THE 
 
 PRESENT POLITICAL ASPECT 
 
 >F THE 
 
 LICENSING QUESTION: 
 
 AN ADDRESS j 
 
 DELIVERED IN LIVERPOOL, NOVEMBER, 1875, J 
 
 BY 
 
 J, E, THOROLD ROGERS, M.A. 
 
 (Professor of Political Economy, London University.) 
 
 LIVERPOOL: 
 
 N ATHANIEL SjPSWJ^T'SbnsHAW 1 IsTBE E T. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
THE 
 
 PRESENT POLITICAL ASPECT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LICENSING QUESTION: 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 DELIVERED IN LIVERPOOL, NOVEMBER, 1878, 
 
 J. E. THOROLD ROGERS, M,A, 
 
 (Professor of Political Economy, London University.) 
 
 LIVERPOOL: 
 
 NATHANIEL SMYTH, 42, RENSHAW STREET. 
 
I915E 
 
THE 
 
 present political aspect of the licensing (Question. 
 
 When I was first a member, some fifteen years ago, of the London 
 Political Economy Club, in which society matters of considerable 
 political interest are debated from what is called an economical 
 point of view, I remember asking a veiy old member of the club, 
 the late Sir William Clay, what was the good which was supposed 
 to result from these debates. I ought to explain that our practice 
 is to have a question printed on the paper for the evening, with the 
 name of some member of the club annexed to the question. After 
 dinner, the gentleman whose name is thus annexed expounds the 
 question from his point of view: a debate takes place afterwards 
 on the subject, in which the members take part at their discretion. 
 There is, however, no summing up, and no vote on tlm subject. A 
 right of reply is accorded to the mover of the question, and after 
 this right is used the meeting disperses. Well, sir, when I asked 
 Sir William Clay what, in his experience, was the good of this kind 
 of debate, he answered, “ I think the good is this, that we come to a 
 practical conclusion, though we take no votes in this room on 
 certain public questions, about three years before*Parliament adopts 
 as an economical necessity the conclusions at which we have 
 arrived.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I am led to think that my friend has 
 chosen a very typical question with which to introduce a practice 
 like that adopted by the London Political Economy Club. He has 
 gathered together a body of intelligent gentlemen, who, I under¬ 
 stand, are wholly superior to mere political sympathies or 
 antipathies, with a view to discussing a question on its econom¬ 
 ical, social, and moral consequences. Now, if a man can wholly 
 dispossess himself of all considerations other than those which are 
 distinctly relevant to the good of the English people, I cannot help 
 thinking that he will arrive at an affirmative solution of the 
 problem which is before us to-night. But I must admit—indeed, 
 I cannot help seeing—that it is difficult, perhaps impossible to 
 discuss the matter from a practical point of view, and at the present 
 
4 
 
 moment, without unfortunately contemplating it as a party question. 
 I regret that it is a party question; and I think it has been made 
 one to a great extent through the indiscretion of the late Govern¬ 
 ment, for reasons which I hope to point out in the course of what I 
 have to say. Still, on the other hand, the question has become of 
 such considerable magnitude, and the issues it involves are so serious, 
 that, as my friend and host believes, and I agree fully with him, 
 its position as an unsettled question not only imperils the resusci¬ 
 tation, perhaps the existence of the Liberal party, but even to a 
 very large extent, what is a much more important matter, the cause 
 of good government altogether. For under existing circumstances, 
 the fact that a great and historical party is identified with the 
 maintenance of a particular interest, apart from the social sur¬ 
 roundings of that interest, and in a country like ours, which 
 cannot afford to trifle with its prosperity and place among civilised 
 nations, is one of the most serious political complications that can 
 arise. 
 
 It is all very well, gentlemen, when we meet together in a public 
 room with, so to speak, the rough and ready elements of political 
 action below a platform to address—such elements, for example, as 
 I had the pleasure of seeing and addressing in the very intelligent, 
 enthusiastic, and on the whole, clear-headed audience of last night 
 —to deal with the broader and more obvious facts of the political 
 situation ; perhaps to induce a little jocularity over the proceedings, 
 and certainly to do one’s best to revive the spirits and unite the 
 impulses of all those who are gathered together for a common and 
 future purpose. The materials of political opinion, and the social 
 duties of life have to be inculcated in many ways. Here we are in a 
 very different position. AVe are endeavouring to deal with the 
 question before us under circumstances in which we are, or ought to 
 be, free from any tendency towards political partisanship ; and yet 
 it is hard to detach one’s self from such surroundings. AVe cannot 
 be quite uninfluenced by such considerations. The position in 
 which the licensing question has been placed by what has been, 
 I t hi n k , the ill-advised action of one great party, and I am bound to 
 add, the immoral action of the other great party, renders a dispas¬ 
 sionate judgment a matter of no little difficulty. 
 
