Chapter 5

The following statistical comparison, extracted from the United States Census of 1900 and the Inland Revenue Returns by Mr W. O. Tatum (New Encyclopedia of Social Reform) and here presented in tabular form, is highly instructive. It shows the population and number of liquor dealers paying the United States tax in two prohibition states, one state under what is considered the best licensing system, and South Carolina.State.Population.WholesaleLiquorDealers.RetailLiquorDealers.Maine (Prohibition)694,466511366Kansas (Prohibition)1,470,4951293125Massachusetts (Licence)2,805,3466175092S. Carolina (Dispensary)1,340,31613534This table may be said to epitomize the results of the United States restrictive liquor laws. It presents examples of three different systems; the proportion of retail liquor sellers to population is—under complete prohibition, 1 to 508 and 1 to 475; under licence and local prohibition, 1 to 530; under dispensary and local prohibition, 1 to 2509. But the remarkable thing is the enormous amount of illicit traffic existing under all three systems. It is incomparably greatest under complete prohibition because the whole of the traffic in these states is illicit. In South Carolina one of the wholesale dealers and 388 of the 534 retailers were illicit. In Massachusetts the number cannot be stated, but it is very large. If the whole state were under licence the total legal number of licences, which is limited in proportion to population (see above), would be 3400; and in that case there would be some 1700 illicit retailers. But a large part of the state, probably more than half, is under local prohibition, so that the majority of the 5000 retail dealers must be illicit. These facts, which are typical and not exceptional, reveal the failure of the laws to control the traffic; only partial or spasmodic attempts are made to enforce them and to a great extent they are ignored by common consent. The illegal trade is carried on so openly that the United States revenue officers have no difficulty in collecting the federal tax. It is not a satisfactory state of things, or one which countries where law is respected would care to imitate. The example is a good lesson in what to avoid.Taxation.—Mention has been made above of the federal and state taxation imposed on the liquor trade. The former is uniform; the latter varies greatly, even in those states which have adopted the “high licence.” This system is intended to fulfil two purposes; to act as an automatic check on the number of licences and to produce revenue. It was introduced in Nebraska in 1881, when a tax of 1000 dollars (£200) was placed on saloons (public houses) in large towns, and half that amount in smaller ones. The practice gradually spread and has now been adopted by a large number of states, noticeably the populous and industrial north-eastern and central states. In Massachusetts, where the high licence was adopted in 1874 when the state returned to licensing after a trial of prohibition, the fees are exceptionally high, the minimum for a fully licensed on and off house being 1300 dollars (£260); in Boston the average tax is £310. In New York state it ranges from 150 dollars (£30) in sparsely populated districts to 1200 dollars (£240), and in Pennsylvania it is much the same. In New Jersey, on the other hand, it ranges from £20 to £60; in Connecticut from £50 to £90; in Rhode Island from £40 to £80. In Missouri, which has a special system of its own and a sort of sliding scale, great variations occur and in some cases the tax exceeds £500. In Michigan it is uniform at £100. The mean for the large cities is £133. The revenue derived from this source is distributed in many ways, but is generally divided in varying proportions between the state, the county and the municipality; sometimes a proportion goes to the relief of the poor, to road-making or some other public purpose. The amount levied in the great cities is very large. It will be seen from the foregoing that the taxation of licences is much heavier in the United States than in the United Kingdom. The total yield was ascertained by a special inquiry in 1896 and found to be rather less than 12 millions sterling; in the same year the yield from the same source in the United Kingdom was just under 2 millions. Allowing for difference of population the American rate of taxation was 3¼ times as great as the British. It has been inferred that the liquor trade is much more highly taxed in the United States and that it would bear largely increased taxation in the United Kingdom; that argument was brought forward in support of Mr Lloyd George’s budget of 1909. But it only takes account of the tax on licences and leaves out of account the tax on liquor which is the great source of revenue in the United Kingdom, as has been shown above. The scales are much lower in the United States, especially on spirits, which are only taxed at the average rate of 5s. 8d. a gallon against 11s. (raised to 14s. 9d. in 1909) in the United Kingdom. Mr Frederic Thompson has calculated out the effect of the two sets of rates and shown that if British rates were applied to the United States the average yield in the three years ending 1908 would be raised from 44 millions to 76 millions; and conversely if American rates were applied to the United Kingdom the average yield would be lowered from 36 millions to 23 millions. Taking licences and liquor taxation together he finds that the application of the British standards for both would still raise the total yield in the United States by 39%; and that even the exceptionally high rates prevailing in Massachusetts would, if applied to the United Kingdom, produce some 4 millions less revenue than the existing taxation. Other calculations based on the consumption and taxation per head lead to the same conclusion that the trade is actually taxed at a considerably higher rate in the United Kingdom. In the three years ending 1908 the average amount paid per head in taxation was 13s. 8¾d. in the United States and 17s. 6¾d. in the United Kingdom. It may be added that the method of taxing licences heavily has certain disadvantages; it stimulates that illicit trade which is the most outstanding feature of the traffic in the United States, and combined with the extreme insecurity of tenure involved in local option it gives licence-holders additional inducements to make as much money as possible by any means available, while they have the opportunity, for no compensation is ever paid for sudden dispossession. The notion that the trade will stand an indefinite amount of taxation is a dangerous and oft-proved fallacy.

This table may be said to epitomize the results of the United States restrictive liquor laws. It presents examples of three different systems; the proportion of retail liquor sellers to population is—under complete prohibition, 1 to 508 and 1 to 475; under licence and local prohibition, 1 to 530; under dispensary and local prohibition, 1 to 2509. But the remarkable thing is the enormous amount of illicit traffic existing under all three systems. It is incomparably greatest under complete prohibition because the whole of the traffic in these states is illicit. In South Carolina one of the wholesale dealers and 388 of the 534 retailers were illicit. In Massachusetts the number cannot be stated, but it is very large. If the whole state were under licence the total legal number of licences, which is limited in proportion to population (see above), would be 3400; and in that case there would be some 1700 illicit retailers. But a large part of the state, probably more than half, is under local prohibition, so that the majority of the 5000 retail dealers must be illicit. These facts, which are typical and not exceptional, reveal the failure of the laws to control the traffic; only partial or spasmodic attempts are made to enforce them and to a great extent they are ignored by common consent. The illegal trade is carried on so openly that the United States revenue officers have no difficulty in collecting the federal tax. It is not a satisfactory state of things, or one which countries where law is respected would care to imitate. The example is a good lesson in what to avoid.

