Rev. Ion Carroll on his Defence

Anti-Prohibition at Rushden

“Bitter nasty and personal attacks”

“Bread cheese, beers and onions.”

A meeting in support of the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform was held on Tuesday at the Co-operative Hall, Rushden. The Rev. Ion Carroll, B.A., Vicar of St. Peter’s, Rushden, presided, supported by the Rev. V.F. Honniball (curate). Messrs. V.C. Redwood J.P., ex M.P. (Queensland), L.R. Percey (the boy preacher of London) and others. There was a crowded attendance.

The chairman said he had no doubt that they had come in such large numbers to make a stand for liberty for which they had fought so keenly in the war. He also regarded that large gathering as showing an appreciation of the stand he had made for liberty in Rushden. He believed they showed their sympathy with him in to the bitter nasty, and personal attacks made on him in the town. (Hear, hear) He regarded that as one of the greatest temperance meetings ever held in Rushden. To promote temperance in its widest sense they had to fight two enemies, one within and the other without. The enemy within was intemperate language of narrow circle who called themselves total abstainers (Applause) He did not include all total abstainers because some in Rushden had told him they disassociated themselves from the stand made by others, in the town. (hear, hear) the enemy without was drunkenness.

I ought to take this opportunity – Mr. Carroll proceeded – of publicly saying something in reply to the attacks made on me. (Loud applause) there have been several so-called temperance meetings in this town, and some wonderful things have been aid touching the point I have raised, which was this, that drink aggravates crime. It is unjust industrial and economical social laws that cause crime. Bad housing and unemployment lead often to crime and are the primary cause of crime.

That challenge of mine has never been taken up in Rushden by anyone.

There has been a man in Rushden, the Rev. S. W. Hughes, who uses wonderful and great words. He expresses himself in phraseology that I do not understand and I doubt if even he himself understands it. One of the wonderful things he said was that drink is the cause of cancer. Well now, he is not a doctor, neither am I. He does not know, neither do I. that is something that has to be proved. I am as much at liberty to state what I believe to be the truth, although I have no statistics. I firmly believe that a great number of people in our asylums today are there because of nervous breakdowns and I say that a nervous breakdown can be caused by excessive tea-drinking. (Laughter and applause.)That same gentleman also said of me “A certain Vicar says he must take a glass of beer to keep himself fit” I did not say anything of the kind. I always take whisky to keep myself fit. Then he says “No doubt the reverend gentleman likes his glass of beer.” I do (Laughter) I am not ashamed to own it. Out of the three or four of the finest things God has given us are bread, cheese, beer and onions. (Laughter) For years and years I used to make my supper on those articles, but when I got married I lost my liberty and had to give up – the onions. (Laughter) Then on account of the war increases of prices I could not have my beer last night, but had to have sloppy cocoa. So much for that windbag.

There have been other local speakers in this town, but not one of them has ever tackled the point I put down. The chairman of a certain meeting, a man of whom I had really thought better, said of me “If we tackle this fellow on one subject he will go on to some other question.” I think I have a reputation of never shirking or running away from the point; in fact I am sorry to say, I have been out-spoken in this town. But that gentleman implies that I should run away. I certainly should not run away from him. (Applause) the total abstainers and the temperance party are the people who have run away from my question. They have never tackled it at all, but I have stuck to my point. Another gentleman – I really thought better of him – has done a very ill-bred thing in relating in public a private conversation he says I had with him. I may as well go into the whole conversation. At the time the Church Army Social Centre was decided on, I went to the boot manufacturers in St. Peter’s parish and they very generously supported me. People kept on taunting me and saying that I would not go and interview the gentle I am referring to because he was of different opinions from mine. I said I was not afraid, so I went and saw him, but I did not get anything out of him. There is not a word of truth in what he related of our conversation. I never said that any club in Rushden was a hell. What I have often said and I might have said it to him was this; Many of our clubs need reforming and that if the working men’s club is a hell, so is the Piccadilly Club. (Applause) He misconstrued that. I would much rather spend my days in a working men’s club than in an abode of love as arranged for me by the teetotallers. The Rev. S. W. Hughes said “Why does not the working man go to work in a motor car?” Then no doubt he turned round and smirked on manufacturers around him as much as to say “You will now give me a subscription will you not?” Mr. Hughes came to preach the Gospel, but from what I read in the newspapers he spent his time cursing me. He says that the working man does not ride in a motor car because he prefers to pour it down his throat in beer. That was very nice thing to say, especially if there were any snobs on the platform. H should have said that there were two classes of men in 1914, one who offered for five years to stop shells at ten francs a week while the other stopped at home and made shells at £100 a week. That is why the one goes about in a car and the worker does not, and it is why the working man is now looking for employment in the town. There is an Economic Evil but he would not say so. (Voices: He dare not. He is on their side.) Those are the things that cause discontent, unemployment, strife and crime and then men have got to fly to drink. They are the cause of drink; not drink the cause of them. These speakers like to appeal to the men on the platform who have cheque books. Reference was made to the drink bill of Rushden and I grant that if those statistics are true, the drink bill of Rushden is much too heavy, much too big. I regret that it should be so. But those people who brought forward that point didn’t say enough and yet they said too much. They did not say that not all the £1,000 a week spent in Rushden clubs goes for drink, and that there are other things supplied in clubs beside drink. Neither did they say that the gravity of beer is at a much lower percentage than before the war of that the price of alcoholic drinks is 120 percent higher. All those things, which they omitted to mention, mitigate the case very much. They are against the working man and the working man’s club but they say nothing about the man who lives in a villa. We don’t know the consumption of drink by our friends who live in private villas in Rushden. (Voice; We know a good lot) It was a deliberate slap at the working man and I want you to remember that when they ask for your vote at the next Urban Council election. There is no return made of the drink consumed by the people with motor cars. A little bird sometimes whispers and tells me that many of these temperance reformers of Rushden, when they get outside the radius, go and take something to keep them warm. (Laughter)

