FOOTNOTES:

1. That legislative facilities should be afforded for the local adoption of the Gothenburg and Chamberlain schemes, or of some modification of them.2. That renewals of beer-house licences before 1879 should be placed on the same footing as those of public-houses.3. That in cases of decisions affecting the renewal of licences in boroughs having separate quarter sessions, the appeal shall be to the Recorder, where there is one, and not to the county justices.4. That justices should be authorised to refuse transfers on the same grounds of misconduct as those on which renewals of licences are now refused.5. That no removal of a licence from house to house should be sanctioned without allowing the inhabitants of the interested locality the opportunity of expressing their objections.6. A considerable increase in licence duties.7. Licensed houses outside the metropolis, not to open before 7a.m.and be closed earlier than at present.8. That licensed houses in Scotland and Ireland be closed one hour earlier than at present on week-days.9. That on Sundays, licensed houses in the metropolis should be open fromonetothreep.m.for consumption off the premises, and for consumption on, fromseventoelevenp.m.In other places from 12.30 to 2.30p.m.for consumption off, and for consumption on the premises from 7 to 10p.m.in populous places, and from 7 to 9 in others.10. Even if a person, professing to be abonâ fidetraveller, has on the previous night lodged outside the 3-mile limit, as defined by the Act, it still rests with the magistrates to determine whether he be abonâ fidetraveller or not.11. That justices should have discretionary power of licensing music-halls and dancing saloons in the country as at present in the metropolis, whether connected with public-houses or not, and that all such places should be subject to supervision by the police.12. That certain serious offences should entail the compulsory endorsement of the licence, and that the treating of constables should be added to the list of offences included in the category.13. That any person ‘having or keeping for sale’ any intoxicating liquors without a licence, should be liable to penalties of the same description and amount as those under the existing law ‘for selling or exposing for sale,’ and that the powers of apprehension upon warrant in cases of illicit drinking should be generally applied.14. That the entering of liquors under some other name upon the bill of a shopkeeper holding a licence to sell off the premises should be an offence against the licence punishable by immediate forfeiture.15. That a list of convictions kept by the justices’ clerks should be legal evidence of previous convictions.16. That all occasional licences to sell elsewhere than on licensed premises should be granted by two justices at quarter sessions.17. That fines and penalties should apply in Scotland as in England.18. That the ‘Grocers’ Licence’ recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1877 should be adopted in Ireland.19. That in Ireland and Scotland, as in England, no spirits should be sold to children under sixteen.[240]

1. That legislative facilities should be afforded for the local adoption of the Gothenburg and Chamberlain schemes, or of some modification of them.

2. That renewals of beer-house licences before 1879 should be placed on the same footing as those of public-houses.

3. That in cases of decisions affecting the renewal of licences in boroughs having separate quarter sessions, the appeal shall be to the Recorder, where there is one, and not to the county justices.

4. That justices should be authorised to refuse transfers on the same grounds of misconduct as those on which renewals of licences are now refused.

5. That no removal of a licence from house to house should be sanctioned without allowing the inhabitants of the interested locality the opportunity of expressing their objections.

6. A considerable increase in licence duties.

7. Licensed houses outside the metropolis, not to open before 7a.m.and be closed earlier than at present.

8. That licensed houses in Scotland and Ireland be closed one hour earlier than at present on week-days.

9. That on Sundays, licensed houses in the metropolis should be open fromonetothreep.m.for consumption off the premises, and for consumption on, fromseventoelevenp.m.In other places from 12.30 to 2.30p.m.for consumption off, and for consumption on the premises from 7 to 10p.m.in populous places, and from 7 to 9 in others.

10. Even if a person, professing to be abonâ fidetraveller, has on the previous night lodged outside the 3-mile limit, as defined by the Act, it still rests with the magistrates to determine whether he be abonâ fidetraveller or not.

11. That justices should have discretionary power of licensing music-halls and dancing saloons in the country as at present in the metropolis, whether connected with public-houses or not, and that all such places should be subject to supervision by the police.

12. That certain serious offences should entail the compulsory endorsement of the licence, and that the treating of constables should be added to the list of offences included in the category.