Taxation.—Mention has been made above of the federal and state taxation imposed on the liquor trade. The former is uniform; the latter varies greatly, even in those states which have adopted the “high licence.” This system is intended to fulfil two purposes; to act as an automatic check on the number of licences and to produce revenue. It was introduced in Nebraska in 1881, when a tax of 1000 dollars (£200) was placed on saloons (public houses) in large towns, and half that amount in smaller ones. The practice gradually spread and has now been adopted by a large number of states, noticeably the populous and industrial north-eastern and central states. In Massachusetts, where the high licence was adopted in 1874 when the state returned to licensing after a trial of prohibition, the fees are exceptionally high, the minimum for a fully licensed on and off house being 1300 dollars (£260); in Boston the average tax is £310. In New York state it ranges from 150 dollars (£30) in sparsely populated districts to 1200 dollars (£240), and in Pennsylvania it is much the same. In New Jersey, on the other hand, it ranges from £20 to £60; in Connecticut from £50 to £90; in Rhode Island from £40 to £80. In Missouri, which has a special system of its own and a sort of sliding scale, great variations occur and in some cases the tax exceeds £500. In Michigan it is uniform at £100. The mean for the large cities is £133. The revenue derived from this source is distributed in many ways, but is generally divided in varying proportions between the state, the county and the municipality; sometimes a proportion goes to the relief of the poor, to road-making or some other public purpose. The amount levied in the great cities is very large. It will be seen from the foregoing that the taxation of licences is much heavier in the United States than in the United Kingdom. The total yield was ascertained by a special inquiry in 1896 and found to be rather less than 12 millions sterling; in the same year the yield from the same source in the United Kingdom was just under 2 millions. Allowing for difference of population the American rate of taxation was 3¼ times as great as the British. It has been inferred that the liquor trade is much more highly taxed in the United States and that it would bear largely increased taxation in the United Kingdom; that argument was brought forward in support of Mr Lloyd George’s budget of 1909. But it only takes account of the tax on licences and leaves out of account the tax on liquor which is the great source of revenue in the United Kingdom, as has been shown above. The scales are much lower in the United States, especially on spirits, which are only taxed at the average rate of 5s. 8d. a gallon against 11s. (raised to 14s. 9d. in 1909) in the United Kingdom. Mr Frederic Thompson has calculated out the effect of the two sets of rates and shown that if British rates were applied to the United States the average yield in the three years ending 1908 would be raised from 44 millions to 76 millions; and conversely if American rates were applied to the United Kingdom the average yield would be lowered from 36 millions to 23 millions. Taking licences and liquor taxation together he finds that the application of the British standards for both would still raise the total yield in the United States by 39%; and that even the exceptionally high rates prevailing in Massachusetts would, if applied to the United Kingdom, produce some 4 millions less revenue than the existing taxation. Other calculations based on the consumption and taxation per head lead to the same conclusion that the trade is actually taxed at a considerably higher rate in the United Kingdom. In the three years ending 1908 the average amount paid per head in taxation was 13s. 8¾d. in the United States and 17s. 6¾d. in the United Kingdom. It may be added that the method of taxing licences heavily has certain disadvantages; it stimulates that illicit trade which is the most outstanding feature of the traffic in the United States, and combined with the extreme insecurity of tenure involved in local option it gives licence-holders additional inducements to make as much money as possible by any means available, while they have the opportunity, for no compensation is ever paid for sudden dispossession. The notion that the trade will stand an indefinite amount of taxation is a dangerous and oft-proved fallacy.

European Countries.

With the exception of Sweden, Norway and Russia, which have special systems of their own, the continental countries of Europe have as yet paid comparatively little legislative attention to the subject of the liquor traffic, which is recognized by the law but for the most part freely permitted with a minimum of interference. Differences exist, but, generally speaking, establishments may be opened under a very simple procedure, which amounts to an elementary form of licensing, and the permission is only withdrawn for some definite and serious offence. Regulations and conditions are for the most part left to the discretion of the local authority and the police and are not burdensome. The reason for such freedom as compared with the elaborate and stringent codes of the United Kingdom and the United States is not less concern for public welfare but the simple fact that the traffic gives less trouble and causes less harm through the abuse of drink; the habits of the people are different in regard to the character of the drinks consumed, the mode of consumption and the type of establishment. Cafés, restaurants and beer-gardens are much more common, and mere pot-houses less so than in the English-speaking countries. Where trouble arises and engages the attention of the authorities and the legislature, it is almost invariably found to be associated with the consumption of spirits. In several of the wine-producing countries, which are generally marked by the temperate habits of the people, the widespread havoc among the vines caused some years ago by the phylloxera led to an increased consumption of spirits which had a bad effect and aroused considerable anxiety. This was notably the case in France, where an anti-alcohol congress, held in 1903, marked the rise of public and scientific opinion on the subject. Temperance societies have become active, and in some countries there is a movement towards stricter regulations or at least a demand for it; but in others the present law is a relaxation of earlier ones.

