The condensed argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by F.R. Lees.

  • Lees, Frederic Richard, 1815-1897
Date:
1864
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The condensed argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by F.R. Lees. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    159/160 (page 159)
    reading, after unusual opposition, by a large majority. This Bill, founded upon the excellent suggestion of Mr Buxton, proposes to concede to the ratepayers of a parish the actual legal power of declar- ing—by a majority of not less than two to one—the sale of intoxicat- ing beverages to be illegal. To charge such a measure with being either unconstitutional or tyrannous is simply absurd. It is a proposi- tion in perfect agreement with the existing law. Already, for instance, the traffic is dealt with by a delegated local power—either justices who license public-houses from year to year, or owners of property who prohibit perennially their existence by lease or otherwise. If this be just, how can the provisions of the Permissive Bill be unjust ? If magistrates, supposed to be acting for the people, can rightftdly refuse licenses, what wrong can there be in the people themselves doing so, should thcij think proper? If any citizens have a right to public drunkeries, they have a right to an unlimited supply. You can neither fix the number nor the distance of the shops, for rights.of sale are as universal as rights of buying. In fact, however, the law repudiates this wild theory. Nobody can buy where and when he pleases, and not one in 100 persons is permitted to sell. What, then, is the occasion of this interference with the publicans ? “ The interest of these dealers ” says Mr J. S. Mill, “in promoting intemperance is a real evil, and justifies the state in imposing restrictions, and requiring guarantees which, but for the justification, would he infringements of legitimate liberty.” Of course; if the drinksellers business did not interfere with the citizen, the citizen would have neither the right, nor the need to interfere with it. Hence, therefore, honorable members ought rather to seek the repeal of the laws which already permit landowners and magistrates to suppress public-houses within their districts,—a power actually put forth in hundreds of instances,—than to waste their time in empty declamation against the extension of a similar power to the llatepayers who have to sustain the burden of the 'Institution/ and for whose alleged wants’ the houses are professedly licensed. The law makes it neces- sary that the proposed Publican shall first of all get certificates from his neighbors, next a license from the Justices, who have to ‘ con- sidt on the question, whether a drink-shop will be for ‘ the good of the locality -and even then every parishioner is privileged to object to each applicant in turn, or to unite in presenting memorials to the magistracy, praying for the diminution, or the suppression, of drink- houses. Now, is all this mockery and empty form? or does it not involve the principle that a District should have the power of deciding upon this matter for itself ? The Permissive Bill is simply the ma- chinery lor giving legal force and sanction to the verdict of the meat majority. If it be right to concede the privilege of discussing or protesting before the magistrates, so that they may decide vicariously tor the parish how can it be unjust for the parish to determine the, question directly for itself? No principle of law can be plainer than, thor /4 R n? lfc [° ar]END 1,;ro‘ve» flm right to the means. When, tonTn ,?[mfTtrdt<T hy the Powers oommitted to them, pro- tect a district from the dangers and disasters of the Traffic, the ItiTte- FatEtEwer nn'l ,°U&t0 J‘am a rese.rve Power of self protection. A latent poner of this kind would not simply throw' the responsibility