1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/711f4f7f1f540182af08e31306b9f45d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uh%7EuBxFI0jgIuodQe4pS-eK77HQLiVd4cHjxhsxxQeTux7xr2JnGpSRyv5GzfkSSkcHSryx-nwXNQJsLguQEjYMPZ3NSJfXPsGa1hprUi-r836KkyCtD9jaBQTsA6lhBUCTLfMrvhNgbERSsT5LtGlh-GH20tNer24NqkTZh3DC34J6PWz2o7ZeIShMxz3apVOJ6CxxrPgftrI84wVK20gUkb2xCjIl5ZDaJfDmozloae1c7tAXEUTAgwuMkFZ4V0WFDoAAG9ME1rfFN2j9AYH00pbGY9FLdU3fHGURy87ker3yxPFPdpaghydda48%7EixFQ%7EHmxPYXdVlauSuHg1Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
84a769764d4cabce3dccbdbc3fd79774
PDF Text
Text
QTZ!
THE
RIGHT AND DUTY
OF
EVERY STATE
TO ENFORCE SOBRIETY
ON ITS CITIZENS.
BY
F. W. NEWMAN, M.E.A.S.,
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE, LONDON. -
NOTTINGHAM :
PRINTED BY STEVENSON, BAILEY, AND SMITH, LISTER GATE.
1882.
��THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF EVERY STATE
TO ENFORCE SOBRIETY
ON ITS CITIZENS.
No human community can be so small as not to involve
duties from each member to the rest; duties to which a
sound human mind is requisite. Neither an idiot nor a
madman can be a normal citizen. The former ranks
as in permanent childhood; the latter, being generally
dangerous, must be classed with criminals. A de
humanized brain impairs a citizen’s rights because it
unmans him,—disabling him from duty, even making him
dangerous. In India, such a one now and then runs
amuck, stabbing every one whom he meets: in England,
he beats and tramples down those nearest to him,—those
whom he is most bound to protect. A human community
cannot be constituted out of men and brutes, nor ought
civilized men to be forced to carry arms or armour for selfdefence. For all these reasons, to be drunk is in itself
an offence against the community, prior to any statute
forbidding it, prior to any misdemeanor superinduced by
it. In the State it is both a right and a duty to enforce
(as far as its means reach) sobriety in every citizen, rich
or poor, in private or in public; and with a view to this,
to use such methods as will best prevent, discourage, or
deter from intoxication.
When a national religion totally forbids the use of
intoxicating drugs, vigilance in the State is less needful:
public opinion, or even public show of disgust and violence,
effectively stifles the evil. But if the national religion
�4
does not forbid the use, but solely enjoins moderation (a
word which every one interprets for himself), a far heavier
task falls on the State, whose right and duty nevertheless
in this matter several causes have concurred to obscure,
not least in England and Scotland. Out of the teachings
of Rome, our forefathers very ill learned the rights of the
State or the distinction of Morals from Religion. Although
even men not highly educated must have known that
Moral truth is far older than any special system of Religious
beliefs, yet in the popular idea morals have no other basis
than religion. Hence, the demand for freedom of con
science against an oppressive State Policy (besides the
vices of Courts and Courtiers) led to a vehement jealousy
of State power even in moral concerns. Many generous
minds feared, that to concede to the State a right of
enforcing morality, covertly allowed religious persecution.
Who first uttered the formula,—“The only duty of the State
is, to protect persons and property ”—is unknown to the
present writer; but certainly 50, 40, even 30 years ago,
this principle was widely accepted by radical politicians
and active-minded dissenters. The late Dr. Arnold of
Rugby regarded this denial of the State’s moral character
as a wide-spread, untractable and mischievous delusion.
