Weliington Independent THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue XXVI, 27 July 1871, Page 2

Weliington Independent THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1871.

In a recent number we gave a brief account of the introduction into the Imperial Parliament of the Government Licensing Bill, under the auspices of Mr Brjce, the Home Secretary. The measure, which met the views neither of the temperance party nor of the supporters of the liquor traffic, had to run the gauntlet between the two. Still, there was a strong probability of its passing in at least some modified shape. Such, however, was not destined to be its fate. Before it reached its second reading, it was withdrawn by the Government on the plea of want of time to carry it dur : ing the present session. Mr Gladstone, on making the announcement, stated that the entire bill would not be abandoned, but only that part which related to the licensing system, and that the police and adulteration regulations would be persevered with in the shape of a separate bill. From what fell from Mr Bruce, however, on the discussion on Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Permissive Bill, there is little expectation that the measure, even in tho mutilated shape mentioned by Mr Gladstone, is likely to be brought forward again this year. As regards Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Permissive Bill, it met with its previous treatment — was rejected on the second reading, but with the encouraging feature of a larger minority in a fuller house, than it ever received before ; the numbers being 180 for the bill and 208 against, including pairs. Last year the votes and pairs for the bill were 115 ;in 18G9 they were 04. There has thus been a steady increase in its favor, on each occasion on which it has been brought forward, and the votes have not consisted of casual supporters, induced by party considerations, but were those of converts to the principle. The Irish, Scotch, and Welsh members voted more than two to one in favor of the bill—but the English vested interests, so strongly represented in Parliament by the Basses, Hoares, Buxtons,

and other mighty magnates of the trade, prevailed against the votes of so large a majority of the other three sections of the United Kingdom.

The debate was a tolerably interesting one, and as far as the arguments and facts went, was ail io favor of the bill, the opposition talk being for the most part what might have been expected from the representatives of the brewer and publican. Indeed, if we did not know that Mr Wheelhouse, member for Leeds, who moved that the bill be read that day six months, and Mr Locke, member for Southwark, who supported him, are not members of " the trade," wo should have pronounced them, by the stylo in which they addressed the House, to be not very respectable " licensed victuallers." " Their speeches were certainly of an order not very often listened to in the House of Commons.

Sir Wilfrid Lawscn argued his case exceedingly well, and with much good humor, relying on proved facts and the logic of common sense. He received most valuable support from Lord Claude Hamilton, who gave his experience of the district of Tyrone, in Ireland, which has put down publichouses with unmistakably beneficial results ; and by Mr Mundella, member for Sheffield, and Mr Eustace Smith, member for Tynemouth, who bore testimony founded on personal examination of the general success of prohibitory laws in America. Mr Bruce, who opposed the measure, did not do himself much credit. He was extremely angry because the permissive party had not transferred to his Licensing Bill the enthusiasm they had created in favor of their own very different measure ; a charge which Sir Wilfrid met by telling him that it was impossible to do it, because no enthusiasm was felt by the Permissive Bill people for his (Mr Bruce's) licensing measure, but, on the contrary, much disapproval. Mr Bruce got absolutely violeut and extremely warm, certainly much more so than was becoming in a Minister of State, and he predicted that if Sir "Wilfiid Lawson lived three times the life of man he would never see the Permissive Bill passed by the House of Commons. For such predictions, however, the Permissive Bill party need not care. With increasing minorities, and the rapid growth of public opinion out of doors, it sees the prognostication of success which has attended all great popular movements on social questions. Ten years ago, household suffrage was looked upon as the dream of a few enthusiasts, who were little better than red republicans. Ten years ago the Irish Church reposed in serene tranquilly, not dreaming of its State abolition, or at all events imagining it to be a thing relegated to a future century. Ten years ago where was the army reform and the question of purchase of commissions ? Ten years ago where was the ballot ? None of these questions ever received half the support which the Permissive Bill is now receiving among the great body of the people, and particularly among those household voters of the working classes whose influence will be so largely felt at the next and ensuing elections. Lost year petitions were presented with 800,000 signatures in favor of the bill, aud this year, we believe, a much larger number. The discussion of the ques tion in ■ Parliament, and at almost innumerable meetings all over the United Kingdom, is rallying round the Permissive Bill standard an increasing number of the most intelligent, moral, and religious inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland ; while on the other side are ranged the publican, brewer, distiller, and those who oppose the measure on general grounds as an infringement of the liberty of the subject. No man who has studied the signs of the times, and the political and social history of the last fifty years — can doubt for a moment the final and not remote triumph of the cause of which Sir Wilfrid Lawson is the exponent aud the chief parliamentary leader.

The most significant fact, perhaps, of all, we have not yet mentioned. During the last twenty years, on all occasions when " the United Kingdom Alliance" has brought the Permissive Bill before the public, it has met the almost unanimous opposition of the London press, more particularly of the leading journal, the " Times." Down to a few months ago that powerful organ had nothing, but contempt, sneers, and predictions of fai'ure for the supporters of the Permissive Bill and their organised body the Alliance. Now scarcely a London or provincial journal but admits that the Alliance is " a great power in the State," and speaks of it in terms of respect ; while the " Times" has, in leader after leader, during the last few weeks, told the plainest truths to the publicans ; "that their trade is a curse to the nation j that they are doomed to be put down ; that the national opinion has sentenced them, though not yet agreed on the way in which their extinction is to be effected ;" and recommends them to sot their house in order, and accept any compromise which may be offered. When the " Times' 1 has got thus far, it may bo safely asserted that the game is up ; and, notwithstanding Mr Bruce's predictions, we hope to see, and that Sir Wilfrid Lawson will see, the great triumph achieved, in the carrying of a measure which will give to the people that protection against " tho great national sin" which their rulers and the Justices of Peace have hitherto failed to provide. The people are beginning to understand that it is tlieir question ; that it is not a question of a few fanatics intermeddling with other people's private liberty, but one of self-defence by the people of their own liberty.