MR. JOHN BRIGHT AND THE PROHIBITION LAW.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4175, 7 August 1874, Page 3

MR. JOHN BRIGHT AND THE PROHIBITION LAW.

At a discussion upon the temperance question which took place at a meeting of the Society of Friends, in Devonshire Square, in June, the occasion being their yearly meeting, Mr. John Bright, M.P., was one of the speakers. The right hon. gentleman said the position he assumed on this question differed very much from that taken by very many Friends. He found that they were always crying to Parliament for the cure of this great evil—intemperance—and the present propositions before them, running from firstly up to sixthly, showed that they adhered to that course. They asked for things to be done which he believed -were impossible. Even if the public-houses were closed on Sundays, the horns of sale shortened, and licenses taken from the grocers, the amount of drinking, so absolutely appalling in its_ magnitude, would be but little lessened. Legislation, in the present state of public opinion, could, in fact, do little or nothing beyond preserving order in the streets. In the State of Ohio, where stringent regulations were in force, public opinion rendered legislation possible. If Parliament were to pass such laws as those proposed by many of the friends of temperance legislation, the very next week they would have to repeal them; the whole city of London would be in riot and revolt. Against public opinion Parliament could have no more power than the meanest citizen. He had been uiged for many years to take these questions up, and he had been induced to look very carefully to the best means of remedy. He thought the evil would never be touched unless the thoughtful serious men, ministers of the Gospel and all those who went to places of worship for other reasons than fashion, interested themselves to procure its abolition. Unless the religious portion of this country took up the matter there was no hope for it whatever. At present wines had to be placed upon our tables according to custom to ornament them, and to form the staple of the conversation. It was tins practice which ought to be abolished. One Friend had said he had not taken any intoxicating liquors for thirtyseven years. He (Mr. Bright) would not say he had abstained so long; but for thirtyfour years from the time he became householder, he had not bought or had in his house any wine or spirits whatever. There were in his house no decanters, nor had there' been since 1839. It had cost him some inconvenience and trouble, but altogether he had had no occasion to regret the step he then took, though considering the difficulties it had occasioned him, he might hesitate at doing so again if he had life to begin. He believed that it would be an advantage which no words in qur language would be at all adequate to describe, if, a current of national opinion in. favor of abstinence could be created. The members at their yearly meeting should have nothing to do with the question of legislation. Their sphere of duty was in their own homes. The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat applause, which was quickly suppressed, this being a thing of rare occurrence in meetings of the Society of Friends.