13. That any person ‘having or keeping for sale’ any intoxicating liquors without a licence, should be liable to penalties of the same description and amount as those under the existing law ‘for selling or exposing for sale,’ and that the powers of apprehension upon warrant in cases of illicit drinking should be generally applied.

14. That the entering of liquors under some other name upon the bill of a shopkeeper holding a licence to sell off the premises should be an offence against the licence punishable by immediate forfeiture.

15. That a list of convictions kept by the justices’ clerks should be legal evidence of previous convictions.

16. That all occasional licences to sell elsewhere than on licensed premises should be granted by two justices at quarter sessions.

17. That fines and penalties should apply in Scotland as in England.

18. That the ‘Grocers’ Licence’ recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1877 should be adopted in Ireland.

19. That in Ireland and Scotland, as in England, no spirits should be sold to children under sixteen.[240]

In 1879, Dr. Cameron’s Habitual Drunkards Bill became law.

In the same year, Mr. Stevenson introduced the English Sunday Closing Bill, which met with a by no means unfavourable reception, though it was not at present carried. The following year he moved again in the same direction. Mr. Pease carried an amendment to this which provided for off sale during limited hours in the country, and for such modified sale in the metropolitan districts as would satisfy the wish of the country.

In 1880, Sir Wilfrid Lawson carried his ‘Local Option’ resolution, by a majority of twenty-six. This was another form of the original ‘Permissive Bill.’ All detail is here omitted. It affirms the justice of local communities being entrusted with the power to protect themselves from the operation of the liquor traffic.

In June, 1881, the same baronet moved: ‘That in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give legislative effect to the resolution passed on June 18, 1880.’ This was carried by a majority of forty-two.

Earl Stanhope’s Bill for preventing payment of wages in public-houses has passed the Upper House.

An important scheme of amendment of the licensing laws was put forward by the ‘Committee on Intemperance for the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury.’

Convinced that without an improved and stringent system of legislation, and its strict enforcement, no effectual and permanent remedy for intemperance can be looked for, they urge asLegislative Remedies1. The repeal of the Beer Act of 1830, and the total suppression of beer-houses throughout the country.2. The closing of public-houses on Sunday,bonâ fidetravellers excepted.3. The earlier closing of public-houses on week-days, especially on Saturday.4. A great reduction in the number of public-houses throughout the kingdom; it being in evidence that in proportion as facilities for drinking are reduced, intemperance is restrained.5. Placing the whole licensing system under one authority.6. The rigid enforcement of the penalties now attached to drunkenness, both on the actual offenders and on licensed persons who allow drunkenness to occur on their premises.7. Passing an Act to prevent the same person holding a music, dancing, or billiard licence, in conjunction with a drink licence.8. Prohibiting the use of public-houses as committee rooms at elections, and closing such houses on the days of nomination and election in every Parliamentary borough.9. The appointment of a distinct class of police for the inspection of public-houses, and frequent visitation of publics for the detection of adulterations, to be followed, on conviction, with severe penalties.10. The repeal of all the duties on tea, coffee, chocolate, and sugar.11. Your Committee, in conclusion, are of opinion that as the ancient and avowed object of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors is to supply a supposed public want, without detriment to the public welfare, a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licences should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected—namely, the inhabitants themselves—who are entitled to protection from the injurious consequences of the present system. Such a power would, in effect, secure to the districts, willing to exercise it, the advantages now enjoyed by the numerous parishes in the Province of Canterbury, where, according to reports furnished to your Committee, owing to the influence of the landowner, no sale of intoxicating liquors is licensed.

Convinced that without an improved and stringent system of legislation, and its strict enforcement, no effectual and permanent remedy for intemperance can be looked for, they urge as

Legislative Remedies

1. The repeal of the Beer Act of 1830, and the total suppression of beer-houses throughout the country.

2. The closing of public-houses on Sunday,bonâ fidetravellers excepted.

3. The earlier closing of public-houses on week-days, especially on Saturday.

4. A great reduction in the number of public-houses throughout the kingdom; it being in evidence that in proportion as facilities for drinking are reduced, intemperance is restrained.

