SOBRIETY BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT

APART from the active controversy as to the justice and equity of what have become known as the confiscatory' clauses of the Government Licensing Bill, there are the very material considerations whether any real necessity exists for the introduction of so admittedly drastic a measure in the interests of temperance-that is to say, of sobriety— and whether the actual provisions of the Bill are such as will be likely to promote such interests. It is from these points of view, probably, more than from those of the infliction of serious loss or even of grave injustice on interested parties, that the measure will be mainly regarded by the average social reformer who holds the principle that where the welfare of the community is concerned that of the individual must be sacrificed. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the Licensing Bill affords no guarantee of increased sobriety, and is not calculated to promote materially the welfare of the community in this respect, then a much stronger claim can be made on behalf of the rights, interests, and liberties alike of the trader and of the citizen.

It is desirable, in the first place, that the public in general and legislators in particular should have clearer ideas as to the real nature of inebriety than those that are widely entertained; and, as bearing on this most material point, reference may be made to some remarks by Dr. Branthwaite, Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, in a lecture he delivered before the Society for the Study of Inebriety in October 1907. After, he said, twenty-five years' experience of the question, he had arrived at the conclusion that inebriety was due to inherent defect in mental mechanism, generally congenital, sometimes more or less acquired. He proceeded:

Alcohol, far from being the chief cause of chronic alcoholism, is merely the medium which brings into prominence certain defects which might otherwise have remained hidden but for its exposing or developing influence. It seems to be exceedingly doubtful whether habitual inebriety is ever really acquired in the strictest sense of the word—that is, in the absence of some measure of preexisting defect. In other words, I am very sceptical indeed as to the probability of any normally constituted individual becoming an habitual drunkard, even if he permits himself to indulge occasionally in a fair measure of careless drinking, without the intervention of nerve shock or other influence sufficiently potent to disturb the equilibrium of nervous and mental mechanism.

In regard to insane inebriates, Dr. Branthwaite was satisfied that the majority had become alcoholic because of their tendency towards insanity, not insane as the result of alcoholism; and that the preceding drunkenness was merely precursory evidence of approaching mental disorder. Those classified as mentally defective showed certain physical signs of arrested or distorted development, such as abnormally small or misshapen heads, irregularity in the upper or lower jaw, and deeply placed eyes. Such cases always give evidence of impaired development of moral sense, imperfect control over impulse, and defect in power of judgment. Even in regard to those classified as of 'average mental capacity' it could not be said that they were composed of entirely reformable individuals; everything depended upon the degree of mental defect.

Then the British Medical Journal of the 14th of December 1907, in referring to the decision of the Home Secretary to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the treatment of inebriety, said:

...

A measure to increase the facilities for dealing effectively with the unfortunate persons who are in need of treatment is urgently needed. . . . A mass of evidence from the managers of every class of institution, most of whom are medical men, will be forthcoming. . . . They have made most careful studies of the drunkards under their care as patients concerning whose physical and mental health, or, rather, ill-health, there is plenty to record. It is through the painstaking researches of those men that the drunkard is now recognised as a person suffering from a disease with well-marked clinical features rather than a disorderly, illdisposed, social unit. . . . What the proprietor of the drug cures cannot tell the Commission is anything about the drunkard, for he has not studied him, nor about the nature and symptoms of the disease and its various complications and dangers, for he lives by ignoring them.

There are, again, other types of occasional rather than habitual drunkards, whose failings are due less to physical, mental, or moral defects on their own part than to various social or economic conditions, such as wretched dwellings, unemployment, or the widespread deficiency in industrial training which renders a large proportion of the rising generation among the working classes unfit for more than unskilled labour, and makes the whole future outlook for them so dull and depressing. Causes such as these have a material influence in driving men to drink, and the victims thereof are not to be regarded from the same standpoint as either the degenerates of whom Dr. Branthwaite speaks, or the workman who, after toiling all the week, gets drunk deliberately on Saturday by way of relaxation. Much, also, of the drinking indulged in by women is due to habits originally founded on a resort to stimulants as a relief either to physical pain or to domestic wretchedness.

It is among persons of the various types here mentioned that the actual vice of insobriety is still mainly to be found, and, in all probability, ever will be found so long as the physical or social conditions

producing such types continue to exist. Taking, however, the population of the British Isles as a whole, the vast improvement in the drinking habits of the people during the last few generations is undeniable. The time when it was considered no disgrace for statesmen and others in high position to be seen in public under the influence of liquor, or to be classified according to the number of bottles of wine they could consume, has long since passed. The betterment in social habits which thus began in the highest circles has generally spread through the middle classes, and is now rapidly permeating the artisan class, among whom the most encouraging advance has been made of recent years. In support of this fact abundant evidence could be given from the testimony of employers of labour and others.

The betterment in question has, however, been due more to the general advance of society than to legislative efforts to enforce sobriety by Act of Parliament. Attempts at undue restriction, made in advance of public opinion, arousing resentment because of their interference with the liberty of the subject, and encouraging efforts to circumvent laws which fail to appeal to the individual conscience, are more likely to check than to encourage genuine temperance. People are much more inclined to drink to excess under prohibition or any approach thereto than when they are free to satisfy their reasonable requirements.

From these facts two conclusions may be drawn: (1) That as regards society in general there is no real need for the imposition of drastic legislation against the whole community for the enforcement of that greater general sobriety which is already being secured under the operation of natural laws and social advancement; and (2) that excess of zeal in the cause of temperance may do much more harm than good.