 I ventured last night to allude to the cry with which the present 
 Government prepared its way to success, when it clamoured on 
 
5 
 
 behalf of “harassed interests.” I admit that the cry was supremely 
 useful, and therefore an extremely clever cry. But I am led to 
 invite your consideration as to whether it is not a very immoral cry 
 when it is interpreted from the highest point of view at which 
 political action can be estimated. You cannot be ignorant of this, 
 that Government has no business with the interests of men, or with 
 the relations in which individuals stand to the community, except 
 to secure private rights. Even those it is not to maintain under 
 all circumstances; but it should allow, control, or curtail them; in 
 short, interpret them, as they work in harmony with the rights of 
 other people, or are inconsistent with the highest common right, the 
 public good. 
 
 The object which I have before you in my address this evening 
 is to interpret, to the best of my powers, the present significance of 
 the liquor question, or to speak more correctly, the licensing 
 question. It will be obvious to you that the feelings which were 
 aroused on this subject before the last appeal to the country, and in 
 the face of which the Conservative party was unhappily induced to 
 avow itself the ally and advocate of the public-house interest, were 
 quite strong enough for the defence of that interest without party 
 support. The Publicans, at any rate, needed no stimulus of party 
 patronage. It is equally clear that the Liberal party was driven into 
 the position of a peculiar and superfluous, but from a partisan point 
 of view, necessary hostility to the same interest. It is, lastly, clear 
 that from this complication, those reforms, which I venture on 
 alleging, are absolutely necessary in order to prevent this country 
 from falling into the rear of other civilised communities, have been 
 seriously hindered, and are likely to be hindered for some time to 
 come. The Conservative party has been demoralised, the Liberal 
 has been disorganised, and the country has been and is distracted. 
 
 Now, this is a particularly unfortunate position. If I am right 
 in my interpretation of it, and my opinion is gathered from what 
 people say and write, one of the great historical parties is committed 
 to an almost unqualified defence, the other to an almost unqualified 
 attack. The object of defence and attack must be, however, to the 
 mind of any unprejudiced person, that which should be controlled 
 in no party spirit, and by totally different agencies from those of a 
 party organisation. It increases the complication when one 
 remembers that the solution of a question which is confessedly 
 
6 
 
 urgent is indefinitely delayed, because those who strive to handle it 
 from no party point of view, are, by the perversity which party spirit 
 engenders, commonly treated as impracticable fanatics. 
 
 The solution of the problem is, however, vital to the existence of 
 the Liberal party. Let us look the facts in the face. At the last 
 general election the confidence of the nation in one party was 
 unmistakably challenged on the licensing question. The publicans 
 declared for open war, and went bodily over to the other side. It 
 is not in human nature to decline a combat which is invited so 
 generally and so heartily. The Liberal party had to confess itself 
 in the wrong in all it had done, and to confess itself, under the 
 circumstances, unable to deal with a solution the discreet settlement 
 of which is vital to society. The harassed people went further : 
 they asserted with ostentatious vehemence, for we saw it in the 
 window of every public-house, that, the tendency of Liberal action 
 in Government is distinctly, constantly, permanently irreconcileable 
 with that of the publicans’ rights, actual and prospective. Well, 
 what is to be done 1 The Liberal party must either make war 
 against that which not only threatened, but used all the hostility in 
 its power, which boasts of its victory in the great cause of reaction, 
 and which affects to hold the balance of power, or be content to 
 take a lower line of political duty. There is, however, a third 
 course, that of discovering the means by which society may be 
 invited to adopt remedies for the mischiefs which all intelligent and 
 honest men, of whatever party they may be, allow to be a growing 
 danger to society itself. This latter policy I hope to commend to 
 the favourable consideration of the gentlemen before me. 
 
 Here, however, I think it will be convenient to point out what, 
 in my opinion, was the error which the late Liberal Government 
 made in dealing with the licensing question, and the sale of 
 alcoholic drinks to be consumed on the premises. I am, of course, 
 unable to anticipate what will be hereafter the expedient which the 
 leaders of the Liberal party may adopt in order to conciliate their 
 avowed and pronounced enemies; but it is clear that at present they 
 are very shy, as a rule, of making any utterance about the topic. 
 The mistake of the past appears to me to be this. The Government 
 entered into the particulars of a measure without having attempted 
 to avow or expound its principle. They failed to do what they 
 ought to have done, and they undertook that which they ought 
 to have left alone. 
 