5. Placing the whole licensing system under one authority.

6. The rigid enforcement of the penalties now attached to drunkenness, both on the actual offenders and on licensed persons who allow drunkenness to occur on their premises.

7. Passing an Act to prevent the same person holding a music, dancing, or billiard licence, in conjunction with a drink licence.

8. Prohibiting the use of public-houses as committee rooms at elections, and closing such houses on the days of nomination and election in every Parliamentary borough.

9. The appointment of a distinct class of police for the inspection of public-houses, and frequent visitation of publics for the detection of adulterations, to be followed, on conviction, with severe penalties.

10. The repeal of all the duties on tea, coffee, chocolate, and sugar.

11. Your Committee, in conclusion, are of opinion that as the ancient and avowed object of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors is to supply a supposed public want, without detriment to the public welfare, a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licences should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected—namely, the inhabitants themselves—who are entitled to protection from the injurious consequences of the present system. Such a power would, in effect, secure to the districts, willing to exercise it, the advantages now enjoyed by the numerous parishes in the Province of Canterbury, where, according to reports furnished to your Committee, owing to the influence of the landowner, no sale of intoxicating liquors is licensed.

Few, it may be believed, are cognisant of the fact that there are at this time within the Province of Canterbury, more than one thousand parishes in which there is neither public-house nor beer-shop; and where, in consequence of the absence of these inducements to crime and pauperism, the intelligence, morality and comfort of the people are such as the friends of temperance would have anticipated.

The non-legislative recommendations urge the removal of benefit clubs from taverns, the discontinuance of wage-payment in them, and the providing of ample and varied counter-attractions.

Thus much for legislation, and for the impulses that stimulate thereunto. Much has been written both for and against restriction. Violently opposed to it was Mr. John Stuart Mill, who may well claim to be the mouthpiece of the adversaries of prohibition. Speaking on the laws against intemperance in hisEssay on Liberty, he remarks:—

Under the name of preventing intemperance, the people of one English colony, and of nearly half the United States, have been interdicted by law from making any use whatever of fermented drinks, except for medical purposes; for prohibition of their sale is, in fact, as it is intended to be, prohibition of their use. And though the impracticability of executing the law has caused its repeal in several of the states which had adopted it, including the one from which it derives its name, an attempt has notwithstanding been commenced, and is prosecuted with considerable zeal by many of the professed philanthropists, to agitate for a similar law in this country. The association, or ‘Alliance,’ as it terms itself, which has been formed for this purpose, has acquired some notoriety through the publicity given to a correspondence between its secretary and one of the very few English public men who hold that a politician’s opinions ought to be founded on principles. Lord Stanley’s share in this correspondence is calculated to strengthen the hopes already built on him, by those who know how rare such qualities as are manifested in some of his public appearances, unhappily are among those who figure in political life. The organ of the Alliance, who would ‘deeply deplore the recognition of any principle which could be wrested to justify bigotry and persecution,’ undertakes to point out the ‘broad and impassable barrier’ which divides such principles from those of the association. ‘All matters relating to thought, opinion, conscience, appear to me,’ he says, ‘to be without the sphere of legislation; all pertaining to social act, habit, relation, subject only to a discretionary power vested in the state itself, and not in the individual to be within it.’ No mention is made of a third class, different from either of these—namely, acts and habits which are not social, but individual—although it is to this class, surely, that the act of drinking fermented liquors belongs. Selling fermented liquors, however, is trading, and trading is a social act. But the infringement complained of is not on the liberty of the seller, but on that of the buyer and consumer; since the state might just as well forbid him to drink wine, as purposely make it impossible for him to obtain it. The secretary, however, says: ‘I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.’ And now for the definition of these ‘social rights.’ ‘If anything invades my social rights, certainly the traffic in strong drink does. It destroys my primary right of security, by constantly creating and stimulating social disorder. It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support. It impedes my right to free moral and intellectual development, by surrounding my path with dangers, and by weakening and demoralising society from which I have a right to claim mutual aid and intercourse.’ A theory of ‘social rights,’ the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language; being nothing short of this, that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except, perhaps, to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment, an opinion, which I consider noxious, passes any one’s lips, it invades all the ‘social rights’ attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson, from another point of view, and looking at the probable effects of restraint, makes the following remarkable observation:—