After long torpor the prohibition of Lotteries showed
that Parliament was waking to its moral duties. Little by
little, the mass of the middle classes and the gentry imbibed
nobler views of human life, and have discovered, that of
all the powers which make a nation immoral the State is
the most influential. One day of licensed debauch undoes
the work of the Clergy on 52 Sundays. No wonder that
in the past the State collectively has been our worst cor
rupter : but to open this whole question space does not
here allow. A long struggle has gone on, to implore
public men not to connive at drunkenness,—a national pest
which for more than a century was greeted with merriment,
�5
though politically avowed to be criminal. None dare now
to laugh at it, except the depraved men who laugh at
bribery, and use drunkenness as a trump-card at Elections,
and, if in office, rejoice in the vast revenue sucked by the
Exchequer out of the vice and misery of the people.
Earnest religionists of every creed have happily rallied to
a common conviction, that the State has grievously failed
of its duty and must now turn over a new leaf. Our worst
opponents are men who cannot be reckoned in any reli
gious body, men who find nothing so sacred as Liberty to
buy and sell and indulge appetite; generally eccentric
“Liberals,” who are in many respects too good not to
esteem, and too intellectual to despise.
One of these some years ago opened attack on me in a
private letter, which summed up the arguments decisive
with this class of “ advanced Liberals in whose hatred
of Over Legislation I heartily share. He taunted me for
thinking that the State ought to concern itself about the
drinks of citizens more than about their dress; saying that I
could not hold the State to have a control of public morals,
without, in logical consistency, admitting the right of
Parliament to forbid dancing and card-playing ; or to
command my attendance at any Church worship, or to fine
and imprison me for heresy. The double confusion here
involved is wonderful from an educated man, and lowers
his reputation for good sense. Eeligion is a topic on
which eminent persons and foremost nations widely differ :
concerning Moral Duty there is more agreement in man
kind than perhaps on anything that is beyond the five
senses. To argue that in claiming of the State an enforce
ment of duties cardinal to citizenship, we admit its right
to dictate in religion, is a pestilent anachronism; it
confounds Morals with Eeligion just as did the ancient
world, Pagan and Hebrew.—Again: the test of soundness
in Morals is found in the agreement of the human race.
�6
There is no nation, no elementary tribe of men, so ignorantor so besotted, as not to condemn drunkenness as immoral
and utterly evil. In justifying penalties against a vice
condemned by all mankind, we justify (forsooth!) the
punishing of amusements thought harmless by a great
majority everywhere.
Such an assertion is not the less
silly, even in the mouth of a disciple of John Stuart Mill.
Of course we all know that Law cannot be made a,gain at
every misuse of time, or of energy, or of money. There is
certainly no danger whatever that a modern Parliament,
elected from very different circles and representing widely
different elements, will ever adopt as its measure of sound
morals the special opinions of any historical sect, however
virtuous and wise.
Neither of an individual nor of a community does the
highest interest consist in Liberty, but in soundness of
morals; without which Liberty only means licence to be
vicious ; licence to ruin oneself, and diffuse misery to
others. To a man not proof against the omnipresent,
drinkshop, high wages are a curse; days called holy and
short hours of work do but more quickly engulf him in
ruin. But he pulls others too down in his fall. That
nearly every Vice tends to waste, and preeminently intoxi
cation by liquors or drugs, certain Economists are strangely
slow to learn. Moreover, nearly every wide-spread vice
makes wealth andlifeless enjoyable to the whole community.
Confining remark to the vice of drunkards, it suffices to
point in brief to the enormous extension which it gives to
Violent Crime, to Orphanhood, to Pauperism, to Prostitu
tion, to disease in Children, and to Insanity. Hence comes
an enormous expense for Police and Criminal Courts, for
Jails and Jail-officers, for Magistrates and Judges, for
Insane Asylums, and Poor Rates. Hence also endless
suffering to the victims of crime and to the families of
criminals, and a grave lessening of happiness to innocent
�7
persons by the ribaldry of drunkards planted at their side,
with fear lest their children be corrupted ; fear also of
personal outrage. Our daily comfort largely depends on
homely virtue in our neighbours. In every great organi
zation of industry the drunkenness of workmen is a firstrate mischief to others, crippling enterprize by increased
expense and risk. From sailors fond of grog and tobacco,
proceed fire in ships out at sea; and on foreign coasts,
broils that disgrace England and Christendom, and lay a
train which sometimes explodes in war. The drunkenness
of a captain has before now stranded a noble ship. On a
railroad, access of the engine driver to drink is a prime
danger; and shall we say that there is no danger in
Parliament legislating when half asleep with wine, and
hereby open to the intrigue of any scheming clique, who
may wish to fasten suddenly on the nation fraudulent or
wicked law ? Wisely does the American Congress forbid
to its members wine in its own dining room, because those
who have to make sacred law are bound to deliberate and
vote with clear heads. Evil law is of all tyrannies the
most hateful, and makes a State contemptible to its own
citizens,—thus preparing Revolution.
