Licence: In copyright
Credit: The drink peril in Scotland / by Arthur Sherwell. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
66/70 (page 62)
![that it is our duty to restrict the evil as far as we can, and I hold that we are responsible only for the amount of harm which we could prevent, but allow to continue. ^ Here then, it seems to me, there is a basis for co-operative effort on the part of all who are con- cerned for the moral and economic progress of Scotland. In disunion there is weakness and in isolation inevitable defeat. Neither the supporter of public-management on the one hand, nor the vetoist on the other, can afford to stand alone, and in the present condition of Scotland disunion is something akin to crime. As Sir Wilfrid Lawson pointed out in a letter to the Times in July 1894, the two methods are not mutually exclusive. I am not aware, he said, in referring to the Bishop of Chester's scheme of public-management, that many of them ^Le. the prohibitionist members of the United Kingdom Alliance] would wish to pre- vent Mr Chamberlain, the Duke of Westmmster, and the Bishop of Chester trying their new system in districts where the population wished the experi- 1 Other influential leaders of the Prohibition movement haye expressed a similar view. The Rev. C. F. Aked m a Paper ead at the National Council of Free Churches in March 1900, said —« t have argued for years against every form of municipal- s'L. I have denounced it in a hundred towns But Messrs RowLe and Sherwell's scheme has met all the objections .hich I have ever urged, and for the first time we are presented with a plan which the'sworn prohibitionist can adopt without compromise of deep conviction and without fear of ultimate danger and losa](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21467080_0066.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
