From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 19 May 1860. Price 1d.

DRINK AGAIN.

Another victim has just been added to the long catalogue of sufferers from the effects of intemperance. In this case the victim had reached the full term of 62 years, his name being James Swaffer, and his occupation that of a labourer. On Thursday last, the deceased was seen in this village, about ten o’clock, in a state of intoxication—indeed, he was very drunk and the next morning he was found dead in a ditch, with a number of contusions on his face, supposed to have been caused by a fall. An inquest was held on Monday last by T. T. Delasaux, Esq., on the body.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 5 May 1860.

Thomas Castle, landlord of the "Queen's Head," was charged on information laid by Superintendent Hulse with having his house open for sale of liquors at unlawful hours, namely, between the hours of three and five o'clock, on Good Friday. Fined 30s.

At present, and I am not certain, but this pub could be referring to the "Queen's Head" at Herne Bay.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 12 May 1860.

THE WINE LICENSES BILL.

The Reform Bill having been disposed of until the 4th of the next month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears determined to avail himself of what little time is left previous to the Whitsun holidays for the carrying out of his proposed financial scheme.

On Monday night the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licenses Bill was brought on for debate, and passed a second reading by a majority of 74. The debate was opened by a speech from Mr. Ayrton in opposition to the bill, with the usual amount of clap trap that characterised the licensed victuallers’ champions throughout the debate,—who have evidenced a vast amount of fear that their monopoly of the right to dispense their alcoholic poison is about to pass away, through the wholesome competition of the light and refreshing wines of the North of Europe. The pretended fear that the increased advantages offered for the sale of wine would encourage drunkenness, and that these brewers’ barristers were there as guardians of the morality of the people, was the height of hypocrisy, when cognisance is taken of the fact that as a class the Licensed victuallers' prosperity lies in the ruin, degradation, and demoralisation of the people. This fact was borne out by Mr. C. Buxton when he stated that “all the worst drunkenness arises after eleven o’clock.” The natural inference that enforces itself upon the mind is, that this arises from the consumption of ardent spirits and not of beer. It was a gratuitous assumption on the part of the Member for Maidstone, that “the present taste of the mass of the people would crave something more strong and stimulating than light wines.” If this reasoning is to be applied to the sale of wine, and that brandy and other ardent spirits will be dispensed with them, the same must hold equally good with existing beer-shops who retail Truman, Hanbary, Buxton, and Co. 's XX. Is Mr. Buxton prepared to assert such is the case? We think not. To conclude therefore that light wines would increase the consumption of ardent spirits is contrary to experience and facts. Neither can we reconcile the advocacy of an extension of the licensing system for the side of spirits, even with “a strong check placed on the sale of intoxicating drink after that hour at which drunkenness sets in,” with the conclusion that it would tend to promote temperance. Assuming it to be true (which we very much doubt) that the major part of drunkenness does really occur after eleven o’clock, and that the “great mass of the people crave something more strong and stimulating than light wines,” of what avail would a legislative enactment be that prohibited the sale of alcoholic spirits after that hour? Instead of occurring after eleven it would take place before. The distinction between wine and spirits are not of that illusory nature that our respected member would have us believe. Dr. Gutliric, as quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, testified in “a series of sermons that he had been both in Paris and Brussels, as well as other parts of France and Belgium, on occasions where multitudes had been brought into the streets, and during a period of seven weeks he had not seen, whether in mountain hamlets or mighty cities, as much drunkenness or disorder as might be often seen in Edinburgh or other large cities in our own country in seven hours.” This is conclusive testimony of the advantages of light wines over XX and ardent spirits. The illustration given by Mr. Gladstone of the two classes of opponents to the bill, was a very happy one, when he said:— “There was an old fable familiar to all the house called the "Vision, or the Choice of Hercules." When Hercules was young he dreamed he had come to a certain point on the road of life, where he was met by Virtue and Vice. The former solicited him to go with her to the right hand, but Vice, on the contrary, tried to persuade him to go on with her to the left. The promoters of the bill were much in the same condition as Hercules, inasmuch as they were met by two opposite principles—the one being Virtue and the other Vice; but, instead of Virtue soliciting them to go one way, and Vice the other, both had formed a league against them, and would not suffer them to proceed at all.” The above is an exact description of the opponents of the measure. We have no faith in the futile and vain attempts to make men moral by Act of Parliament. The work to be done in the direction of sobriety and morality is of that nature that reasoning and persuasion alone can effect, and the prosperous and happy homes as illustrative of the good arising. Coercion, whether of the Church or State, has always brought contempt upon its advocates, and tended more to damage the cause they were espousing than anything its opponents could do or say. It is a spirit of intoleration and dogmatism that suggested a Maine Liquor Law and the present Sunday Trading Bill of Lord Chelmsford. We look upon a drunkard as the vilest thing in creation, a curse to his kind, and a robber of his wife and children. For the habitual drunkard no language is sufficiently strong to express the condemnation merited, but it in the expression of this language and this spirit shown by the advocates of temperance that has been its failure. We heartily wish the temperance movement may succeed, but we believe the only effectual way to success is by setting up counteracting influences to alcoholic drinks, and allurements from the public house by lectures and Sunday recreation and excursion. We are pleased to think the Wine Licenses Bill has passed its second reading because it has this counteracting influence.

From the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 23 June 1860.

Stephen Johnson, beer-house keeper, Tunbridge, was also charged with having his house open, on the 14th May. Mr. Rogers appeared for the defendant. P. C. Orpin, 11 K. C. C., went into the defendant’s house after eleven o'clock on the night in question, and found four persons there, and a pot on the table containing beer. It being admitted that the beer had been drawn before 11 o’clock. Mr. Rogers quoted several similar cases, decided in the Court of Queen’s Bench, and contended that the information should be discharged. The Chairman said they considered the law applicable to public-houses was not intended to be applied to beer-houses; and they therefore fined defendant 10s, and costs 10s. Mr. Rogers applied for a case, which was granted.

At present I do not know what pub this is referring to. Paul Skelton.