Obedience to his genius is a man’s only liberating influence. We wish to escape from subjection, and a sense of inferiority—and we make self-denying ordinances, we drink water, we eat grass, we refuse the laws, we go to jail: it is all in vain; only by obedience to his genius, only by the freest activity in the way constitutional to him, does an angel seem to arise before a man, and lead him by the hand out of all the wards of the prison.[241]

And it was from deep conviction, and not as a flippant apophthegm, that Bishop Magee pronounced thathe preferred to see England free, to England sober.

Yet Mr. Augustus Sala, a man of ample observation and reflection, thought otherwise. He says:—

We drink the very strongest liquors that can be brewed or distilled; the classes among us who are not decent are in the habit of getting mad drunk, and of fighting, after the manner of wild beasts when they have a chance of using their fists, their feet, or their teeth on each other, or on the guardians of the law. Our places of licensed victualling are merely ugly dens, where the largest number of sots can get tipsy in the shortest space of time; and Sunday in London with all the public-houses, all the music halls thrown unrestrictedly open from morning till night would exhibit the most horrible terrestrialinfernothat eye ever beheld, that the ear ever heard, or the heart ever sickened at. We are so very strong and stalwart, and earnest, and English, in a word, that we need in our diversions a number of restrictive check and kicking-straps, which the feebler and less pugnacious people of the Continent do not require.[242]

He felt that:—

Law does not put the least restraintUpon our freedom, but maintains it:Or, if it does, ‘tis for our goodTo give us freer latitudeFor wholesome laws preserve us freeBy stinting of our liberty.

Or, as it has been admirably expressed:—

There are wheels within wheels, and there are liberties within liberties; and what we contend for in respect to liberty is this, that we are preaching against a liberty which is created, and for a liberty which is eternal.

At any rate, as long as it can be proved that drunkenness prevails in any sense in the direct ratio of the facilities for obtaining drink, so long must the questionof those facilities remain upon the legislative agenda.

The problem is: can you separate the facilities for getting drink from those of getting drunken. For the man who can solve this problem, a niche in the temple of fame remains unfilled.

There are plenty who are ready to exclaim that the causes of excess are easy to define. They would tell us that it arises from an unholy alliance between human nature and artificial stimulant. And they would glibly argue—take away the man from the drink, or the drink from the man, and excess is at an end. But one of these factors, human nature, declines the divorce. Still, however, there remains a sphere for legislative and philanthropic effort. There may be a loosing of the bands of this too often unholy alliance. You may get rid of many predisposing causes.

One of these, and a powerful one, isignorance, and that of many kinds. Mr. Buckle remarks:—

The most active cause of crime is drunkenness, and this is caused partly by misery, partly by ignorance, which makes men think it aremedy, and partly by a want of intellectual occupation.... Drunkenness caused by anignorantbelief that without spirits and beer, strength to work cannot be kept up.... The greater the amount of misery and depression, the greater the amount of drunkenness.[243]

M. Compte thought that drunkenness is promoted by anignorance of its results: and there is an element of truth here. How many vainly look to it to drive away remorse, care, and sorrow; thus, Horace (i. 18):—

NequeMordaces aliter diffugiunt sollicitudines.

Liebig, in hisLetters on Chemistry, says that it is the effect ofpoverty, deficient nutriment requiring the compensation of alcohol. Horace seems to have combined these notions:—

Ebrietas quid non designat? operta recluditSpes jubet esse ratas: in prælia trudit inertem,Sollicitis animis onus eximit: addocet artes.Fæcundi calices, quem non fecere disertum?Contracta quem non in paupertate solutum.

And to much the same effect, Ovid:—

Vina parant animos, faciuntque coloribus aptos.Cura fugit, multo diluiturque mero.Tunc veniunt risus, tunc pauper cornua sumit,Tunc dolor et curæ, rugaque frontis abit.Tunc aperit mentes, ævo rarissima nostroSimplicitas, artes excutiente Deo.