France.—The present law governing the licensing of establishments where liquor is sold for consumption on the premises was passed in 1880; it abrogated the previous decree of 1851, by which full discretion was vested in the local authorities, and freed the traffic from arbitrary restrictions. It provides that any person desiring to open a café, cabaret or other place for retailing liquor must give notice to the authorities, with details concerning himself, the establishment and the proprietor, at least 15 days beforehand; the authority in Paris is the préfecture of police and elsewhere the mairie. Transfers of proprietorship or management must be notified within 15 days, and intended transference of location 8 days beforehand. The penalty for infraction is a fine of 16 francs to 100 francs. Legal minors and persons convicted of certain crimes and offences—theft, receiving stolen goods, various forms of swindling, offences against morality, the sale of adulterated articles—are prohibited; in the case of crimes, forever; in the case of offences, for five years. Otherwise permission cannot be refused, subject to conditions which the local authority has power to lay down regulating the distance of such establishments from churches, cemeteries, hospitals, schools and colleges. But persons engaged in the trade, who are convicted of the offences mentioned above and of infraction of the law for the suppression of public drunkenness, are disabled, as above. The law practically amounts to free trade and the number of houses has increased under it; in 1900 there was one to every 81 persons. This proportion is only exceeded by Belgium. Under the Local Government Act of 1884 municipal authorities are empowered, for the maintenance of public order, to fix hours of closing, regulate dancing, forbid the employment of girls and the harbouring of prostitutes and make other regulations. The hours of closing differ considerably but usually they are 11P.M., midnight or 1A.M.The trade is lightly taxed; retailers pay from 15 to 50 francs a year; wholesale dealers, 125 francs; breweries the same in most departments, distilleries 25 francs. The excise revenue from liquor amounted to £20,000,000 in 1900.Germany.—The German law and practice are broadly similar to the French, but the several states vary somewhat in detail. Under the imperial law of 1879 inns or hotels and retail trade in spirits for on or off consumption may not be carried on without a permit or licence from the local authority which, however, can only be refused on the ground of character or of unsuitability of premises. This is the general law of the empire; but the state governments are empowered to make the granting of a licence for retailing spirits dependent on proof that it is locally required, and also to impose the same condition on inn-keeping and the retailing of other drinks in places with less than 15,000 inhabitants and in larger ones which obtain a local statute to that effect. Before a licence is granted the opinion of the police and other executive officers is to be taken. The licensing authority is the mayor in towns and the chairman of the district council in rural areas. The provisions with regard to the dependence of a licence on local requirements have been adopted by Prussia and other states, but apparently little or no use is made of them. Permits are very freely granted, and the number of licensed houses, though not so great as in France, is very high in proportion to population. Three classes of establishment are recognized—(1)Gast-wirthschaft, (2)Schank-wirthschaft, (3)Klein-handel.Gast-wirthschaftis inn-keeping, or the lodging of strangers in an open house for profit, and includes “pensions” of a public character; the imperial law provides that a licence may be limited to this function and need not include the retailing of liquor.Schank-wirthschaftis the retailing for profit of all sorts of drinks, including coffee and mineral waters; it corresponds to café in France and refreshment house in England; but the mere serving of food does not come under the law with which we are here concerned.Klein-handelis retail sale either for on or off consumption, and the liquor for which a licence is required in this connexion is described asbranntweinorspiritus, and is defined as distilled alcoholic liquor, whether by itself or in combination. A licence forSchank-wirthschaftincludesKlein-handel, but not vice-versa; none is required for the retail sale of wine which is the seller’s own produce. Licences may be withdrawn for offences against the law. Licensed houses are under the supervision of the police, who fix the hours of closing; it is usually 10P.M., but is commonly extended to 11P.M.or midnight in the larger towns and still later in the case of particular establishments. Some cafés in Berlin do not close till 3A.M.and some never close at all. Persons remaining on the premises in forbidden hours after being ordered to leave by the landlord are liable to punishment. Serving drunkards and persons of school age is forbidden. Drunkards, in addition to fines or imprisonment for disorderly conduct, are liable to be deprived of control of their affairs and placed under guardianship. For music and dancing special permits are required. With regard to taxation, in Prussia all business establishments beyond a certain value pay an annual tax and licensed houses are on the same footing as the rest. Businesses producing less than £75 a year or of less than £150 capital value are free; the rest are arranged in four classes on a rising scale. In the three lower classes the tax ranges from a minimum of 4s. to a maximum of £24; in the highest class, which represents businesses producing £2500 and upwards (or a capital value of £50,000 and upwards) the tax is 1% of the profits. There is also a stamp duty on the licence ranging from 1s. 6d. to £5. The latter goes to the local revenue, the business tax to the government. Beer and spirits are also subject to an excise tax, from which the imperial revenue derived £7,700,000 in 1901; but the total taxation of the liquor trade could only be calculated from the returns of all the federated states.The laws of France and Germany are fairly representative of the European states, with some minor variations. InHollandthe number of licensed spirit retailers is limited in proportion to population (1 to 500), and the taxation, which is both national and local, ranges from 10 to 25% of the annual value.InAustria-HungaryandRumaniathe licence duty is graduated according to the population of the place, as used to be the case in Prussia. In 1877 a severe police law was applied to Galicia in order to check the excesses of spirit-drinking. The Poles, it may be observed, are spirit-drinkers, and the exceptional treatment of this part of the Austrian empire is one more illustration of the trouble arising from that habit, which forces special attempts to restrain it. The law, just mentioned, in Holland is another instance; and the particular cases of Russia and Scandinavia, described below, enforce the same lesson. Where the drink of the people is confined to wine and beer there is comparatively little trouble. InSwitzerlandthe manufacture and wholesale sale of spirits has been a federal monopoly since 1887, but the retailing is a licensed trade, as elsewhere, and is less restricted than formerly. Before federation in 1874 the cantons used to direct local authorities to restrict the number of licences in proportion to population; but under the new constitution the general principle of free trade was laid down, and the Federal Council intimated to the cantonal authorities that it was no longer lawful to refuse a licence on the ground that it was not needed.Russia.—In 1895 Russia entered upon an experiment in regard to the spirit traffic and began to convert the previously existing licence system into a state monopoly. The experiment was held to be successful and was gradually extended to the whole country. Under this system, which to some extent resembles that of South Carolina but is much less rigid, the distilleries remain in private hands but their output is under government control. The retail sale is confined to government shops, which sell only in sealed bottles for consumption off the premises, and to commercial establishments which sell on commission for the government. Spirit bars are abolished and only in a few high class restaurants are spirits sold by the glass; in ordinary eating-houses and at railway refreshment rooms they are sold in sealed government bottles but may be consumed on the premises. The primary object was to check the excesses of spirit-drinking which were very great in Russia among the mass of the people. The effect has been a very large reduction in the number of liquor shops, which has extended also to the licensed beer-houses though they are not directly affected as such. Presumably when they could no longer sell spirits it did not pay them to take out a licence for beer.Sweden and Norway.—In these countries the celebrated “Gothenburg” or company system is in force together with licensing and local veto. Like the Russian state monopoly the company system applies only to spirits, and for the same reason; spirits are or were the common drink of the people and excessive facilities in the early part of the 19th century produced the usual result. The story is very similar to that of England in the 18th century, given above. From 1774 to 1788 distilling in Sweden was a crown monopoly, but popular opposition and illicit trade compelled the abandonment of this plan in favour of general permission granted to farmers, innkeepers and landowners. At the beginning of the 19th century the right to distil belonged to every owner and cultivator of land on payment of a trifling licence duty, and it was further extended to occupiers. In 1829 the number of stills paying licence duty was 173,124 or 1 to every 16 persons; the practice was in fact universal and the whole population was debauched with spirits. The physical and moral results were the same as those recorded in England a hundred years before. The supply was somewhat restricted by royal ordinance in 1835, but the traffic was not effectively dealt with until 1855 when a law was passed which practically abolished domestic distilling by fixing a minimum daily output of 200 gallons, with a tax of about 10d. a gallon. This turned the business into a manufacture and speedily reduced the number of stills. At the same time the retail sale was subjected to drastic regulations. A licensing system was introduced which gave the local authority power to fix the number of licences and put them up to auction or to hand over the retail traffic altogether to a company formed for the purpose of carrying it on. The latter idea, which is the Gothenburg system, was taken from the example of Falun and Jönköping which had a few years ago voluntarily adopted the plan. The law of 1855 further gave rural districts the power of local veto. Four-fifths of the population live in rural districts, and the great majority of them immediately took advantage of the provision. The company system, on the other hand, was not applied by the towns until 1865, when Gothenburg adopted it.In Norway the course of events was very similar. There, too, distilling and spirit-drinking were practically universal in the early part of the century under the laws of 1816, but were checked by legislation a few years sooner than in Sweden. In 1845 a special licensing system was introduced, giving the local authority power to fix the number of licences, and in 1848 the small and domesticstills were stopped. The Gothenburg system was not adopted in Norway until 1871 and then with some modification. The essence of this method of conducting the retail traffic is that the element of private gain is eliminated. A monopoly is granted to a company consisting of a number of disinterested citizens of standing with a capital, and they manage the sale both for “on” and “off” consumption in the public interest. The profits, after payment of 5% on the capital, originally went in Sweden mainly to the municipality in relief of rates, in Norway to objects of public utility. The latter was considered preferable because it offers less temptation to make the profits as high as possible. Fault has, however, been found with both methods, and payment of profits to the state is now preferred. In 1894 a law was passed in Norway providing for the following distribution: 65% to the state, 20% to the company, and 15% to the municipality. In 1907 Sweden adopted a law in the same direction. The intention is to eliminate more completely the motive of gain from the traffic. In 1898 the net profits of the companies exceeded half a million sterling in Sweden and reached £117,500 in Norway.The company system had in 1910 had more than half a century’s trial; it had gone through some vicissitudes and been subjected to much criticism, which was balanced by at least as much eulogy. It had held its own in Sweden, where 101 towns had adopted it in 1906. In Norway at the same date it was in force in 32 towns while 29 had adopted local veto, which was extended from the country districts, where it had previously been optional, to the towns by the law of 1894.As we have already said, it only applies to spirits. In both countries the sale of beer and wine for “on” consumption is carried on in the ordinary way under a licensing system; the sale of beer in bottles for consumption off the premises is practically free. The beer traffic is regarded by some as a “safety valve” and by others as a defect in the system. The consumption has greatly increased in Sweden; in Norway it increased up to 1900 and has since declined. But other more deleterious substitutes for spirits have come into use in the shape of concocted “wines” and methylated spirits. The company management has had the following effects: it has greatly reduced the number of spirit bars, improved their character and conduct, added eating-rooms, where good and cheap meals are served, stopped drinking on credit and by persons under 18 years of age, shortened the hours of sale, raised the price and lowered the strength of spirits. But the restrictions placed on the sale for consumption on the premises has stimulated the retail bottle trade and home drinking.British Dominions.Canada.—Liquor legislation in Canada has been much influenced by the proximity and example of the United States. Licensing, modified by local veto, prevails throughout the Dominion except in the Indian settlements; but the several provinces have their own laws, which vary in stringency. As a whole the licensing system rather resembles the American than the British type. The licensing authority is either a board of commissioners or the municipality, and there has been the same tendency as in the United States to substitute the former for the latter. In British Columbia no new hotel licence is granted in cities except on the request of two-thirds of the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property, but their consent is not necessary for renewal. In other provinces the municipal authority has power to limit as well as regulate the licensed trade. Sunday closing is the rule; on week-days the usual closing hour in the large towns is 11P.M.The power of locally prohibiting licensed houses by vote was introduced by the Canada Temperance Act, a federal law passed in 1875 and commonly known as the Scott Act. Extensive use has been made of it, especially in the maritime provinces, where the temperance sentiment is very strong, but in recent years it has rather lost ground. In 1908 it was in force in 22 counties or cities, of which ten were in Nova Scotia, ten in New Brunswick and two in Manitoba; it was nowhere in force in the remaining provinces. Three elections were held under the act in 1907-1908, two in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick, and in the first two prohibition was defeated. In 1910 Nova Scotia, apparently dissatisfied with the progress of local prohibition under the Scott Act, passed a prohibitory law for the whole province, exempting Halifax, the capital and only considerable town, but making provision for its subsequent inclusion by a referendum to the ratepayers. There is in Canada the same oscillation of public opinion as in the United States, and the same toleration of evasion of the law. The writer has stayed in hotels in several prohibition towns, where there was not only a regular bar but a printed wine list from which anything could be ordered at meals without any concealment at all. The chief difference between the conduct of hotels under prohibition and under licensing is that under licensing the bar is closed at the legal hour, which is usually 11 o’clock, and under prohibition it remains open as long as there are any customers to serve. The law is nominally respected by imposing a periodical fine. In small towns and rural districts local prohibition is much more effective. In short the experience of Canada confirms that of the United States. In addition to the federal law, the local authorities have power, in Quebec, to prohibit as well as to regulate the trade. The high licence system has not been adopted in Canada. The total revenue derived by the Dominion government in 1908 from taxation of the liquor trade, including duties and licence fees, was £1,800,000.Australia.—The licensing laws of Australia are less repressive and the practice more resembles the British model. Queensland has adopted local prohibition, but it is not applied. New South Wales has a limited form of veto applying only to new licences; South Australia has the same together with a provision for the optional reduction of licences; Victoria, on the other hand, allows an option both ways, for reducing or increasing the licences; West Australia and Tasmania merely give the local ratepayers the right of protest; in West Australia it holds good against new licences only and if a majority object the licence is refused; in Tasmania protest may be made against renewals and transfers also, but the decision lies with the licensing authority. There is practically no prohibition in the Commonwealth.New Zealand.—This state has a licensing system with local option provisions of its own. The licensing authority is a local committee, and there are seven kinds of licence, of which two are for consumption on the premises. The fees range from £1 for a wine licence to £40 for a full publican’s licence in towns, or £45 for one permitting an additional hour’s sale at night; the fees go to the revenue of the local authority. In 1907 the total number of licences granted was 2179 and the fees paid amounted to £45,865. Of the whole number, 1367, or 1 to every 666 persons, were houses licensed for on consumption. The closing hour is 10P.M.except for houses specially licensed to be open till 11P.M.In 1893 local option was introduced by the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, which provided for the taking of a poll on the question of licences. The electoral districts for the purpose are the same as for the House of Representatives, except that the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin each form a single district for the licensing poll. It is taken at the same time as the election of members of the House of Representatives, and three questions are propounded—(1) continuance of existing licences, (2) reduction, (3) no licences. A voter may vote for two proposals but not more. An absolute majority of all the votes recorded carries (1); an absolute majority of all the votes recorded carries (2), whereupon the licensing committee reduces the licences by any number from 5 to 25% of the total. But if three-fifths of all the votes cast are in favour of no licence then that supersedes (1) and (2). The poll taken in December 1905 gave the following results: of the 68 districts 40 carried no proposal (which is equivalent to continuance of existing licences), 18 carried continuance, 4 reduction, 6 no licence, including 3 which had previously adopted no licence. Women, it must be remembered, vote as well as men. The aggregate vote in favour of no licence shows a large proportional increase since the first poll in the present system in 1896.Authorities.—Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws 1896-1899, Reports and Appendices; Licensing Statistics of England and Wales, annual. Canada Year-book; New Zealand Year-book;Code de Commerce, France;Gewerbeordnung, German Empire; Hand-book of Canada (British Association);New Encyclopedia of Social Reform; Brewers’ Almanack; Committee of Fifty (New York),The Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects(F. H. Wines and J. Koren); E. L. Fanshawe,Liquor Legislation in the United States and Canada; E.R.L. Gould,The Gothenburg System(Special Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor); E. A. Pratt,Licensing and Temperance in Sweden, Norway and Denmark; J. Rowntree and A. Sherwell,The Temperance Problem and Social Reform;The Taxation of the Liquor Trade; A. Shadwell,Drink, Temperance and Legislation; Strauss und Torney,Schanks-Konzessionswesen; F. W. Thompson,High Licence. See alsoTemperance.