7 
 
 No one doubts that the management and control of licensed 
 houses—a function which it is necessary to undertake as a matter of 
 policy—should not be put into the hands of a central administration, 
 but should be left to local authority. All are agreed upon this, but 
 all are not equally agreed as to the authority which should be called 
 into activity or be fortified. But that which administers should 
 be empowered to publish its own bye-laws and define its own 
 details. For a central government then to undertake these details 
 appears to me to be a great blunder, a serious error of policy. The 
 consequence of the fact that the late administration undertook to 
 supply these details, under which the licensing system was to be 
 carried out, led to the unpop ularity of the Government with the 
 publicans and provoked their united efforts for the downfall of the 
 Liberal majority with which all of us politicians are familiar; and 
 by parity of reasoning, as long as the leaders of the Liberal party 
 are themselves misled into undertaking these details, which are and 
 will be much better left to local hands, local needs, local difficulties, 
 local mischiefs, and local remedies, so long will they invite and pro¬ 
 long, as far as the particular interest is concerned, relegation or 
 banishment from power. I will illustrate my meaning by saying 
 how I should have acted if I l^id been a Member of Parliament during 
 the time Mr. Bruce’s bill was in progress. I should have voted for 
 the principle of Sir Wilfred Lawson’s bill; because that bill 
 contains a principle which, whatever may be the details, on which I 
 do not enter here, refers a matter of local duty to local action and 
 local option. But I should have walked out of the House while 
 the particulars of the government bill were discussed, for I should 
 have felt convinced that I had neither the right nor the capacity for 
 debating and deciding upon that which ought to be left to local 
 discretion and control. 
 
 The English Parliament has an unlucky trick of medling with 
 details which do not and should not come under its proper cognisance. 
 Let me give you an instance similar to that which is before us this 
 evening. There was no doubt, four or five years ago, a very strong 
 feeling on the part of the different colonies now forming the 
 Dominion of Canada in favour of political union. It was not, 
 indeed easy, when these disunited provinces contemplated the 
 growth of their next neighbours, to disregard such a feeling. They 
 came, therefore, to the English government and asked for such an 
 
union. You know how they were answered. Now, in my opinion, 
 it would have been far better if the government had conceded them 
 full power to construct a union in their own way, than to have 
 passed an act which entered into all sorts of details. Those among 
 us, at least, who have followed the course of Canadian politics since 
 the Canadian Dominion Act will, I think, see that the Act has put 
 great difficulties in the way of the administration of that Dominion. 
 It would have been better to have allowed the principle, and to 
 have let the details alone. I arrive at just the same inference 
 with regard to the question before us to-night, and I think that this 
 inference is inevitable and instructive. 
 
 The licensing question may be considered from two sides, from 
 two points of view, by those who have taken part in what is 
 called the Alliance movement. Two classes of persons, capable of 
 acting in harmony together, are supporters of the principle 
 involved in Sir Wilfred Lawson’s bill. With one of these I have a 
 profound moral sympathy, but, I am compelled to add, very little 
 political sympathy. With the other I have the strongest political 
 sympathy. I may call the two parties, that of repression, and that 
 of popular control. The principle of vindicating, maintaining, 
 enforcing temperance by Act of Parliament, and the principle of 
 popular control are two totally different things. I do not disparage 
 the former, while I support the latter. I honour the consistency, 
 determination, and perseverance of those, who resolutely with¬ 
 standing what they consider a practice or habit which never can be 
 good, and is too frequently mischievous, sustain their principles by 
 their example, and are willing to co-operate with those whom they, 
 no doubt, believe take a lower ground of action when they dwell 
 only on the expediency and justice of popular control. The stand¬ 
 point of some total abstainers represents a still higher level of public 
 duty. Many men are convinced, and act on the conviction, that 
 moral work is best effected by moral example. They are strict 
 abstainers from all intoxicating drinks, not because they think that 
 the use of such fluids is invariably hurtful or injurious when they 
 are moderately used ■ but seeing that it is very generally mischievous 
 to others, they consider it to be their duty, according to the advice 
 and habit of the Apostle, to sacrifice their own inclination rather 
 than encourage by their practice the temptations to which a weak 
 brother is exposed. This is the highest standpoint of a temperance 
 
9 
 
 reformer. It is not so common as that of many, which is, that 
 under no circumstances can the fermented produce of the grape, or 
 any other alcoholic liquor he partaken of without producing bad 
 effects; that all intoxicating fluids, even when they do not visibly 
 intoxicate, are radically injurious, and always bring physical 
 mischief on those who use them. But I put this latter opinion on 
 a lower footing than the earlier. It is based on a physiological or 
 pathological inference, not on a moral motive, and on an inference 
 which is still largely disputed. 
 
 I will take the first ground. Let it he an acknowledged 
 necessity to obviate—mainly by example, a little by legislation— 
 the weakness or vicious propensities of so many of our countrymen 
 in the use of drink. I would ask you to consider whether this 
 reliance, on example or on legislative control, is not rather dealing 
 with the symptom or product than with the cause. My experience 
 leads me to conclude, from very numerous instances, that the need 
 of social reform arises from the absence of one or the other of the 
 two conditions on which civilisation and social progress depend: 
 the neglect of some moral principle, or the deliberate violation of 
 some economical law. Some moral or economical fault is invariably 
 discoverable in the working of society, whenever a serious social 
 scandal is continually arresting our attention, or keeping alive our 
 anxieties. And in this case of wide-spread drunkenness, with its 
 accompanying degradations, I have constantly been able to associate 
 the deplorable habits of so many of our fellow-countrymen with the 
 want of proper accommodation, of the common decencies of life, 
 which so frequently characterise the dwelling-places of the working 
 classes. 
 
