QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 13 March 1893)

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS

asked Her Majesty's Government if they would take steps to obtain and lay before Parliament reliable information regarding the present working of the "Liquor Laws" in Canada and in the United States, in continuation of Papers already presented to Parliament? He said he had no intention of inflicting a speech on the liquor traffic on the House, and in asking the question would carefully avoid giving any opinion of his own on the subject. Four years ago he had moved for Papers with reference to the Liquor Laws in Canada and the United States, in continuation of Papers already before the House. At that time public attention had been forcibly drawn to the question by an article in Macmillan's Magazine from the pen of Professor Goldwin Smith, showing conclusively that that kind of legislation had been a failure in those countries, and strongly urging our Government and Parliament not to embark on such prohibitory liquor legislation as prevailed there without having previously instituted a full inquiry by Commission into the working of those laws. Her Majesty's Government had consented to place those Papers on the Table of the House, and they were now before their Lordships. In asking for further information on the subject, he had no intention of making a speech on the whole subject of the Liquor Laws, which they would have an opportunity of discussing when the Bill of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Chester) came before them, and possibly another measure which might, though he doubted it, reach them from another place. In view of the discussion of this important subject, he would quote from the Papers already before the House, as but few of their Lordships probably had looked at them, some official opinions given among them. In the first set, from America, Mr. Edwardes, Secretary of Legation, stated in his Report, under the head of "General Remarks"— As will be seen from the above Report the popular vote has been taken, since 1887, in five States on the question of adopting an amendment to the State Constitution by which, if carried, prohibition would have been established in the State. In each case the voters have 1819 declared themselves, by a large majority, against prohibition. In the State of Rhode Island, where prohibition has existed since 1886, an election has: been held during the current year by which that system was voted against by considerably, more than the required majority of three-fifths of the whole vote. An amendment to a State Constitution can only be made by a majority of three-fifths of the popular vote. In Rhode Island in 1886 prohibition was carried by the necessary majority. In 1889 prohibition, which had thus become a law of the State Constitution, was defeated by the necessary majority. This change of opinion on the part of such a large number of the population of one State, amounting to, as it must have done, at least one-fifth of the whole, having taken place, as it did, after less than three years' experience of the working of the prohibitory law, is a strong argument against the system. The theory of prohibition may be worthy of consideration and praise, but the absolute impracticability of the working of such system in most places where it has been tried has led a large number of those who earnestly desire to promote temperance to consider whether the object they have in view will not be better advanced by a change to a system of legislation which, although not so perfect in theory, can be practically worked. Turning to the Papers from Canada Lord Stanley of Preston, in the introductory paragraph of a letter to Lord Knutsford, dated 2nd March, 1892, said— As regards Dominion legislation, your Lordship will observe that the Canada Temperance Act has been repealed by the votes of the electors in every county of the Province of Ontario in which it had been in force, and now remains in force in only 33 counties throughout the Dominion, though it had been adopted by 64. Then referring to the Australian Colonies, the Earl of Onslow said, with regard to New Zealand, in a letter to Lord Knuts-ford, dated May 17th, 1890— With reference to the special points upon which Lord Wemyss dwelt in his speech and upon which he seeks for information, I have to inform your Lordship that there is power given to the ratepayers of New Zealand to declare for absolute prohibition, and they merely vote for or against an increase in the number of licences then existing. It is admitted on all sides that the 'Local Option' Clauses of the Act of 1881 have not had the effect anticipated, and it is in contemplation to introduce a Bill during the ensuing Session of Parliament to enable a direct issue to be placed before the people and to be decided by them. The only other document which it was necessary to refer to was a very important Report made by the Commission in New South Wales appointed to inquire into the working of the Liquor Laws. In their Report the Commissioners—and he 1820 mentioned it the more on that account— referred to the Report of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House on Intemperance, and stated that, as a result of two years' searching evidence and careful deliberation, it was well worth the study of legislators and all who took an interest in the liquor question and the whole scope of the laws by which the sale of strong drink was regulated. The Commissioners went on to say— Your Commissioners do not enumerate the recommendations of the Lords' Committee, none of which were of a sweeping or sensational character, but refer to them only to say that the evidence they have taken and the opinions they have formed bring them to a similar conclusion—namely, that, as to prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor with the intention or hope of putting down drunkenness, legislation alone would not be successful. Habits and tastes cannot suddenly be changed, nor in a free country would people submit quietly to what they might consider undue restraint. The most obvious remedy is in the hands of the people themselves—let them drink less. The Commissioners further said— The Lords' Committee are of opinion, although not going so far as to recommend them, that, for the purpose of experiment, legal sanction should be obtained for the trial of either the Gothenburg or Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, on the application to that effect from Local Authorities; but your Commissioners do not feel warranted in suggesting the adoption of either system, though it will be well to watch the result of any movement o the sort elsewhere. In fact, they suggested that it would be advisable to wait and see the experiment tried upon the corpus vilum of this country before adopting it in New South Wales. Those were all the documents he thought it necessary to bring forward on the present occasion, and probably there would be no objection to supplying the Papers he asked for in order to bring the subject up to date before their Lordships as regarded the Australian Colonies (which he should have included in the Motion), Canada, and the United States, from the last date, 1889. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend who had charge of the documents would consent to the Papers being laid on the Table of the House, as they would be very useful in any future discussion.