Germany.—The German law and practice are broadly similar to the French, but the several states vary somewhat in detail. Under the imperial law of 1879 inns or hotels and retail trade in spirits for on or off consumption may not be carried on without a permit or licence from the local authority which, however, can only be refused on the ground of character or of unsuitability of premises. This is the general law of the empire; but the state governments are empowered to make the granting of a licence for retailing spirits dependent on proof that it is locally required, and also to impose the same condition on inn-keeping and the retailing of other drinks in places with less than 15,000 inhabitants and in larger ones which obtain a local statute to that effect. Before a licence is granted the opinion of the police and other executive officers is to be taken. The licensing authority is the mayor in towns and the chairman of the district council in rural areas. The provisions with regard to the dependence of a licence on local requirements have been adopted by Prussia and other states, but apparently little or no use is made of them. Permits are very freely granted, and the number of licensed houses, though not so great as in France, is very high in proportion to population. Three classes of establishment are recognized—(1)Gast-wirthschaft, (2)Schank-wirthschaft, (3)Klein-handel.Gast-wirthschaftis inn-keeping, or the lodging of strangers in an open house for profit, and includes “pensions” of a public character; the imperial law provides that a licence may be limited to this function and need not include the retailing of liquor.Schank-wirthschaftis the retailing for profit of all sorts of drinks, including coffee and mineral waters; it corresponds to café in France and refreshment house in England; but the mere serving of food does not come under the law with which we are here concerned.Klein-handelis retail sale either for on or off consumption, and the liquor for which a licence is required in this connexion is described asbranntweinorspiritus, and is defined as distilled alcoholic liquor, whether by itself or in combination. A licence forSchank-wirthschaftincludesKlein-handel, but not vice-versa; none is required for the retail sale of wine which is the seller’s own produce. Licences may be withdrawn for offences against the law. Licensed houses are under the supervision of the police, who fix the hours of closing; it is usually 10P.M., but is commonly extended to 11P.M.or midnight in the larger towns and still later in the case of particular establishments. Some cafés in Berlin do not close till 3A.M.and some never close at all. Persons remaining on the premises in forbidden hours after being ordered to leave by the landlord are liable to punishment. Serving drunkards and persons of school age is forbidden. Drunkards, in addition to fines or imprisonment for disorderly conduct, are liable to be deprived of control of their affairs and placed under guardianship. For music and dancing special permits are required. With regard to taxation, in Prussia all business establishments beyond a certain value pay an annual tax and licensed houses are on the same footing as the rest. Businesses producing less than £75 a year or of less than £150 capital value are free; the rest are arranged in four classes on a rising scale. In the three lower classes the tax ranges from a minimum of 4s. to a maximum of £24; in the highest class, which represents businesses producing £2500 and upwards (or a capital value of £50,000 and upwards) the tax is 1% of the profits. There is also a stamp duty on the licence ranging from 1s. 6d. to £5. The latter goes to the local revenue, the business tax to the government. Beer and spirits are also subject to an excise tax, from which the imperial revenue derived £7,700,000 in 1901; but the total taxation of the liquor trade could only be calculated from the returns of all the federated states.

The laws of France and Germany are fairly representative of the European states, with some minor variations. InHollandthe number of licensed spirit retailers is limited in proportion to population (1 to 500), and the taxation, which is both national and local, ranges from 10 to 25% of the annual value.

InAustria-HungaryandRumaniathe licence duty is graduated according to the population of the place, as used to be the case in Prussia. In 1877 a severe police law was applied to Galicia in order to check the excesses of spirit-drinking. The Poles, it may be observed, are spirit-drinkers, and the exceptional treatment of this part of the Austrian empire is one more illustration of the trouble arising from that habit, which forces special attempts to restrain it. The law, just mentioned, in Holland is another instance; and the particular cases of Russia and Scandinavia, described below, enforce the same lesson. Where the drink of the people is confined to wine and beer there is comparatively little trouble. InSwitzerlandthe manufacture and wholesale sale of spirits has been a federal monopoly since 1887, but the retailing is a licensed trade, as elsewhere, and is less restricted than formerly. Before federation in 1874 the cantons used to direct local authorities to restrict the number of licences in proportion to population; but under the new constitution the general principle of free trade was laid down, and the Federal Council intimated to the cantonal authorities that it was no longer lawful to refuse a licence on the ground that it was not needed.