English Statesmen have yet to learn Yankee wisdom ;
but no one who is, or hopes to be, in high office dares to
speak lightly of drunkenness. The celebrated Committee
of 1834 advised Parliament to reverse its course, with a
view to the ultimate extinction of the trade in ardentspirits.
The advice was disgracefully spurned; yet neither the
legislature nor the executive has ever dared to deny that
drunkenness is a civil offence. Our opponents plead only
for the use, not for the abuse of intoxicating drink.
No doubt, teetotallers maintain that all use of such
liquors for drink is an abuse.
The avowals of Dr.
William Gull, who calls our view extreme, beside those of
Sir Henry Thompson and Dr. Benjamin Richardson, seem
�8
to justify the extreme view: so do the Parisian experi
ments of 1860-1. Yet it is not necessary to go so far in a
political argument. I desire to obtain common ground
with such men as my friend Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for
Leicester, and waive our difference with him as to moderate
use. Let us admit (that is, temporarily) that as Prussic
Acid is fatal in ever so small a draught, yet is safe as well
as delicious in extract of almonds and in custard flavored
by bay-leaf, so alcohol is harmless, not only in Plum
Pudding and Tipsy Cake, but also in one tumbler of Table
Beer and one wineglass of pure Claret. Let us further
concede that the propensity of very many to excess makes
out no case for State-interference against the man whose
use of the dangerous drink is so sparing, that no one can
discover any ill effect of it on
Nevertheless, irrefu
table reasons remain, why we should claim new legislation,
and a transference of control over the trade from the
magistrates who do not suffer from it to the local public
who do.
First of all, let me speak of undeniable excess. At one
time perhaps it was punished by exposure in the pillory
or stocks; but for a long time past, the penalty (when not
aggravated by other offences) has been at most a pecuniary
fine : five shillings used often to be inflicted. A “ gentle
man ” who could pay, was let off: a more destitute man
might fare worse. Inevitably, the vices of the eighteenth
century affected national opinion. The wealthier classes
were so addicted to wine, that to be “as drunk as a lord”
became a current phrase. From highest to lowest the
drunkard was an object more of merriment than of pity,
and scarcely at all of censure, unless he were a soldier or
sailor on duty. When a host intoxicated his guests, it
was called hospitality; to refuse the proffered glass was
in many a club an offence to good company. Peers and
Members of Parliament, officers of Army and Navy,
�9
Clergymen and Fellows of Colleges,—nay, some Royal
Princes—loved wine, often too much. Who then could
be earnest and eager to punish poorer men for love of
strong beer ? The preaching of Whitefield and Wesley
began the awakening of the nation. A very able Spaniard
despondingly said of his country : “ A profligate individual
may be converted, but a debased nation never; ” and the
recovery no doubt is arduous, when the national taste has
been depraved and vicious customs have fixed themselves
in society. Even now, few indeed are able to rejoice in
the punishment of mere drunkenness; for, the only
penalty imagined is a pecuniary fine, which never can
prevent repetition nor deter others : when most severe, it
does but aggravate suffering to an innocent wife and
children. To be “drunk and disorderly” is now the
general imputation before a magistrate. Unless molesta
tion of others can be charged, the drunkard is very seldom’
made to feel the hand of the law. Hereby many persons
seem to believe (as apparently does one bishop) that, as a
part of English liberty, every one has a right to be drunk.