Others assign as the causedepressing influences. Thus in theTransactions of Association for Promoting Social Science, London, 1859, pp. 86-89, ‘it is said that crime is caused by drunkenness, and that (drunkenness) by foul air and the depressing influence of bad localities, bringing with it a fierce desire for stimulants, and by bad and deficient water.’

The poet Burns contributed not a little to the popular notion that under such circumstances strong drink (particularly the ‘mountain dew’) was the panacea:—

Food fills the wame, an’ keeps us livin’:Tho’ life’s a gift no worth receivin’,When heavy dragg’d wi’ pine and grievin’;But oil’d by thee,The wheels o’ life gae down-hill scrievin’,Wi’ rattlin glee.Thou clears the head o’ doited lear;Thou cheers the heart o’ drooping care;Thou strings the nerves o’ labour sair,At’s weary toil;Thou even brightens dark despairWi’ gloomy smile.

Again, thesocial usages of societyhave a powerful tendency to indulgence. Friendship and good cheer seem indissolubly intertwined. Cups that cheer have long been regarded as essential items. But it must be set down as an unquestionable fact that in the higher circles of society, far less is drunk than formerly. The London clubs are a very fair index of the condition of things existing within that sphere. In them, excess is now practically unknown; at any rate in the more select clubs. Their cellars teem with good wine now, as they did half a century ago, when we read:—

The value of the stores found in the cellars of the various Club-houses in London, may be adduced in evidence of the estimation in which wine is held, by a portion, at least, of the higher classes in the metropolis. Carlton Club, 1,500l.; United University Club, not much under 2,000l.The Literary and Scientific Athenæum, 3,500l.to 4,000l.The Union Club appears to exceed the rest in the contents of its cellars, which remarks the writer, from whose work we extract this information, ‘disguise it as people will, is the most important matter after all.’ The stock of wine (the Chairman declares it to be an under-estimate) according to a recent valuation, amounts to 7,150l.The Junior United Service Club values its stock of wines at 3,722l.Those of the United Service Club are worth, it is said, 7,722l.[244]

But riot and rowdyism are things of the past.

Among the middle classes, many of the compulsory drinking usages are swept away. In Mr. Dunlop’s interesting volume, no less than 297 of theseusagesare specified as then rife.[245]A much improved tone is observableamongstcommercial travellersthan some fifty years ago, when the modern Ramazzini wrote:—

Well fed, riding from town to town, and walking to the houses of the several tradesmen, they have an employment not only more agreeable, but more conducive to health than almost any other dependent on traffic. But they destroy their constitutions by intemperance; not generally by drunkenness, but by taking more liquor than nature requires. Dining at the traveller’s table, each drinks his pint or bottle of wine; he then takes negus or spirit with several of his customers, and at night he must have a glass or two of brandy and water. Few commercial travellers bear the employ for thirty years—the majority not twenty.[246]

And Mr. Samuelson, in hisHistory of Drink, sees traces of an improving tone amongst the operative classes; of which, amongst other things, the dissociation of benefit and other clubs from taverns, is an index.

There are fewer now to sneer at the efforts for a moral regeneration. It may be doubted if Mr. Barham would to-day gloat over his lines in theMilkmaid’s Story:—

Mr. David has since had a ‘serious call,’He never drinks ale, wine, or spirits, at all,And they say he is going to Exeter HallTo make a grand speech, and to preach, and to teachPeople that ‘they can’t brew their malt liquor too small.’That an ancient Welsh Poet, one Pyndar ap Tudor,Was right in proclaiming ‘Ariston men Udor!’Which Means ‘The pure Element is for Man’s belly meant!’And thatGin’sbut aSnareof Old Nick the deluder!