Russia.—In 1895 Russia entered upon an experiment in regard to the spirit traffic and began to convert the previously existing licence system into a state monopoly. The experiment was held to be successful and was gradually extended to the whole country. Under this system, which to some extent resembles that of South Carolina but is much less rigid, the distilleries remain in private hands but their output is under government control. The retail sale is confined to government shops, which sell only in sealed bottles for consumption off the premises, and to commercial establishments which sell on commission for the government. Spirit bars are abolished and only in a few high class restaurants are spirits sold by the glass; in ordinary eating-houses and at railway refreshment rooms they are sold in sealed government bottles but may be consumed on the premises. The primary object was to check the excesses of spirit-drinking which were very great in Russia among the mass of the people. The effect has been a very large reduction in the number of liquor shops, which has extended also to the licensed beer-houses though they are not directly affected as such. Presumably when they could no longer sell spirits it did not pay them to take out a licence for beer.

Sweden and Norway.—In these countries the celebrated “Gothenburg” or company system is in force together with licensing and local veto. Like the Russian state monopoly the company system applies only to spirits, and for the same reason; spirits are or were the common drink of the people and excessive facilities in the early part of the 19th century produced the usual result. The story is very similar to that of England in the 18th century, given above. From 1774 to 1788 distilling in Sweden was a crown monopoly, but popular opposition and illicit trade compelled the abandonment of this plan in favour of general permission granted to farmers, innkeepers and landowners. At the beginning of the 19th century the right to distil belonged to every owner and cultivator of land on payment of a trifling licence duty, and it was further extended to occupiers. In 1829 the number of stills paying licence duty was 173,124 or 1 to every 16 persons; the practice was in fact universal and the whole population was debauched with spirits. The physical and moral results were the same as those recorded in England a hundred years before. The supply was somewhat restricted by royal ordinance in 1835, but the traffic was not effectively dealt with until 1855 when a law was passed which practically abolished domestic distilling by fixing a minimum daily output of 200 gallons, with a tax of about 10d. a gallon. This turned the business into a manufacture and speedily reduced the number of stills. At the same time the retail sale was subjected to drastic regulations. A licensing system was introduced which gave the local authority power to fix the number of licences and put them up to auction or to hand over the retail traffic altogether to a company formed for the purpose of carrying it on. The latter idea, which is the Gothenburg system, was taken from the example of Falun and Jönköping which had a few years ago voluntarily adopted the plan. The law of 1855 further gave rural districts the power of local veto. Four-fifths of the population live in rural districts, and the great majority of them immediately took advantage of the provision. The company system, on the other hand, was not applied by the towns until 1865, when Gothenburg adopted it.

In Norway the course of events was very similar. There, too, distilling and spirit-drinking were practically universal in the early part of the century under the laws of 1816, but were checked by legislation a few years sooner than in Sweden. In 1845 a special licensing system was introduced, giving the local authority power to fix the number of licences, and in 1848 the small and domesticstills were stopped. The Gothenburg system was not adopted in Norway until 1871 and then with some modification. The essence of this method of conducting the retail traffic is that the element of private gain is eliminated. A monopoly is granted to a company consisting of a number of disinterested citizens of standing with a capital, and they manage the sale both for “on” and “off” consumption in the public interest. The profits, after payment of 5% on the capital, originally went in Sweden mainly to the municipality in relief of rates, in Norway to objects of public utility. The latter was considered preferable because it offers less temptation to make the profits as high as possible. Fault has, however, been found with both methods, and payment of profits to the state is now preferred. In 1894 a law was passed in Norway providing for the following distribution: 65% to the state, 20% to the company, and 15% to the municipality. In 1907 Sweden adopted a law in the same direction. The intention is to eliminate more completely the motive of gain from the traffic. In 1898 the net profits of the companies exceeded half a million sterling in Sweden and reached £117,500 in Norway.

The company system had in 1910 had more than half a century’s trial; it had gone through some vicissitudes and been subjected to much criticism, which was balanced by at least as much eulogy. It had held its own in Sweden, where 101 towns had adopted it in 1906. In Norway at the same date it was in force in 32 towns while 29 had adopted local veto, which was extended from the country districts, where it had previously been optional, to the towns by the law of 1894.

As we have already said, it only applies to spirits. In both countries the sale of beer and wine for “on” consumption is carried on in the ordinary way under a licensing system; the sale of beer in bottles for consumption off the premises is practically free. The beer traffic is regarded by some as a “safety valve” and by others as a defect in the system. The consumption has greatly increased in Sweden; in Norway it increased up to 1900 and has since declined. But other more deleterious substitutes for spirits have come into use in the shape of concocted “wines” and methylated spirits. The company management has had the following effects: it has greatly reduced the number of spirit bars, improved their character and conduct, added eating-rooms, where good and cheap meals are served, stopped drinking on credit and by persons under 18 years of age, shortened the hours of sale, raised the price and lowered the strength of spirits. But the restrictions placed on the sale for consumption on the premises has stimulated the retail bottle trade and home drinking.

British Dominions.

Canada.—Liquor legislation in Canada has been much influenced by the proximity and example of the United States. Licensing, modified by local veto, prevails throughout the Dominion except in the Indian settlements; but the several provinces have their own laws, which vary in stringency. As a whole the licensing system rather resembles the American than the British type. The licensing authority is either a board of commissioners or the municipality, and there has been the same tendency as in the United States to substitute the former for the latter. In British Columbia no new hotel licence is granted in cities except on the request of two-thirds of the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property, but their consent is not necessary for renewal. In other provinces the municipal authority has power to limit as well as regulate the licensed trade. Sunday closing is the rule; on week-days the usual closing hour in the large towns is 11P.M.The power of locally prohibiting licensed houses by vote was introduced by the Canada Temperance Act, a federal law passed in 1875 and commonly known as the Scott Act. Extensive use has been made of it, especially in the maritime provinces, where the temperance sentiment is very strong, but in recent years it has rather lost ground. In 1908 it was in force in 22 counties or cities, of which ten were in Nova Scotia, ten in New Brunswick and two in Manitoba; it was nowhere in force in the remaining provinces. Three elections were held under the act in 1907-1908, two in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick, and in the first two prohibition was defeated. In 1910 Nova Scotia, apparently dissatisfied with the progress of local prohibition under the Scott Act, passed a prohibitory law for the whole province, exempting Halifax, the capital and only considerable town, but making provision for its subsequent inclusion by a referendum to the ratepayers. There is in Canada the same oscillation of public opinion as in the United States, and the same toleration of evasion of the law. The writer has stayed in hotels in several prohibition towns, where there was not only a regular bar but a printed wine list from which anything could be ordered at meals without any concealment at all. The chief difference between the conduct of hotels under prohibition and under licensing is that under licensing the bar is closed at the legal hour, which is usually 11 o’clock, and under prohibition it remains open as long as there are any customers to serve. The law is nominally respected by imposing a periodical fine. In small towns and rural districts local prohibition is much more effective. In short the experience of Canada confirms that of the United States. In addition to the federal law, the local authorities have power, in Quebec, to prohibit as well as to regulate the trade. The high licence system has not been adopted in Canada. The total revenue derived by the Dominion government in 1908 from taxation of the liquor trade, including duties and licence fees, was £1,800,000.

Australia.—The licensing laws of Australia are less repressive and the practice more resembles the British model. Queensland has adopted local prohibition, but it is not applied. New South Wales has a limited form of veto applying only to new licences; South Australia has the same together with a provision for the optional reduction of licences; Victoria, on the other hand, allows an option both ways, for reducing or increasing the licences; West Australia and Tasmania merely give the local ratepayers the right of protest; in West Australia it holds good against new licences only and if a majority object the licence is refused; in Tasmania protest may be made against renewals and transfers also, but the decision lies with the licensing authority. There is practically no prohibition in the Commonwealth.