While we complain that authorities are negligent and
connive at vice, after accepting and assuming the duty to
prevent it; the sellers of the drink are open to a severer
charge. A man too poor to keep a servant is glad to get
a wife to serve him. She is to him housemaid and cook
and nurse of his children. For all these functions she
has a clear right to full wages, besides careful nurture
during motherly weakness. The husband manifestly is
bound to supply to his wife more than all she might have
earned in serving others, before he spends a sixpence on
his own needless indulgences: and the publican knows it;
knows, sometimes in definite certainty, always in broad
suspicion, that he is receiving money which does not in
right belong to his customer. Of course he cannot be
convicted by law; but in a moral estimate he is com
�10
parable to a lottery-keeper who accepts from shopmen
money which he suspects is taken from their master’s
till, or to a receiver of goods which he ought to suspect to
be stolen. Such is the immoral aspect of traders, who
now claim 11 compensation,” if the twelve-month licences
granted to them as privilege, for no merit of their own,
be, in the interest of public morality, terminated at the end
of the twelve months. In the interest and at the will of
landlord magistrates such traders have borne extinction
meekly, over a very wide rural area. What made them
then so meek and unpretending? Apparently because
against powerful Peers and Squires impudence was not
elicited in them by the encouragement of a John Bright
and a Gladstone.
How then ought the State to deal with a drunkard ?
Obviously by the most merciful, kind and effective of all
punishments,— by forbidding to him the fatal liquor.
How much better than asylums for drunkards 1 asylums
which make a job for medical men, take the drunkard
•away from his family and business, without anything to
guarantee that on his release from prison he will have a
Will strong enough to resist the old temptation. Such
asylums please medical philanthropy ; nor is any animosity
■displayed against them in Parliament. How can we
account for the fact, that M.P.’s who strongly oppose
interference with the existing shops, and avow as much
distress and grief at drunkenness as is possible to any
teetotaller, have never proposed to withhold the baneful
drink from a convicted drunkard ? Did it never come into
their heads ? Had they never heard of it ? This would
convict them of ignorance disgraceful in an M.P., still
more so in a Minister. Perhaps some one charitably
suggests : “ They think the prohibition never could be
enforced.” To this pretence General Neal Dow makes
reply: “ What we Yankees have done, you English cer
�11
tainly can do, whenever you have the Will.” Nothing
is easier, when anyone has been convicted of drunkenness,
than to send official notice to all licensed shops (say,
within five miles) forbidding them to supply him, under
penalty of forfeiting their licences. At the same time it
should be made a misdemeanour in anyone else to supply
him gratuitously. (It would be pedantic here to suggest
after how long probation, and under what conditions, this
stigma should be effaceable.)
The misery which husband can inflict on wife, or wife
on husband, by drunkenness, has led many Yankees
further, and—to our shame—we have as yet refused to
learn from them. If a wife (with certain legal formalities)
forbid the drinkshops to supply her husband, this should
be of the same avail, as if the husband were convicted of
drunkenness before a magistrate. Of course a husband
ought to have the same right against a wife, and either
parent against a son or daughter under age. Such an
enactment, as it seems to me, ought to be at once passed,
as a law for all the Queen’s realms, not as matter for
local option. Passed over the heads of existing magis
trates, it would remain valid over whatever authority may
succeed them.
This is no place to dwell on any details of horrors
inflicted on the country by the present imbecile control.
Of course it is far better than the free trade in drink,
towards which Liverpool twenty years back took a long
stride, with results most wretched and justly repented of.
How deadly is now the propensity of the country, will
sufficiently appear from an experience of the late Sir
Titus Salt in his little kingdom of Saltaire.
For a single year he made trial of granting to four
select shops a licence to supply table beer in bottles, de
livered at the houses in quantity proportioned to the
number of inmates;—a more severe limitation than any
�12.
previously heard of. Yet in the course of some months
evil grew up and multiplied. Something stronger than
table beer (apparently) had been substituted. The liquor
was smuggled into his works. Disobedience and disorders
arose ; and at length a deputation of his own men com
plained to him that their women at home were getting too
much of the drink. At the year’s end he cancelled the
licences, and to the general content and benefit restored
absolute prohibition. Nothing short of this extinguishes
the unnatural taste. Female drunkenness is a new vice,
at least in any but the most debased of the sex : yet alas !
courtly physicians now tell us that it has invaded the
boudoirs of great ladies. Such has been the mischief of
Confectioners’ and Grocers’ Licences.