Some of the finest writers of our time have exercisedtheir pen in describing the horrors of intemperance. Charles Kingsley writes:—

Go, scented Belgravians, and see what London is. Look! there’s not a soul down that yard, but’s either beggar, drunkard, thief, or worse. Write anent that! Say how ye saw the mouth o’ Hell, and the twa pillars thereof at the entry—the Pawnbroker’s shop o’ one side, and the Gin-palace at the other—twa monstrous deevils, eating up men and women and bairns, body and soul. Look at the jaws o’ the monsters, how they open and open and swallow in anither victim and anither. Write anentthat!... Are not they a mair damnable, man-devouring Idol than ony red-hot statue of Moloch, or wicker Magog, wherein the auld Britons burnt their prisoners? Look at those bare-footed, bare-backed hizzies, with their arms round the men’s neck, and their mouths full o’ vitriol and beastly words! Look at that Irishman pouring the gin down the babbie’s throat! Look at that rough of a boy gaun out o’ the pawnshop, where he’s been pledging the handkerchief he stole the morning, into the ginshop, to buy beer poisoned wi’ grains of paradise and cocculus indicus, and salt, and a’ damnable, maddening, thirst-breeding, lust-breeding drugs! Look at that girl that went in with a shawl on her back, and cam’ out without ane! Drunkards frae the breast!—harlots frae the cradle!—damned before they’re born![247]

Mr. Ruskin has said that

drunkenness is not only the cause of crime, but that itiscrime; and that if any encourage drunkenness for the sake of the profit derived from the sale of drink, they are guilty of a form of moral assassination as criminal as any that has ever been practised by the bravos of any country or of any age.

Even Carlyle could doff his mannerism to state his conviction that gin is the most authentic incarnation of the infernal principle that is yet discovered. Cobden and Bright have hurled at the whole business their unmeasured anathemas.

But probably no individual has done more, within living memory, to educate and stimulate the national conscience than the late George Cruikshank. From the first (says Mr. Thompson Cooper)[248]he had shown a strong tendency to administer reproof in his treatment of intoxication and its accompanying vices. Instances of this tendency are to be found in hisSunday in London,The Gin Trap,The Gin Juggernaut, and more especially in his series of eight prints entitledThe Bottle; the latter of which had eminent success, and was dramatised at eight theatres in London at one time. It brought the author into direct personal connection with the leaders of the temperance movement. As he, moreover, became a convert himself to their doctrines, he was one of the ablest advocates of the temperance cause. Of late years, Mr. Cruikshank turned his attention to oil-painting, a branch of art in which he so far educated himself as to make his pictures sought after by connoisseurs.

The great work by which this Hogarth of the nineteenth century will be remembered in the present connection is a large picture entitledThe Worship of Bacchus, which he exhibited to the Queen at Windsor in 1863. An engraving of this picture has been published in which all the figures are outlined by the painter, and finished by Mr. H. Mottram. The painting itself is now the property of the nation.[249]

In addition to individual endeavour, countless societies, national, provincial, and local, have been formed throughout the country to stem the evil; prominent among these are the Church of England Temperance Society, with her Majesty the Queen as patron, and the entire bench of bishops with numerous other leaders of society as its vice-presidents; the National TemperanceLeague; the United Kingdom Alliance; the United Kingdom Band of Hope; the League of the Holy Cross, with many other denominational societies; the Order of Good Templars; the Rechabites; whilst the neophytes of Blue Ribbonism are legion.

Further than these, every species of counter-attraction is being furthered.[250]Education is made possible, nay, compulsory, almost to all. Better dwellings are being provided for the poor, and solid security for their savings. Recreations are being provided for the masses; and a vastly improved system of sanitation. The medical world[251]is giving the subject its close attention, and as the result of its labours of close observation and analysis, the fallacies of a past and less scientific age are being dethroned; and as a tangible outcome, temperance hospitals and homes are being erected.