New Zealand.—This state has a licensing system with local option provisions of its own. The licensing authority is a local committee, and there are seven kinds of licence, of which two are for consumption on the premises. The fees range from £1 for a wine licence to £40 for a full publican’s licence in towns, or £45 for one permitting an additional hour’s sale at night; the fees go to the revenue of the local authority. In 1907 the total number of licences granted was 2179 and the fees paid amounted to £45,865. Of the whole number, 1367, or 1 to every 666 persons, were houses licensed for on consumption. The closing hour is 10P.M.except for houses specially licensed to be open till 11P.M.In 1893 local option was introduced by the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, which provided for the taking of a poll on the question of licences. The electoral districts for the purpose are the same as for the House of Representatives, except that the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin each form a single district for the licensing poll. It is taken at the same time as the election of members of the House of Representatives, and three questions are propounded—(1) continuance of existing licences, (2) reduction, (3) no licences. A voter may vote for two proposals but not more. An absolute majority of all the votes recorded carries (1); an absolute majority of all the votes recorded carries (2), whereupon the licensing committee reduces the licences by any number from 5 to 25% of the total. But if three-fifths of all the votes cast are in favour of no licence then that supersedes (1) and (2). The poll taken in December 1905 gave the following results: of the 68 districts 40 carried no proposal (which is equivalent to continuance of existing licences), 18 carried continuance, 4 reduction, 6 no licence, including 3 which had previously adopted no licence. Women, it must be remembered, vote as well as men. The aggregate vote in favour of no licence shows a large proportional increase since the first poll in the present system in 1896.

Authorities.—Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws 1896-1899, Reports and Appendices; Licensing Statistics of England and Wales, annual. Canada Year-book; New Zealand Year-book;Code de Commerce, France;Gewerbeordnung, German Empire; Hand-book of Canada (British Association);New Encyclopedia of Social Reform; Brewers’ Almanack; Committee of Fifty (New York),The Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects(F. H. Wines and J. Koren); E. L. Fanshawe,Liquor Legislation in the United States and Canada; E.R.L. Gould,The Gothenburg System(Special Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor); E. A. Pratt,Licensing and Temperance in Sweden, Norway and Denmark; J. Rowntree and A. Sherwell,The Temperance Problem and Social Reform;The Taxation of the Liquor Trade; A. Shadwell,Drink, Temperance and Legislation; Strauss und Torney,Schanks-Konzessionswesen; F. W. Thompson,High Licence. See alsoTemperance.

(A. Sl.)

1In 1908 local option was adopted in Ohio.

LIRA,the Italian name (Lat.libra, pound) for a silver coin, the Italian unit of value in the Latin Monetary Union, corresponding to the French, Swiss and Belgian franc (q.v.), and the drachma of Greece, &c. The name is sometimes used of the Turkish pound,medjidie.

LIRI,orGarigliano(anc.Liris), a river of central Italy, which rises at Cappadocia, 7 m. W. of Avezzano, and traverses a beautiful valley between lofty mountains, running S.S.E. as far as Arce. This valley is followed by the railway from Avezzano to Roccasecca. At Isola del Liri are two fine waterfalls. Below Ceprano, the ancient Fregellae, after it has issued from the mountains, the Liri is joined by the Sacco (anc.Trerus) formed by the union of several torrents between Palestrina and Segni, and the Melfa from the mountains N.E. of Atina, and runs E. through a broader valley. It then turns S. again through the mountains S.W. of the Via Latina (the line of which is followed by the modern railway to Naples), keeping W. of Rocca Monfina, and falls into the sea just below Minturnae, after a course of 104 m. It is not navigable at any point.

LIROCONITE,a rare mineral consisting of hydrous basic copper and aluminium arsenate, with the probable formulaCu9Al4(OH)15(AsO4)5·20H2O. It crystallizes in the monoclinic system, forming flattened octahedra almost lenticular in shape (hence the German nameLinsenkupfer). Characteristic is the bright sky-blue colour, though sometimes, possibly owing to differences in chemical composition, it is verdigris-green. The colour of the streak or powder is rather paler; hence the name liroconite, from the Gr.λειρός, pale, andκονία, powder. The hardness is 2½, and the specific gravity 2.95. The mineral was found at the beginning of the 19th century in the copper mines near Gwennap in Cornwall, where it was associated with other copper arsenates in the upper, oxidized portions of the lodes.

(L. J. S.)

LISBON(Lisboa), the capital of the kingdom of Portugal and of the department of Lisbon; on the right bank of the river Tagus, near its entrance into the Atlantic Ocean, in 38° 42′ 24″ N. and 9° 11′ 10″ W. Pop. (1900) 356,009. Lisbon, the westernmost of European capitals, is built in a succession of terraces up the sides of a range of low hills, backed by the granite mountains of Cintra. It fronts the Tagus, and the view from the river of its white houses, and its numerous parks and gardens, is comparable in beauty with the approach to Naples or Constantinople by sea. The lower reaches of the estuary form a channel (Entrada do Tejo) about 2 m. wide and 8 m. long, which is partially closed at its mouth by a bar of silt. Owing to the reclamation of the foreshore on the right, and the consequent narrowing of the waterway, the current flows very swiftly down this channel, which is the sole outlet for the immense volume of water accumulated in the Rada de Lisboa—a tidal lake formed by the broadening of the estuary in its upper part to fill a basin 11 m. long with an average breadth of nearly 7 m. The southern or left shore of the channel rises sharply from the water’s edge in a line of almost unbroken though not lofty cliffs; the margin of the lake is flat, marshy and irregular. Lisbon extends for more than 5 m. along the shores of both channel and lake, and for more than 3 m. inland. Its suburbs, which generally terminate in a belt of vineyards, parks or gardens, interspersed with villas and farms, stretch in some cases beyond the Estrada Militar, or Estrada da Nova Circumvallação, an inner line of defence 25 m. long, supplementary to the forts and other military works at the mouth of the Tagus, on the heights of Cintra and Alverca, and at Caxias, Sacavem, Monsanto and Ameixoeira. The climate of Lisbon is mild and equable, though somewhat oppressive in summer. Extreme cold is so rare that in the twenty years 1856-1876 snow fell only thrice; and in the 18th and early 19th centuries Lisbon was justly esteemed as a winter health-resort. The mean annual temperature is 60.1° F., the mean for winter 50.9°, the average rainfall 29.45 in. As in 1906, when no rain fell between April and September, long periods of drought are not uncommon, although the proximity of the Atlantic and the frequency of sea-fogs keep the atmosphere humid; the mean atmospheric moisture is nearly 71 (100 = saturation). There is a good water supply, conveyed to the city by two vast aqueducts. The older of these is the Aqueducto das Aguas Livres, which was built in the first half of the 18th century and starts from a point near Bellas, 15 m. W.N.W. Its conduits, which are partly underground, are conveyed across the Alcantara valley through a magnificent viaduct of thirty-five arches, exceeding 200 ft. in height. At the Lisbon end of the aqueduct is the Mae d’Agua (i.e.“Mother of Water”), containing a huge stone hall in the midst of which is the reservoir. The Alviella aqueduct, opened in 1880, brings water from Alviella near Pernes, 70 m. N.N.E. Numerous fountains are among the means of distribution. Sewage is discharged into the Tagus, and the sanitation of the city is good, except in the older quarters.

Divisions of the City.—The four municipal districts (bairros) into which Lisbon is divided are theAlfama, or old town, in the east; theCidade Baixa, or lower town, which extends inland from the naval arsenal and custom house; theBairro Alto, comprising all the high ground west of the Cidade Baixa; and theAlcantara, or westernmost district, named after the small river Alcantara, which flows down into the Tagus. Other names commonly used, though unofficial, are “Lisboa Oriental” as an alternative for Alfama; “Lisboa Occidental” for the slopes which lead from the Cidade Baixa to the Bairro Alto; “Buenos Ayres” (originally so named from the number of its South American residents) for the Bairro Alto S.W. of the Estrella Gardens and E. of the Necessidades Park; “Campo de Ourique” and “Rato” for the suburbs respectively N.W. and N.E. of Buenos Ayres.