 And how does this state of things arise 1 What is it which at 
 once makes the English working classes wretched, dirty, and 
 drunken 1 The working classes of this country are better paid than 
 those of most other countries; the supply of that produce on which 
 human life is maintained is, on the whole, to he obtained at a 
 cheaper rate in this country than in most others. Why is it that 
 their homes are so miserable and their lives so uncomfortable 1 ? 
 The fact, I believe, is to he found in what, I believe, is the cause 
 of half the misery and more than half the vice of this country; in 
 the unnatural and indefensible law which assists the accummula- 
 tion of great estates in few hands; in the system which makes a 
 
10 
 
 monopoly of that which, is limited in quantity. The English land 
 laws are the cause of more social miseries than people believe, or 
 like to believe, or care to trace to their true origin ; and I am 
 persuaded that, until we get rid of this system—of course, I do 
 not mean that any person should he dispossessed of his property, 
 and should , he the last person to advise so pernicious a wrong— 
 until, however, we dispossess a person of the right of tying up an 
 estate after his death, a privilege to which no other country 
 supplies a parallel, we shall never see a permanent improvement in 
 the dwellings, and by implication in the habits of the poorer classes. 
 What is the case in this town 1 Either the working classes buy 
 the scantiest and most inconvenient accommodation at the dearest 
 possible rate ; or they are obliged to inhabit the abandoned dwell¬ 
 ings of a past generation, and to crowd themselves into these places 
 in defiance of the laws of health and morality. I looked, this 
 evening, at a map which lies on the table there, in which any one 
 could trace the causes and effects to which I am alluding. The 
 same facts apply to London and other great towns. 
 
 It would take too long time for me to demonstrate the economical 
 proofs which connect this system of things with the practice under 
 which land is let on short periods by great proprietors, with the 
 view to procuring the largest amount of income which could be 
 secured out of occupiers, through the operation of an artificial and 
 unnatural land dearth. Look at the miserable character of the 
 homes in which working men live—at the ill-burnt bricks, the 
 mortar made of road-scrapings and filth, the green timber for rafters, 
 joists, floors, and doors. They are made to last a lease—to tumble 
 down by the time the lease is over; and are unwholesome from the 
 day they are built, to the day on which they cannot be possibly 
 inhabited any longer. I have lately been in Italy. In the towns 
 of Genoa, Pisa, and Elorence, houses may be seen which have lasted 
 for four or five centuries, and are in as strong and sound a condition 
 as when they were first built. These houses would never have been 
 built on short leases. When I was at Lyons for the first time, I 
 was astonished at the beauty of the town, and at the solid character 
 of the houses in it, and I asked a friend of mine there how it came 
 to pass that a provincial town could be so handsome. The reply 
 was, “ Every one here builds on his own freehold.” It is through 
 the direct influence of the English land system that the habitations 
 
11 
 
 of the English workpeople are so detestably had. When a working 
 man comes hack to his home, he feels the misery which he has to 
 endure, and is too often driven from it to the warmth and splen¬ 
 dour of the gin-palace bar. There are excuses for the drunken 
 habits of the English workman ; is there any excuse for the law or 
 custom which makes him the victim of this artificial system 1 
 . I have constantly said that the first parliamentary reform which 
 this country needs is the purification of Parliament; and that the 
 first social reform which should he taken in hand is the abrogation 
 of these powers of settling land which have been usurped in this 
 country, or have been permitted by the legislature. I am sure that 
 until these changes are effected, we shall be kept on the very 
 threshold of moral progress, and can make no way. I detest 
 palliatives. I want remedies; and one can always find social 
 remedies for social evils. If I had a heap of offensive matter 
 before my doors, I should get it carted away. That is a remedy. 
 I should not disguise the stench by pouring a little eau de Cologne 
 on the top of the heap. That is a palliative. 
 
 The present Government is, to a certain extent, conscious of what 
 is the genuine cure for certain social mischiefs. The Artizan’s 
 Dwelling Bill of the last session appears to recognise the facts; but, 
 instead of dealing with the cause of the evil, it tries to palliate the 
 evil. I am sorry to say that the palliative is what is likely to be 
 exceedingly mischievous. The bill contains a strong flavour, not of 
 eau de Cologne, but of Commonism ; for I suppose we can see who 
 will have to pay the bill when the Act is put into operation on any 
 considerable scale. I suspect it will be the ratepayer, and I am 
 sure it ought not to be. 
 
