Crime -- England -- London -- History -- 19th century; London (England) -- Moral conditions; London (England) -- Social conditions
“The most complete remedy for drunkenness was to be found in the
cultivation among the people of a better appreciation of their own
interests, rather than in legislation. This had undoubtedly been the
cause of the almost complete disappearance of drunkenness among the
upper classes, coupled with an increased desire for and consequent
supply of intellectual amusement among them. But, although education
in its largest sense was the true remedy for drunkenness, there was
no reason against the introduction of repressive or preventive
measures in behalf of those in our manufacturing districts,
especially that large class irregularly employed and often
oscillating between starvation and occasional well-doing, to whom
drunkenness was a refuge from despair. The question was, in whom
should the power of restriction be reposed? Some thought in the
resident ratepayers, others in the magistrates, and others in a body
elected for the purpose. He could not say which proposal should be
adopted, but confessed that there was some reason in the demand, that
the number of public-houses should be uniformly regulated according
to the population. He had been asked whether he would undertake to
deal with the matter. To deal with the matter in the manner proposed
by the honourable baronet would at once deprive some portion of the
people of means of enjoyment, and the owners of public-houses of
their property. That would be a proceeding unnecessary and unjust,
because, although the admitted evils of drunkenness were very
grievous, there was no doubt that public-houses, especially when well
managed, really did furnish to a large portion of the people a means
of social comfort and enjoyment. His objection to the Bill was, that
it would not only cause a great deal of disturbance in many parts of
the country, but would almost inevitably cause riot. Certainly the
rigorous treatment proposed by the Bill was unsuited to people whose
only pleasures were sensuous. The honourable member proposed that a
majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers of a borough should be able
to put the Bill in operation; but in this proposal he ignored a large
proportion of those most interested. Two-thirds of the ratepayers
left much more than one-third of the population on the other side,
and the more important portion of the population as regards this
matter, because it was made up in a great measure by those who lived
in all the discomfort of lodgings. Again, it was suggested that the
settlement of the question might in each case be left to a majority
of the population; but here, again, it might be said that the
question would probably be decided by a majority of persons least
interested in the question—interested, that was, only as regards
peace and order, and careless how far the humbler classes of society
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account