The Alfama.—The Alfama, which represents Roman and Moorish Lisbon, is less rich in archaeological interest than its great antiquity might suggest, although parts of a Roman temple, baths, &c., have been disinterred. But as the earthquake of 1755 did comparatively little damage to this quarter, many of its narrow, steep and winding alleys retain the medieval aspect which all other parts of the city have lost; and almost rival the slums of Oporto in picturesque squalor. The most conspicuous feature of the Alfama is the rocky hill surmounted by the Castello de São Jorge, a Moorish citadel which has been converted into a fort and barracks. The Sé Patriarchal, a cathedral founded in 1150 by Alphonso I., is said by tradition to have been a Moorish mosque. It was wrecked by an earthquake in 1344 and rebuilt in 1380, but the earthquake of 1755 shattered the dome, the roof and belfry were subsequently burned, and after the work of restoration was completed the choir and façade were the only parts of the 14th-century Gothic church unspoiled. In one of the side chapels is the tomb of St Vincent (d. 304), patron saint of Lisbon; a pair of ravens kept within the cathedral precincts are popularly believed to be the same birds which, according to the legend, miraculously guided the saint’s vessel to the city. The armorial bearings of Lisbon, representing a ship and two ravens, commemorate the legend. Other noteworthy buildings in the Alfama are the 12th-century church of São Vicente de Fóra, originally, as its name implies, “outside” the city; the 13th-century chapel of Nossa Senhora do Monte; the 16th-century church of Nossa Senhora da Graça, which contains a reputed wonder-working statue of Christ and the tomb of Alphonso d’Albuquerque (1453-1515); and a secularized Augustinian monastery, used as the archbishop’s palace.

Modern Lisbon.—West of the Alfama the city dates chiefly from the period after the great earthquake. Its lofty houses, arranged in long straight streets, its gardens and open spaces, a few of its public buildings, and almost all its numerous statues and fountains, will bear comparison with those of any European capital. The centre of social and commercial activity is the district which comprises the Praça do Commercio, Rua Augusta, Rocío, and Avenida da Liberdade, streets and squares occupying the valley of a vanished tributary of the Tagus. The Praça do Commercio is a spacious square, one side of which faces the river, while the other three sides are occupied by the arcaded buildings of the custom house, post office and other government property. In the midst is a bronze equestrian statue of Joseph I., by J. M. de Castro, which was erected in 1775 and gives point to the name of “Black Horse Square” commonly applied to the Praça by the British. A triumphal arch on the north side leads to Rua Augusta, originally intended to be the cloth-merchants’ street; for the plan upon which Lisbon was rebuilt after 1755 involved the restriction of each industry to a specified area. This plan succeeded in the neighbouring Rua Aurea and Rua da Prata, still, as their names indicate, famous for goldsmiths’ and silversmiths’ shops. Rua Augusta terminates on the north in the Rocío or Praça de Dom Pedro Quarto, a square paved with mosaic of a curious undulatory pattern and containing two bronze fountains, a lofty pillar surmounted by a statue of Pedro IV., and the royal national theatre (Teatrode Dona Maria Segunda), erected on the site which the Inquisition buildings occupied from 1520 to 1836. The narrow Rua do Principe, leading past the central railway station, a handsome Mauresque building, connects the Rocío with the Avenida da Liberdade, one of the finest avenues in Europe. The central part of the Avenida, a favourite open-air resort of Lisbon society, is used for riding and driving; on each side of it are paved double avenues of trees, with flower-beds, statues, ponds, fountains, &c., andbetween these and the broad pavements are two roadways for trams and heavy traffic. Thus the Avenida has the appearance of three parallel streets, separated by avenues of trees instead of houses. Its width exceeds 300 ft. It owes its name to an obelisk 98 ft. high, erected in 1882 at its southern end, to commemorate the liberation of Portugal from Spanish rule (December, 1640). North and north-east of the Avenida are the Avenida Park, the Edward VII. Park (so named in memory of a visit paid to Lisbon by the king of England in 1903), Campo Grande, with its finely wooded walks, and Campo Pequeno, with the bull-ring. Other noteworthy public gardens are the Passeio da Estrella, commanding magnificent views of the city and river, the Largo do Principe Real, planted with bananas and other tropical trees, the Tapada das Necessidades, originally the park of one of the royal residences, and the Botanical Gardens of the polytechnic school, with a fine avenue of palms and collections of tropical and subtropical flora hardly surpassed in Europe. There are large Portuguese cemeteries east and west of Lisbon, a German cemetery, and an English cemetery, known also asOs Cyprestesfrom the number of its cypresses. This was laid out in 1717 at the cost of the British and Dutch residents and contains the graves of Henry Fielding (1707-1754), the novelist, and Dr Philip Doddridge (1702-1751), the Nonconformist divine.

Lisbon is the seat of an archbishop who since 1716 has borneex officiothe honorary title of patriarch; he presides over the House of Peers and is usually appointed a cardinal. The churches of modern Lisbon are generally built in the Italian style of the 18th century; the interiors are overlaid with heavy ornament. Perhaps the finest is the Estrella church, with its white marble dome and twin towers visible for many miles above the city. The late Renaissance church of São Roque contains two beautiful chapels dating from the 18th century, one of which is inlaid with painted tiles, while the other was constructed in Rome of coloured marbles, and consecrated by the pope before being shipped to Lisbon. Its mosaics and lapis lazuli pillars are exceptionally fine. The 14th-century Gothic Igreja do Carmo was shattered by the great earthquake. Only the apse, pillared aisles and outer walls remain standing, and the interior has been converted into an archaeological museum. The church of Nossa Senhora da Conceição has a magnificent Manoeline façade.

The Palacio das Cortes, in which both Houses of Parliament sit, is a 16th-century Benedictine convent, used for its present purpose since 1834. It contains the national archives, better known as the Torre do Tombo collection, because in 1375 the archives were first stored in a tower of that name. The royal palace, or Paço das Necessidades, west of Buenos Ayres, is a vast 18th-century mansion occupying the site of a chapel dedicated to Nossa Senhora das Necessidades (i.e.“Our Lady who helps at need”).