Assuming, however, that the reform party honestly consider there is still abundant cause for further restrictive legislation, they must admit that their measures ought to be directed against immoderate drinkers, whose habits are prejudicial to themselves and to the community in general, rather than against 'temperate' drinkers, who never exceed the bounds of moderation, though enjoying stimulating beverages when taken in reason. If they had the former object in view, the measures in question would well come under the definition. of ' temperance'; aimed at the latter, they would simply be measures for the enforcement of compulsory total abstinence. But, as regards the habitual drunkards, it is difficult to see how these persons are to be cured of their shortcomings or propensities merely by making it somewhat more difficult for them to obtain what they want. So long as such people are determined to get stimulants, get them they will. The closing of one public-house out of three, and the obligation to walk a few hundred yards to the two that remain, will be of no avail whatever. If one public-house be left in a neighbourhood, that one will

suffice for a determined drinker. If the one be closed, he will still get, somehow, either his customary liquor, spirits, or other substitutes likely to do him still greater harm. When the topers of Norway could no longer obtain the native spirits to which they were accustomed, they resorted even to furniture-polish instead. When prohibition was rigidly enforced in Lapland the people bought embrocations and mouth-washes, and made up drinks out of these.

It is, in effect, the moderate rather than the immoderate drinkers whom the so-called 'decrease in facilities' provided for by the Government Licensing Bill would chiefly concern; but the alternative in their case is now obvious to all the world. When their favourite publichouse is closed, or when the interference with their liberties in regard to the houses that remain becomes greater than they are disposed to tolerate, they will resort to a club instead. Nor can anyone blame them if they do. The conveniences and attractions of a comfortably arranged club are far in excess of those of licensed houses, which the combined action of legislators, justices, and police has tended to transform more and more into mere shops for the sale of liquor. As the reductions are enforced and the restrictions increased, the regular patrons of public-houses in the neighbourhoods concerned will pass more and more to the clubs. By the end of the time-limit period the public-house will have become mainly a house of call for non-residents and passers-by; while the owners, with a prospect before them of a seizure of monopoly values by the State, will, in the meantime, probably expend on the buildings only just enough to keep them from falling to pieces. No bench of justices could possibly require an owner to carry out expensive repairs or improvements when he was to be deprived of the licence in another year or two. What, therefore, with the gradual transfer of the 'regular' trade from the licensed house to the club, and what with the discredit into which the surviving public-houses would inevitably fall even from the point of view of 'occasional' trade, it might very well happen that the monopoly value' which the State is eventually to seize would, by that time, have shrunk to very small proportions indeed.

Leaving considerations of finance aside, however, how far would the cause of temperance be promoted by these developments ?

Clubs fall under two definitions-the bona-fide and the bogus or 'drinking' club. The border line between the two may sometimes be difficult to trace, and there are even certain well-established political clubs, operating on a considerable scale and of high social standing, which are financially dependent mainly on the profits derived from the liquors consumed by the members. While, however, the number of low-class places equivalent to shebeens would inevitably be increased should the Licensing Bill become law, what we have most to anticipate is the general setting-up of clubs which would pass for bona fide, and to which no reasonable objection could

be offered so long as we continue to accept the principle that artisans and tradesmen are as much entitled to have their clubs as are politicians and manufacturers. In point of fact, there is nothing whatever in the Licensing Bill to prevent any resort to this expedient. The annual renewal of registration and the power of objection' on the ground that the club is used, or is to be used, mainly as a drinking club,' will become mere formalities in the vast majority of instances. The worst type of club may be checked or suppressed; but even then it will be quite open to the members to pay another five shillings registration fee and start a fresh club elsewhere.

Nor are the provisions for control or regulation likely to be of much real effect. It is laid down by Clause 39 that

The secretary of a club, if on complaint by any person to a court of summary jurisdiction it is shown that drunkenness or any illegal sale of intoxicating liquor has taken place on the premises of the club, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 207., unless he shows that he has used all reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of the matters in respect of which complaint is made; and on any such complaint the court shall have the same powers with reference to striking a club off the register as they have under Section 28 of the Licensing Act, 1902, whether the secretary is convicted or not.

It would seem, however, to be left mainly to some anonymous person or common informer' to make complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction, and this is very different indeed from the rigid control exercised over licensed houses by the ordinary policeman; while the striking of a club off the register-with power to start again elsewhere-is a small matter compared with the loss of a licence. It is true that ‘any chief constable of police, and any inspector or superintendent of police, or officer of the like or superior rank, specially authorised for the purpose by the chief constable, shall have power at any time to enter and inspect' club premises; but the exercise of this power by such officers is optional; they are not to be made responsible for the detection and prevention of drunkenness; and, though it is provided-out of deference to the feelings of the club members-that they shall not be in uniform,' they, as superior officers, would be recognised immediately they entered the premises, steps being probably at once taken to hide the drunkards out of sight. Nor is much value to be attached to the provision extending from one year to five years the period during which a public-house deprived of its licence shall not be used for the purposes of a club. The average publichouse is not really adapted to club purposes. These would be much better met either by a large private house, with a variety of separate rooms, or by a building specially constructed.

In the circumstances no efficient check is provided against the general transfer to clubs of the business now done in licensed houses, and no effective guarantee is afforded that temperance will be observed