WH

IV

TEMPERANCE REFORM

HAT excuse is there for any further literature on the drink question? We venture to think that there is at least one. When Sir George Cornwall-Lewis was asked to consider proposals for legislation he would reply (so Mr. Bagehot tells us), "The facts are these and these. Your theory is so-and-so. It accounts for facts Nos. 1, 2, and 3, but fails to account for 4, 5, and 6, and what is your object?" Till he got a plain answer, and a proof that the plan was good, he would not look at it. An exact account of the evils complained of generally showed that the proposals rested on a flimsy foundation. The inductive method which he demanded has, sometimes at least, been lacking in the discussion of temperance. There have been whole libraries of denunciation and prescription, but they would not satisfy Cornwall-Lewis. It might be said of their authors, as of a great statesman, "He could never have appealed to the people by the felicitous attraction of his words." Would that it could, as of him, be added, "He had a surer source of popularity in the intelligibility of his plans"!

Their spirit, even if it strives but little to effect actual reforms, is infinitely better than the genial complacency which is so widely approved, but it does not help us to advance (in Mr. Balfour's phrase) "out of the stage of rhetorical description into that of practical proposal."

At the opposite pole science has had its say upon the question, but its frigid indifference to the urgency of the problem has made it almost as useless as the exclamations of the fanatic. The legislator or social reformer bent on informing himself will find scarcely any scientific book that can be called practical, nor will he discover a supply of works upon reform that can be accounted scientific. With the honourable exception of Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell's recent volume, and an invaluable, though all too brief, essay by Canon Barnett, it is to Blue Books alone that we must turn for any attempt at a real study of the subject; and even there it is disappointing to find whole subjects of inquiry omitted, and especially the nature of actual drinking habits, and of the public-house itself; while, unhappily, the good which Blue Books contain is embodied in a form which apparently dooms them to oblivion.

Deeply as we sympathise with strong and even violent feelings about the drink evil, we cannot but recognise the need for an inquiry which should combine the enthusiasm of the idealist with the comprehensive view of the scientist and the calm judgment of the historian. We should like to see, as the late Frederick Myers put it, "the extension of scientific method, of curiosity, candour, and care into regions where many a current of old tradition, of heated emotion, even of pseudo-scientific prejudice, deflects the barque which should steer only towards the cold, unreachable pole of absolute truth." Fully conscious of our inability to act up to this ideal, we feel it a duty to attempt at least something more than has been done.

There is a further excuse for writing-viz., that it may be useful to collate not only the views of various writers and authorities, but the opinions of people intimately acquainted with the life of those classes to which the problem of drink legislation applies.

The recent Commission collected views from various official sources, and in 1879 the Convocation of Canterbury circulated questions to clergymen, chief constables, and

governors of public institutions; but those with personal familiarity seem to have been ignored. We have, therefore, collected opinions from the agents of religious and philanthropic societies working among the poor, from clubs, inebriate homes, temperance workers, and (when possible) from working men and publicans themselves. Enthusiasm does not always insure sound judgment. But a vast amount of useful information was contributed, and may, we hope, be of service in solving the problems to which we have applied it.

Dealing as we are with social reform, it is our business to consider the organised methods of treating excess in drink. This problem properly includes the question of providing recreation and education of every kind, but the field which is least fully occupied is that of Governmental action bearing directly on drinking habits. As this is also the field to which most interest attaches at the present time, we shall confine ourselves mainly to it, endeavouring to base our conclusions on the fullest available stock of facts and of experience.

II. THE CONDITIONS.

It is a doctor's truism that healing is an easy matter when the condition of the patient has been mastered; the real difficulty is not prescription but diagnosis. Those who prescribe for the disease of the community which we are considering have been apt to deal severely indeed with the actual symptoms, but they have neglected, as a rule, to consider the general condition of the patient, his surroundings, and his willingness or otherwise to adopt the remedy proposed.

The symptoms of the drink disease are, indeed, obvious enough, and we are far from wishing to minimise them. The question of moral and physical degradation hardly needs confirmation. We at least are only anxious that it should be more fully realised. The trade leaders them

* For instance, to a question as to whether more harm was due to the public-house or the grocer's license, we received the inspiring answer, May the Lord sweep them both from our land"!

selves have declared that "hardly any sacrifice would be too great" which should diminish it. Teetotal denunciations are amply justified, and if sometimes they mistake the spirit of the New Testament we are not disposed to deny them the support of the Old, for one must admit, with Professor Adam Smith, that "temperance reformers, though they are often blamed for the strength of their opinions, may shelter themselves behind Isaiah." We thoroughly agree with Archdeacon Wilson that "it is a dwarfed, distorted, miserable Christianity that ignores great questions like this." When it is urged that only a residuum of drinking is excessive, and that what is wanted is not a reduction but a redistribution, we can only reply that if some are prepared to defend 6s. per week as a fair allowance for drink to John Smith, the London labourer, with wages of 24s. and a family to keep and a rent of 7s. to pay, we at least are not equal to the task. The average workman is not a drunkard, but he is shamefully extravagant. The treating customs of London workmen involve unbounded waste; and there is evidence for the fact that in some districts an artisan hardly likes to invite a party of neighbours to come in after supper without providing a similar number of bottles of beer, a bottle of whisky, and a bottle of port wine-6s. or 7s. for one evening. Mr. Woodward, an architect, recently stated that London bricklayers who have been paid £3 on the Saturday are often obliged to borrow the price of their dinner on the following Tuesday. 3

There are other aspects of the matter which have been insufficiently regarded; and it has remained for Mr. Sherwell to open our eyes to dangers from industrial and economic losses, which will appeal not only to the patriot but even to the merest Jingo. There may be much to add to his statements but there is nothing that we wish to subtract. The country must face the fact that in the struggle for

"The Book of Isaiah," p. 45.

2 "The Temperance Problem and Social Reform," p. II.

3 Nineteenth Century Review, March, 1901.

4 "The Temperance Problem and Social Reform," chapter i.

trade (which grows daily fiercer) we are heavily handicapped by causes in each of which drink plays a large part, by shortened lives, by the labour spent in dealing with crime, sickness, and pauperism, but chiefly by inefficiency and loss of time to which intemperance ministers. A firm of London shipbuilders have kindly supplied an illustration. They write: "The wages which a man receives are enough, in most cases, to compel him to work not more than three to four days a week, the rest of the time being usually spent in the public-house. Should the works be closed for a day, the men make it an opportunity for remaining out three days. If one man, out of a set, is unable to appear at work (usually owing to drink) the rest feel it their duty to remain out also." But London is comparatively sober. A firm in the North have calculated that their workmen have lost £17,000 in one year owing to loss of time, not including time lost through holidays and wet weather.

On the further danger which Mr. Sherwell deals with-the political menace-it may be useful to say a few words. The central point on which this danger hinges is the fact that opinions are formed at the places where people meet and talk, and that in the publichouse, which is the commonest meeting-place of this kind, the publican has often an influence in forming opinion.

Obviously the sellers of drink will be opposed to alterations which are likely to injure them, and so far as the licensee must always be influential in his house and cannot be debarred from political power, the danger is undoubtedly, as Mr. Sherwell urges, an argument in favour of public management. We are fully aware of the difficulty of fighting the licensed trade; and the view of politicians on this point was sufficiently proved at the Election of 1900 by the defection of a great number of Liberal candidates from the standard of Lord Peel. But the present power of the trade is largely due to defects in our system which could be remedied, and not to inherent evils in the system. The plan proposed by Mr. Bruce, in 1871, of granting licenses for definite