The Suburbs of Ajuda and Belem.—In the extreme west of Lisbon, beyond the Alcantara valley, are Belem (i.e.“Bethlehem”), beside the Tagus, and Ajuda, on the heights above. The Paço de Belem, built in 1700 for the counts of Aveiro, became the chief royal palace under John V. (1706-1750). The Torre de Belem, on the foreshore, is a small tower of beautiful design, built in 1520 for the protection of shipping. The finest ecclesiastical building in Portugal except the monasteries of Alcobaça and Batalha also fronts the river. It is the Convento dos Jeronymos, a Hieronymite convent and church, founded in 1499 to commemorate the discovery of the sea-route to India by Vasco da Gama. It was built of white limestone by João de Castilho (d. 1581), perhaps the greatest of Manoeline architects. Its cloisters form a square with blunted corners, surrounded by a two-storeyed arcade, every available portion of which is covered with exquisite sculptures. Parts of the building have been restored, but the cloisters and the beautiful central gateway remain unspoiled. The interior contains many royal tombs, including that of Catherine of Braganza (d. 1705), the wife of Charles II. of England. The supposed remains of Camoens and Vasco da Gama were interred here in 1880. In 1834, when the convent was secularized, its buildings were assigned to the Casa Pia, an orphanage founded by Maria I. Since 1903 they have contained the archaeological collections of the Portuguese Ethnological Museum. The royal Ajuda palace, begun (1816-1826) by John VI. but left unfinished, derives its name from the chapel of N. S. de Ajuda (“Our Lady of Aid”). It contains some fine pictures and historical trophies. In the coach-house there is an unsurpassed collection of state coaches, the cars upon which figures of saints are borne in procession, sedan chairs, old cabriolets and other curious vehicles.The Environs of Lisbon.—The administrative district of Lisbon has an area of 3065 sq. m., with a population of 709,509 in 1900. It comprises the lower parts of the Tagus and Sado; the sea-coast from 5 m. S. of Cape Carvoeiro to within 3 m. of the bluff called the Escarpa do Rojo; and a strip of territory extending inland for a mean distance of 30 m. This region corresponds with the southern part of Estremadura (q.v.). Its more important towns, Setubal, Cintra, Torres Vedras and Mafra, are described in separate articles. Sines, a small seaport on Cape Sines, was the birthplace of Vasco da Gama. On the left bank of the Tagus, opposite Lisbon, are the small towns of Almada, Barreiro, Aldeia Gallega and Seixal, and the hamlet of Trafaria, inhabited by fishermen. The beautiful strip of coast west of Oeiras and south of Cape Roca is often called the “Portuguese Riviera.” Its fine climate, mineral springs and sea-bathing attract visitors at all seasons to the picturesque fortified bay of Cascaes, or to Estoril, Mont’ Estoril and São João do Estoril, modern towns consisting chiefly of villas, hotels and gardens. The Boca do Inferno (“Mouth of Hell”) is a cavity in the rocks at Cascaes resembling the Bufador at Peñiscola (q.v.). The villages of Carcavellos, Bucellas, Lumiar and Collares produce excellent wines; at Carcavellos is the receiving station for cables, with a large British staff, and a club and grounds where social and athletic meetings are held by the British colony. Alhandra, on the right bank of the Tagus, above Lisbon, was the birthplace of Albuquerque; fighting bulls for the Lisbon arena are bred in the adjacent pastures.

The Environs of Lisbon.—The administrative district of Lisbon has an area of 3065 sq. m., with a population of 709,509 in 1900. It comprises the lower parts of the Tagus and Sado; the sea-coast from 5 m. S. of Cape Carvoeiro to within 3 m. of the bluff called the Escarpa do Rojo; and a strip of territory extending inland for a mean distance of 30 m. This region corresponds with the southern part of Estremadura (q.v.). Its more important towns, Setubal, Cintra, Torres Vedras and Mafra, are described in separate articles. Sines, a small seaport on Cape Sines, was the birthplace of Vasco da Gama. On the left bank of the Tagus, opposite Lisbon, are the small towns of Almada, Barreiro, Aldeia Gallega and Seixal, and the hamlet of Trafaria, inhabited by fishermen. The beautiful strip of coast west of Oeiras and south of Cape Roca is often called the “Portuguese Riviera.” Its fine climate, mineral springs and sea-bathing attract visitors at all seasons to the picturesque fortified bay of Cascaes, or to Estoril, Mont’ Estoril and São João do Estoril, modern towns consisting chiefly of villas, hotels and gardens. The Boca do Inferno (“Mouth of Hell”) is a cavity in the rocks at Cascaes resembling the Bufador at Peñiscola (q.v.). The villages of Carcavellos, Bucellas, Lumiar and Collares produce excellent wines; at Carcavellos is the receiving station for cables, with a large British staff, and a club and grounds where social and athletic meetings are held by the British colony. Alhandra, on the right bank of the Tagus, above Lisbon, was the birthplace of Albuquerque; fighting bulls for the Lisbon arena are bred in the adjacent pastures.

Railways, Shipping and Commerce.—Lisbon has five railway stations—the central (Lisboa-Rocío), for the lines to Cintra, northern and central Portugal, and Madrid via Valencia de Alcántara; the Santa Apolonia or Caes dos Soldados, at the eastern extremity of the quays, for the same lines (excluding Cintra) and for southern Portugal and Andalusia; the Caes do Sodré and Santos, farther west along the quays, for Cascaes; and the Barreiro, on the left bank of the Tagus, for southern Portugal. In 1902 the railways north and south of the Tagus were connected near Lisbon by a bridge. In the previous year an extensive system of electric tramways replaced the old-fashioned cable cars and mule trams. Electric and hydraulic lifts are used where the streets are too steep for trams. Lisbon is lighted by both electricity and gas; it has an admirable telephone service, and is connected by the Carcavellos cable-station with Cornwall (England), Vigo in Galicia, Gibraltar, the Azores and Madeira.

Ships of the largest size can enter the Tagus, and the Barreiro inlet is navigable at low water by vessels drawing 16 ft. There are extensive quays along the right bank, with hydraulic cranes, two graving docks, a slipway, warehouses and lines of railway. The government and private docks are on the left bank. Loading and discharging are principally effected by means of lighters. The exports are wines, oil, fruit, tinned fish, salt, colonial produce, cork, pitwood, leather and wool. The imports include cotton and woollen goods, linen, ale and porter, butter, tea, hardware, tin plates, coal, iron, machinery, chemical manure, &c., from Great Britain; grain and petroleum from the United States; dried codfish from Norway and Newfoundland; silks, perfumery and fancy goods from France; hemp, flax, grain, petroleum and cloth from Russia; linen, machinery, hardware, sugar, &c., from Germany and Holland, iron, steel, timber, pitch and salt fish from the Baltic; cocoa, coffee, wax and rubber from the Portuguese colonies. Towards the close of the 19th century the tourist traffic from Great Britain and Germany attained considerable importance, and Lisbon has long been one of the principal ports of debarcation for passengers from Brazil and of embarcation for emigrants to South America. Shipbuilding, including the construction of vessels for the national navy, is a growing industry. The fisheries have always been important, and in no European fishmarket is the produce more varied. Sardines and tunny are cured and tinned for export. In addition to a fleet of about 600 sailing boats, the Tagus is the headquarters of a small fleet of steam trawlers. The industries of Lisbon include dyeing, distillation of spirits and manufactures of woollen, cotton, silk and linen fabrics, of pottery, soap, paper, chemicals, cement, corks, tobacco, preserved foods and biscuits.

Education and Charity.—Although the seat of the only university in Portugal was fixed at Coimbra in 1527, Lisbon is the educational centre of the Portuguese world, including Brazil.Its chief learned societies are the Society of Medical Sciences, the Geographical Society, the Royal Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Fine Arts, the Royal Conservatory of Music and the Propaganda de Portugal. The museum of the Academy of Fine Arts contains the largest collection of pictures and statues by native and foreign artists in Portugal. The Geographical Society has gained an international reputation; it possesses a valuable library and museum. The National Library, founded in 1796, contains over 400,000 printed books, and upwards of 9000 MSS. There are also colonial, naval, artillery, natural history and commercial museums, meteorological and astronomical observatories, zoological gardens and an aquarium. Purely educational institutions include the medical, polytechnic, military and naval schools, commercial, agricultural and industrial institutes, a school of art, a central lyceum, a school for teachers, &c. The English college for British Roman Catholics dates from 1628. The Irish Dominicans have a seminary, and Portuguese ecclesiastical schools are numerous. There are hospitals for women, and for contagious diseases, almshouses, orphanages, a foundling hospital and a very large quarantine station on the south bank of the Tagus, founded in 1857 after an outbreak of yellow fever had devastated the city. Foremost among the theatres, circuses and other places of amusement is the royal opera-house of São Carlos, built in 1792-1793 on the model of the Scala at Milan.

Population.—The population of Lisbon, 187,4041in 1878, rose to 301,206 in 1890 and 356,009 in 1900. It includes a large foreign colony, composed chiefly of Spaniards, British, Germans, French, Brazilians and immigrants from the Portuguese colonies, among whom are many half-castes. The majority of the Spaniards are domestic servants and labourers from Galicia, whose industry and easily gained knowledge of the kindred Portuguese language enables them to earn a better livelihood here than in their own homes. The British, German and French communities control a large share of the foreign trade. The Brazilians and colonial immigrants are often merchants and landowners who come to the mother-country to spend their fortunes in a congenial social environment.

Back to Index Next