts
 
 11 
 
 in this professedly Christian land, as to pre- 
 vent men in the outraged name of freedom 
 from defending the direct cause of such ap- 
 palling atrocities. "Lord! how long wilt 
 Thou look upon this ? Oh ! deliver my soul 
 from the calamities which they bring upon 
 lue, and my darling from the lions." My God! 
 Thou hast promised, " Yet will I not forgot 
 Thee." I believe it, yes, I do believe that this 
 grand and mighty movement which lam hei'oto 
 jidvocate this evening for the extirpation as 
 
 soon as may bo, of a pitiless, unnatural vice, a 
 movement which year by year is gathering vo- 
 lume and force, and is destined ere long to sweep 
 away with irresistible might all the artificial 
 barriers, which now iinxxulc the virtue and 
 prosperity of the pcoi)ie, is but one of the 
 rivers, pure as crystal, which have their source 
 in the boundless, infinite, unforgettiog, com- 
 passion of our God. (Loud and protracted 
 cheering.) 
 
 VIUNTED AT TUB " ADVEKTlSEll OFFICB, ttCOELET.
 
 
 H
 

 
 -^«.^ 
 
 "* ^ 
 
 feif^^ 
 
 
 4 
 
 ^ar^ 
 
 i^'/''V» 
 
 r*?- ■■■•*■