Unsatisfactory as has been the control of the drink trade
by the magistrates, their neglect has never been resented
in higher quarters, ever since, by gift of the Excise, Par
liament made the Exchequer a sleeping partner in the
gains of the Drink Trade. The Queen’s Exchequer has
hence a revenue of about thirty-three millions a year, of
which probably two-thirds, say twenty-two millions, is
from excess: a formidable sum as hush-money. No
earnest reformer expects the leopard to change his spots.
A transference of power is claimed, chiefly under the title
of Local Option. To give the power to town councils has
been proved wholly insufficient in Scotland ; though the
Right Hon. John Bright seems obstinately to shut eyes
and ears to the fact.
Again and again in crowded meetings the Resolution
has been affirmed : “ The people who suffer by the trade
ought to have a veto against it.”—Those who seem re
solved to oppose every scheme which seeks to break down
and restrict this horrible vice, tauntingly reply, that this
measure would ensure its continuance in its worst centres.
They do but show their own unwisdom herein. The
�13
Publicans know far better, and they avow, there is nothing
they so much dread as local option. In Maine itself, a
State frightfully drunken in the first half of the century,
the opponents of Neal Dow in the State Legislature scorn
fully allowed him to carry a Bill which gave to each parish
Permission to accept his measure as law. They expected
that the drunkards would out-vote it: but to their dis
comfiture found that the drunkards were glad of his law,
and nailed it firm. Let all sound-hearted Englishmen
trust our suffering population to use their own remedy.
Under Local Option we now embrace two systems which
have been already discussed in Parliament,—that of
Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and that upon the outlines of
Mr. Joseph Cowen’s Bill.
Personally I yield to Sir Wilfrid Lawson the highest
honour. Beyond all other men he is the hero in this long
battle. If I account his Bill defective, he will not blame
me : for in its original form, which he would be glad to
carry, it closely resembled the Maine Law, and superseded
the Magistrates. He has simplified it by making it only
a half measure. After Parliament has been teazed by the
drink question for more than twenty-five years, (one
might almost say, ever since 1834)—after candidates at
every election have been made anxious by it, we must
calculate that all public men will desire to make a final
settlement and get rid of the topic in Parliament. But
Sir Wilfrid’s Bill, whatever its other merits (and I think
them great) will not set Parliament free. For so soon as
any district adopts his permission to stop the Drink Trade,
an outcry must arise from local medical men and chemists
and varnishers, demanding new shops for their needs :
and intense jealousy will follow, lest the new sellers,
though called chemists or grocers or oilmen, presently
become purveyors of drink ; hence a fresh struggle must
continue in our overworked Legislature concerning the
�14
new and necessary regulations. Sir Wilfrid’s half measure
supersedes neither the Magistrates nor the Parliament,
though for two hundred years the Nation has suffered
through the laxity of both. Surely we chiefly need real
Provincial Legislatures, and, until we get them, Local Folk
Motes and Local Elective Boards are our best substitutes.
This is the other and the complete measure: yet some
thing remains to be said on it. The great evil is, that by
reason of competition, a trade cannot live, except by
pushing its sales. The Americans have wisely seen that
the necessary sales must be effected by Agents publicly
appointed, with a fixed salary and nothing to gain by an
increase of sales. Such Agents must receive public in
structions. This was in fact Sir Wilfrid’s original scheme,
only that it forbad absolutely the selling wine or beer for
drink, unless by medical order: and the last condition
would involve in Parliament endless contention. It is
simpler, and I think far better, to give to an Elective
Board a general free discretion. Parliament might indeed
dictate that sales should go on through a public officer only.