 I have no doubt that when people’s eyes are so far opened as to 
 see the urgency of such reforms as I am indicating, we shall be met 
 by a loud cry that the rights of property are endangered. But 
 these are not the rights of property: they are rights usurped or extorted 
 by persons over property, or, to be more accurate, rights allowed to 
 dead persons to tie up an estate which is held by living persons. I 
 sometimes think that the re-arrangement of the English land system 
 will be assisted by the conviction which some of those who are 
 supposed to profit by it entertain as to the ultimate consequences 
 of the law, and which they begin to see are disastrous. I was 
 talking the other day to the son of one of the wealthiest men in 
 
12 
 
 England, and said: “ What an admirable thing it would he for 
 your class if you did away with that system of protecting men 
 against the effects of their own vices, and which acts as an incentive 
 to reckless extravagance and waste. If I were a Conservative, 
 instead of being a Liberal, there is nothing I should desire more 
 than to free the great landed aristocracy from the protection which 
 the law gives them, because I am certain that by removing some of 
 the strongest defences of misconduct, I should improve their 
 reputation with the public.” “Well,” he replied, “we are begin¬ 
 ning to entertain these views ourselves; not a few of us wish to get 
 rid of strict settlements, and the other limitations on estates which 
 are now customary.” 
 
 Palliatives for social evils are more mischievous than the neglect 
 of remedies, and it is a serious mistake to have recourse to them. 
 Our business, if we are worth anything for our generation, is to find 
 out remedies. We only put off the evil day, as long as we do less 
 than what is wanted. We lull people into a false security when 
 we do not grasp the whole truth. We may lead men to believe that 
 we are putting them into a Paradise, and they may find out, when 
 it is too late, that we have he creating a paradise of fools. I 
 strongly hold that every economical mischief has its economical 
 remedy ; every social mischief its social remedy ; every legal wrong 
 its legal remedy. I have, to he sure, made rather a long digression; 
 it is forced upon me by the estimate I have been compelled to make 
 of the facts. I will now confine myself to the particular social 
 mischief which is before us this evening. 
 
 Many of my friends, for whose motives and judgment I have the 
 greatest respect, think that the remedy for the national vice is to 
 exactly copy or adopt an institution from another country. I do 
 not think that this would he expedient. The two countries are 
 very differently situated. In that country the population, instead 
 Of being dense, is sparse ; the habit of acquiring land is common, 
 mstod of being as it is hem, unfortunately, rare; the constitution of 
 JI? , T* ° f ma j° r!t y TOti “S on a definite proper- 
 Le neonle T v cl “nge i the bLit of 
 
 h auth rit 1 0Pini ° n “ n “d t° enforce 
 
 men ace In T” ^ ^ md ^ classes of 
 
 developed, and ZtZZlr l ^acZ^UvT ^ PreS “‘’ ” 
 
 a pi acuce bodily from one country to 
 
 
13 
 
 another would he proved to be found nugatory in the end. I have often 
 urged on my friends of the Alliance : “ What you suggest in your 
 Permissive Bill is a scheme by which a two-thirds vote would carry 
 with it the extinction of the public houses. But, as a matter of fact, by 
 the constitution of Great Britain, a vote carried by a majority of one 
 would produce exactly the same effect. If you can only get a fair 
 majority in the House of Commons, there is nothing to prevent the 
 extinction of every public-house at any time by the barest majority. 
 Why, then, should you attach yourselves to a scheme which post¬ 
 pones or defers to an artificial and novel agency that which is 
 perfectly possible under the existing forces of parliamentary 
 government.” 
 
 When I speak of what appears to me to be the policy open to the 
 Liberal party in connection with the Permissive Bill, I can of course 
 only give my own opinion. Perhaps my view is a little affected 
 by the circumstances under which I was first induced to make my 
 appearance on a platform which was temporarily occupied by the 
 Alliance. I will explain them. Some years ago, a travelling agent 
 of the Affiance called on me, and asked me to take the chair at one 
 of their Meetings. I replied that I did not see how I could do so, 
 because I did not believe in total abstinence, and did not practise 
 it, and I did not see how I could take the chair of an association 
 which seemed to put upon its members the obligation of conforming 
 to the rule of total abstinence in their own personal conduct. The 
 agent replied that they did not expect any thing of the kind, but 
 that any one who accepted the principle of popular control could 
 associate with them. Well, I replied, that is a very reasonable view 
 to take, but as I am not prepared to take a prominent part in the 
 movement, I must decline to take the chair. Well, the agent went 
 away, and I thought I should see him no more. In a day or two, 
 however, he came back in a terrible way, and told me he could not 
 get any one to take the chair, because a leading publican in the 
 the town had threatened to go to the meeting with a basket of eggs 
 —I wifi not offend you by supplying the adjective which the pub¬ 
 lican annexed to the eggs—and dislodge anyone who should take 
 the chair. Very well, I replied, under those circumstances I will 
 take the chair. I did so and was not attacked. Perhaps the 
 publican, who was not very tall, but was very corpulent, 
 respect for my physique. But the threat of the eggs ma e n 
 
14 
 
 advocate of the principle of popular control. I am sorry to say that 
 if a man shakes his fist in my face, I am always very strongly in¬ 
 clined to knock him down. It may be wrong, but it is natural. 
 The Liberal party is credited with having taken the chair of the 
 Alliance, perhaps with some reason, for I believe that there are only 
 two or three English Conservatives who vote for the principles 
 of Sir Wilfred Lawson’s bill, and the publicans you know are very 
 ready with their eggs. But they must not be suprised if the Libei al 
 party retaliates in the way which I have indicated as suggested to 
 myself, and if it looks on the Conservative party as the champion 
 of the pot-houses. 
 