Drunkenness must cease, but you can no more compel a nation to be sober than you can pacify Ireland by military force. You may just as well try to shut me up. A certain gentleman said that 40 years ago I would not have been allowed to say the tings I am saying. Thank goodness there is a great improvement in Rushden during those 40 years. No more can you make a nation sober than you can compel me to shut my mouth as long as I have the cause of justice behind me. You can help a nation to be sober. (Hear, hear.) One of our plans is to reform the public house and the club. We feel that many of our public houses (I am not speaking of Rushden) sadly need reforming and also the stuff that is drunk, because there is nothing worse than bad whisky. I know it from experience and I speak with sympathy. We want our public houses to be places that anyone can go into, teetotaller included. Take France for example. When I was there, there were nice places where everybody could go and sit down and have a bottle of wine. Why cannot we have public houses where everybody can go in and out and not have nasty things said about them. I believe there is nothing worse that drinking dens. They are the cause of drunkenness. I would not allow anybody to buy bottled stuff. Everybody should go with their jugs open and above board as I do. It is the private drinking at home that is doing a great deal of harm. Everybody knows that I cannot get a pint into a half pint jug. One old lady thought I should go twice, so I told her to wait and see (Laughter)

Mr. Percey, the boy preacher (he is 19 yearsof age) was introduced by the chairman, who said that Mr. Percey had occupied pulpits in the leading Nonconformist churches of England and Wales. He was an ex-vice-president of the Christian Union, Birkbeck College, London, the youngest official speaker for the National War Savings Association and the Treasury and chairman of the League of Kindness.

Mr. Percey uttered a strong plea for moderation in all things, and at any cost, liberty. “Let the teetotaller be teetotal, but for God’s sake let him mind his own business,” he said amid loud applause. “Drunkenness must go but liberty must remain.” (Applause)

Mr. Redwood, who the chairman said was a controller of malt for the Government during the war, said the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform were supported by all classes of the community. He commended the chairman on his courage in coming out to protect himself against slander and also to uphold the tenets of true Christianity. It would not be long before the example set by the chairman would be followed by clergymen throughout the country. Teetotallers talked about the £400,000 spent on drink but not about the £270,000 of that sum that went to the national exchequer. Mr. Redwood referred to the “divine right of capital” but advocate a living wage for the worker. (Applause) A resolution supporting the Fellowship and opposing Prohibition was passed by a vast majority, eight voting against.

Mr. J. T.Bettles asked if the Fellowship was subsidised by the brewers.

Mr. Redwood said that support came from the trade and also from every other source.

Mr. Bettles: Does Mr. Redwood believe in majority rule?

Mr. Redwood: If 99 vote for Prohibition and the one wants his glass, the 99 have no right to rob him of that privilege. (Applause)

Mr. J. Garley proposing thanks to the speakers asked the “teetotallers of 40 years ago” to show any of their children who had followed their example.

Mr. George Denton snr, stood up and claimed to be one of the old temperance folks under that heading.

Mr. Garley agreed that Mr. Denton was right.

Mr. W. W. Rial seconding the vote of thanks said he did not subscribe to all that had been said. He would like to have heard more about the monopoly of the drink traffic. He said he believed it was the biggest monopoly in the country.

Both speakers responded, and Mr. Redwood said monopolies and profiteering could easily be dealt with by sending to Parliament morally sound men.

Thanks were accorded the chairman on the proposition of Mr. A. Cutbill, one of the Fellowship’s organiser, seconded by Mr. A. Hadden (of the Rushden Windmill Club).

Lantern Service