I, for one, should rejoice in this. But the most eager
teetotaller will not hope that in the present generation any
English Parliament will be more severe against a wine
loving gentry, and more dictatorial to medical men, than
is the law of Maine. If therefore it did command that sales
should be without gain, it certainly would not allow an
entire prohibition of selling alcohol as beverage to be imposed
on the Agent for sale. It is not so in Maine: and this
fact occasioned Mr. Plimsoll’s stupendous blunder, who
declared in Parliament that the Maine Law was a dead
letter in Maine itself. The fact on which he built this
outrageously false assertion, was, that when Mr. Plimsoll
asked for Whiskey, the Agent instantly sold it to him without
a moment’s hesitation.—But why ? “ Because he knew
that Mr. Plimsoll was an English M. P. and a teetotaller,”
�15
such was the Agent’s reply when interrogated afterwards.—
Again, any richer man, or any club of poorer men in
Maine is allowed to order from abroad a cask of wine or
porter : but it must reach the house to which it is addressed
in package unbroken. Thus the Maine Law does not
set itself against the man who, resolute in sobriety, has yet
a fixed purpose to drink alcoholic liquor. An Agent is
selected who is earnest to check excess, and has no motive
to be lax; but he is not shackled in his discretion, nor
forbidden (where he trusts the applicant) to sell for
medical use, that is, for drink. If English teetotallers
choose to be indignant at the thought, I make sure that
they waste their energy. It will be a vast advantage to
sobriety, if Parliament give absolute discretion to a Local
Elective Board, with the sole proviso, that the purchase
of these liquors shall not be made impossible nor vexatiously difficult, to an applicant against whom no primd
facie note of excess can be pleaded.
The power must be placed somewhere of giving wine or
ale to persons who think they need it, or to whom physi
cians recommend it. A nation may be led, but cannot be
forced, into wisdom of drinking or eating. Moreover, as
soon as the problem is opened, of lessening the number of
shops (which all allow to be the most urgent matter,
only many of us wish the number to be zero) an outcry
is sure to arise of partiality and unfairness, and a new
bonus will be given to the shops that remain. The in
crease in the number of shops has done mischief; but a
lessening of the number will but very slowly undo the
mischief. Out of these difficulties a trial of the American
scheme is sure to arise in some town where local knowknowledge is ripest; and each place will quickly learn
from the experience of other places. Every local popula
tion desires relief from the evils of intoxication. I cannot
understand how any who profess to trust those who suffer
�16
from the trade, can be terrified at the transfer of full
power from the magistrates to the local public.
Finally, I must express my conviction, that if by the
over-occupation of Parliament, or by any other cause, it be
impossible to effect in the present Session the general and
final settlement concerning the control of sales, great good
would arise from a short and simple Act to which there
ought to be no jealous opposition;—an Act in which
philanthropic Brewers would (we may hope) concur—to
give to husband and wife and parents a direct veto such as
was named above, as also to command a withholding of
supply to one convicted of drunkenness. How can an
M.P. with any face pretend that he sorrows over the effects
of this deadly vice, if he oppose this reasonable veto ?
P.S. — A friend in Manchester, minutely acquainted
with the history of the Maine Law, assures me that the
statement in p. 13, (which I make as heard, by me from
Neal Dow,) confounds the original law of 1851 with a
law of 1858, which was sanctioned by a Plebiscite of the
whole State.—This, if more correct, in no respect alters
the moral meaning and weight of my argument.
Another friend wishes me to explain, that by Sir
Wilfrid’s Bill, I mean the Permissive Bill, and not his naked
resolution ; and by its “original form” I allude to a paper
privately circulated in order to gather opinions before
hand.
F. W. N.
STEVENSON, BAILEY AND SMITH, PRINTERS. LISTER GATE, NOTTINGHAM.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The right and duty of every state to enforce sobriety on its citizens
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Nottingham
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Stevenson, Bailey and Smith, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT81
Subject
The topic of the resource
Temperance
Social problems
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The right and duty of every state to enforce sobriety on its citizens), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Sobriety
State
Temperance