 Let us look at the beginning of this licensing system. It is always 
 worth while to trace as far as possible an existing law or custom to 
 its historical origin. In the first instance, the function of licenser 
 in all public houses, in parish, manor, township, or borough, was 
 conferred on persons specially elected for that purpose by the 
 residents of the manor, or burgesses of the town. These people 
 went by a name which was certainly not indicative of temperance, for 
 they were called ale-tasters. It is possible indeed that these same 
 gentlemen in the middle ages, who entertained the views of my 
 friend Sir Wilfred Lawson, performed their duties with a wry face, 
 and reported that the fluid was not so unwholesome as some might 
 be. Any way, they were the persons elected by a popular and local 
 suffrage, who had full powers of determining what, when, and how 
 beer should be drunk, and were even able to say, “ There has been 
 enough of this drinking, that cask must not be broached.” The 
 office, I may add, came down to modern times. One of the last 
 gentlemen that I ever heard of who was appointed to this office was 
 the late Mr. Cobden, who served as ale-taster to the town of Man¬ 
 chester. I fear that he must have neglected his duty, even at the 
 head-quarters of the Alliance. 
 
 In course of time people took to drinking gin. I do not quite 
 know whether this fluid came into England as a common beverage 
 under the Stuarts or the Hanoverians. I rather incline to believe 
 that its fatherland was Holland, and that it may be connected 
 with the coming of the great deliverer William of Orange, whom 
 the Jacobites called the Dutchman. By the year 1731 the practise 
 o gm dunking became so general, and seemed so mischievous that 
 the Government passed an Act of Parliament known in history as 
 
the Gin Act. Complaints were made that the free manufacture and 
 sale of spirits had been followed by such extensive consumption, 
 that it was expedient for the legislation to do what was equivalent 
 to a total prohibition of sale, by imposing a heavy duty on the 
 manufacturer, and a prohibition license on the seller. As a matter 
 of fact however, both duty and license were found to be failures, 
 and the Gin Act missed its purpose. In 1743, three or four years 
 after the war with Spain .broke out, it became necessary to find 
 means, and a Licensing Act was the consequence. The Bill passed 
 the Commons, for the Commons had to raise the funds for carrying 
 on the waT. But in the House of Lords the Bill met with a violent 
 opposition, many lords protesting against it. It is a little remarkable 
 that on-this occasion all the bishops voted against the Bill. At the 
 present time we hear one of our bishops saying that it is better to be 
 free than sober. I cannot, however, help thinking that this prelate 
 would have done better if he had vindicated the right of a man to 
 get drunk on other grounds than that of his inalienable privilege of 
 freedom. The fact is, that so far from freedom and drunkenness 
 going together, our. experience is that the righteous indignation of 
 law shuts up a man first, and finds him five shillings afterwards. 
 When I hear that freedom leads a man to indulge in these appetites, 
 I know that his freedom is very likely to be taken away. 
 
 Wben the licensing system, was well established very significant 
 esults ensued. By virtue of a process developed from economical 
 causes, the small brewers gradually became absorbed in the large brewers, 
 and the brewers became gradually a power in the country, for in 
 politics the concentration of power makes any interest considerable. 
 There was a time it appears when most people brewed their own 
 beer. Then came the day of small local brewers. At last, so to 
 speak, the big brewers have gobbled up both, the publicans finding 
 it more convenient to get their beer from large brewers than to 
 manufacture it themselves. Here comes a remarkable fact in relation 
 to the present position of the trade. Nominally, the maintenance 
 of the existing trade appears to be the interest of the whole class o 
 publicans. Actually it is the interest of a very small class that o 
 the monopolist brewers and gin distillers. I do not know 
 it is true, but I was told the other day, that one of the 0 
 monopolist brewers, whose tall chimney overshadows tie 
 which I live, was offered several thousands a year by a g 
 
16 
 
 in return for the monopoly of sale in the various public houses 
 which the brewer possessed. I can explain this story only by one 
 of two ways. Either the goodwill of a big gin shop must he a 
 very valuable commodity, or the gin sold must be very bad. I do 
 not mean to say that the alternatives are not compatible. 
 
 Well, it is in the hands of the brewers that this great power really 
 rests, and is virtually therefore on a very narrow basis. I venture 
 to suggest to those gentlemen who are very strong advocates of the 
 Premissive Bdl, whether it would not be worth while to point out at 
 their meetings that it is not half so much the interest of the 
 publicans to maintain the existing state of the law as it is of the 
 monopolist brewers ; and to instruct the publicans that almost all 
 the profits of his trade, owing to causes which are absolutely inevit¬ 
 able, go to brewers and the brewers only. If the publicans only 
 know the facts, the Alliance might easily, and probably with great 
 effect make an onslaught on the image of vested interests as repre¬ 
 sented by the brewers, this Dagon of the Philistines,—and soon 
 have him in a very sorry plight, without arms and legs. It seems 
 to me that if the true position of the trade were explained to the 
 public it would be seen that the interests of the community are 
 sacrificed to those of a very narrow class of persons. 
 
 Public opinion, gentlemen, is growing on this subject, and is very 
 likely to grow, as it sometimes does with very great rapidity. Unless 
 the persons who are now pluming themselves on the possession of 
 their monopoly, on the support of the Constitutional Party as it is 
 called, make up their minds to abandon some of these privileges 
 which they enjoy, they will very likely find out that the question is 
 taken in hand by those who are resolved on a settlement, and equally 
 resolved to decide whether certain vested interests have any right to 
 either compensation or consideration. I am strongly disposed to 
 believe that the mass of the working classes believe that they are 
 sacrificed to the unjustifiable profits of a very small class of persons. 
 We must remember that the Samson of Democracy has not as yet 
 found that his hair is grown, and his strength is restored him.- He 
 may discover both, and even open his eyes again, nay pull down the 
 Philistines’ temple, though he brings mischief on himself in the 
 process. 
 
 With regard to these houses it is admitted on all sides that con¬ 
 trol is necessary. Well, if control must be exercised, by whom is it 
 
17 
 
 to be exercised 1 Now we come to the roost of the matter. You will 
 agree with me that the control must involve the employment of a 
 police; for it is necessary that a police should he able to enter, 
 inspect, report, and deal with certain cases as they arrive. It is 
 impossible for ’government to do more than lay down general 
 principles; it must leave the management and execution of law to 
 local authority. It is admitted again, though in a hesitating manner, 
 that the locality as the right .and the duty of deciding how many 
 public houses a locality shall permit 1 and under certain limits—it 
 is to be regretted that the limits were put—during what days and 
 hours these places should be open. 
 
 Now who sets this machinery in motion at present 1 I am not 
 one of those who are prepared to rail indiscriminately against an 
 unpaid magistracy. I think it is ungracious to do so, as well 
 unpractical; for the unpaid magistracy renders many signal 
 and valuable services to the country. Beyond doubt, all of 
 us here have experienced how valuable are the representatives of 
 Local Boards, and how great are the services of Boards of Guardians 
 men who fulfil positions similar to those of the local magistracy. 
 
 I am not at all disposed to object to the administration of public 
 affairs by unpaid officials. I do not want even to see a member of 
 Parliament paid—though I do think he ought not to be allowed to pay 
 money in order to he there. There is, however, one element in these 
 Boards which does not belong to the magistracy. They are liable to 
 a periodical revision of their doings at the hands of their constituents. 
 The magistrate is a sort of life peer. He has no constituents. It 
 used to be said, “ once a clergyman, always a clergyman.” It ought 
 to be said, “ once a magistrate, always a magistrate.” I believe it is 
 more difficult to get a man out of the commission of the peace than 
 it is to get him out of the ministry, or even off the roll of attorneys. 
 
 Now, I do not think that a great, permanent, vital interest ought 
 to be put into the hands of an irresponsible body, for magistrates are 
 practically irresponsible. Guardians, members of School Boards, of 
 Town-Councils, of Local Boards, are liable to be put out of office if 
 they neglect or abuse their powers. Their constituents make them 
 retire at the end of their time if they do not like them. There is 
 another reason why I think that the licensing power of the magi¬ 
 strates should beobjected to. Amanmaynever intend anything corrupt 
 or unfair, hut he cannot help being influenced by his surroundings 
 
18 
 
 and associations. I dare say it is the case in this town, i know it 
 is the case in Oxford, that many estimable and excellent men are on 
 intimate terms with monopolist brewers and their partners the gin 
 distillers. Now it is not in human nature that when men go in and 
 out of a neighbour’s house, they should forthwith go to the bench and 
 take away his license. As a matter of fact a rich brewer can always 
 get his house licensed, though perhaps the poor brewer is not equally 
 favoured or fortunate. This association is a reason why, in my 
 opinion, a magistrate ought to be relieved of a position which places 
 him in a very invidious office, and exposes his sense of equity to 
 many strong temptations. 
 
 Now, if the magistrates are constitutionally unfit to handle this 
 business, other functionaries should be appointed to it. I have 
 heard two classes of elective officials named as competent to under¬ 
 take the office. One is the Town Council. Well, Town Councils 
 are not to be found in all localities ; but a licensing board must be 
 found in all. The Town Councillor is, to be sure, elected by an 
 almost universal suffrage. But my objection to this functionary is, 
 that he is elected for a very large number of duties; and that if he 
 retained those duties, he would not be elected on the licensing question 
 only, though it is a burning question in the present state of English 
 social life. Town Councillors have as much to do as they can 
 reasonably be expected to properly perform. I cannot, therefore, 
 agree with my friend, Mr. Bright, that the office of licensing should 
 be put on the Town Councils. 
 
 Another body has been spoken of, which at first sight seems to be 
 a very suitable one. I mean the Board of Guardians. I have been 
 a guardian of the poor for the last eight or nine years, and I am 
 quite certain of this, that if I had despotic powers in the town 
 where I live over the public houses, I could soon reduce the rates from 
 two shillings to sixpence in the pound. I know well, how could I 
 fail to know it 1 what is the chief cause of pauperism, and why it 
 is that so much money is raised and spent for the use of the poor. 
 There are many reasons why Boards of Guardians would be com¬ 
 petent Licensing Boards, especially as they are elected from year to 
 year, and therefore must come before their constituents in order to 
 obtain or miss a renewal of public confidence. Still guardians have 
 a very onerous duty, the satisfaction of which is a great tax on theii 
 time and energies, and they are very often, I believe, compromised by 
 
19 
 
 
 public bouse interests. I am, therefore, decidedly of opinion that 
 neither of these bodies can be utilised, and then nothing remains 
 . but to resort to the creation of another and special licensing body 
 by election. And why not? There can be no reason why an 
 increasing number of persons should not be introduced into the 
 management of public affairs. It would be expedient to enlarge the 
 franchise for this function in one direction, and restrict it in ano< her. 
 The electoral register should embrace the poorest class of the com¬ 
 munity, for they are the least protected against the present system. 
 But I would not let the brewers and publicans come within earshot 
 of the polling places. The parties whose pecuniary interests are 
 concerned against a reform ought not to be allowed to use an 
 election for their own ends, but should be excluded from it. 
 
 It is a great error to call this kind of action Permissive Legis¬ 
 lation. The restoration of popular control is in no sense permissive 
 unless we are to call the exercise of the human will on matters of 
 great human interests permissive, and expect that to be optional 
 which is an obligation or a duty. Of all the meaningless and so¬ 
 phistical terms which are ever invented, the most sophistical are 
 those which are employed to denote political agencies. These terms 
 often represent the very reverse of that which they naturally mean. 
 I'rom the point of view which I take, it becomes absolutely 
 necessary for a district to take into its own hands the management 
 of its own concerns in a matter which is absolutely vital to its own 
 existence. If there be one cause for which the powers of self govern¬ 
 ment should be entrusted to a town or a district, it is the necessity 
 of dealing with a national vice, the immediate consequences of 
 which must be discovered, and the ultimate consequences of which 
 must be foreseen, if we are to keep our place among nations. 
 
 It is a comparatively small matter whether or no the Liberal party 
 should be recalled to power, it is an all important question whether 
 or no the national character is being undermined, Meanwhile if we 
 cannot grapple with the evil, we can at any rate do our duty in 
 trying to find a cure, and in urging that proper powers should be 
 given to those who are able to apply the cure, and whose interests 
 and duty coincide in their efforts. If we can go further and obtain 
 the machinery which I recommend to you this evening, we shall 
 serve the cause of justice, because we make those who suffer the 
 mischief, the instruments of the remedy, instead of confining, as at 
 
20 
 
 
 present, the / of continuing the mischief to those who profit by 
 it directly, or .o are too timid to control that with which they 
 indirectly s^ athise. The real hope that such a movement would 
 be success! _ 3S in the fact that it gives the victim to these wide¬ 
 spread ten cions a prospect of escape from the danger to which 
 he is expc 
 
 If ther ' an object on which the statesman or philanthropist can 
 exerci; :• energies in defence of the public good, if there are no 
 occasioi .n which men may claim from governments, not the mere 
 permis tn to act, but the power of fulfilling a duty; if we are told 
 to acqi..csce in an evil, because the evil is guarded by a dense phalanx 
 of angry, irritated, and watchful interests, and that we must be 
 apathetic because the enemy of the public good is triumphant, I should 
 despair. But I do not so interpret the situation, and therefore I do 
 not despair. I believe that the time is not far distant, when this 
 matter will be taken up as a matter of public duty, that if the 
 liberal party does not carry out its own traditions of unfailing labour 
 on behalf of the national weal, their political opponents will be forced 
 to do the work ; and feeling that a great social reform is of absorbing 
 interest to the future of the English race, they will deliberately under¬ 
 take that which their degenerate rivals are too timid to effect, when 
 they should be roused by hostility, even though they are not stirred 
 by duty.