And whilst philanthropy is engaged in one direction in reforming the drunkards, in another it is busy in reforming the drinks. Thus, Mr. Edward Bradbury writes inTime:—

If Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and his fervent followers, would accomplish a substantial reform in the drinking habits of the United Kingdom, let them turn their zeal to the villanous compounds which audaciously counterfeit Scotch whiskey. Such spirits as are issued from this ancient Oban Distillery conduce to ‘good spirits.’The influence of honest Scotch whiskey tends to joviality and generosity, instead of violence and murder; to good temper and amity instead of violence and blows. Bacchus by the ancients was regarded as the god of harmony and reconciliation. There are many poisonous pretenders to Scotch whiskey; and it is when fusel-oil masquerades as pure spirit that the evil comes. The licensed victualler who dispenses such abominable stuff ought to be treated as one of the criminal classes. It is liquid lunacy, fluid ferocity, distilled damnation, akin to that compound which Cassio drank in Cyprus, of which‘Every cup is unbless’d, and the ingredient is a devil.’Much of the drunkenness which disgraces our civilisation is due to ‘doctored’ drink. Alfred Tennyson was incensed by this reign of adulteration when he wrote those impassioned lines in his poemMaud:—‘And the vitriol madness flushes up in the ruffian’s brain,Till the filthy by-lane rings to the yell of the trampled wife,And chalk and alum and plaster are sold to the poor for bread,And the spirit of murder works in the very means of life.’The quantity of ‘vitriol madness’ which unprincipled dealers push into the market, and which is sold cheaply to the unscrupulous proprietors of garish dram-shops to be disposed of dearly enough to deluded customers, is at once great and glaring. I wonder the Temperance party do not use their earnestness in the cause of reforming the drink, so that when the poor man wants whiskey he gets it, and not turpentine and fusel-oil and amylic atrocities; or when the doctor orders the sick woman port wine she is not imposed upon by a fraudulent decoction of logwood. Our ancestors, wiser in their generation, appointed ‘ale-tasters,’ who did their duty without fear or favour. Why cannot ‘spirit-tasters’ be introduced in our day? Or, why cannot whiskey come within the limits of the Food Adulteration Act? The quantity of bad whiskey made in Great Britain is amazing. To use the word ‘whiskey’ is an outrage of the term. ‘Patent spirit’ is the Excise description for this fluid, which is made by a special apparatus, known as the Coffey Patent Still, from maize, rice, damaged barley, &c. Malting would be too costly, so this material is converted into starch and saccharine by a process of vitriol. It is then passed through the Coffey Still by only one process, and boiled by steam instead offire. The patent spirit is ostensibly sold for blending purposes, and for cheapening finer spirit. Some of these cheap whiskies are as combustible as that Bourbon spirit of which a man once partook, and found so inflammable that—blowing his nose directly afterwards—he found his pocket-handkerchief in flames. Such whiskey, they say in the States, kills dead at ten paces, and no human being drinking it ever lives to pay his debts.

‘Every cup is unbless’d, and the ingredient is a devil.’

Much of the drunkenness which disgraces our civilisation is due to ‘doctored’ drink. Alfred Tennyson was incensed by this reign of adulteration when he wrote those impassioned lines in his poemMaud:—

‘And the vitriol madness flushes up in the ruffian’s brain,Till the filthy by-lane rings to the yell of the trampled wife,And chalk and alum and plaster are sold to the poor for bread,And the spirit of murder works in the very means of life.’

The quantity of ‘vitriol madness’ which unprincipled dealers push into the market, and which is sold cheaply to the unscrupulous proprietors of garish dram-shops to be disposed of dearly enough to deluded customers, is at once great and glaring. I wonder the Temperance party do not use their earnestness in the cause of reforming the drink, so that when the poor man wants whiskey he gets it, and not turpentine and fusel-oil and amylic atrocities; or when the doctor orders the sick woman port wine she is not imposed upon by a fraudulent decoction of logwood. Our ancestors, wiser in their generation, appointed ‘ale-tasters,’ who did their duty without fear or favour. Why cannot ‘spirit-tasters’ be introduced in our day? Or, why cannot whiskey come within the limits of the Food Adulteration Act? The quantity of bad whiskey made in Great Britain is amazing. To use the word ‘whiskey’ is an outrage of the term. ‘Patent spirit’ is the Excise description for this fluid, which is made by a special apparatus, known as the Coffey Patent Still, from maize, rice, damaged barley, &c. Malting would be too costly, so this material is converted into starch and saccharine by a process of vitriol. It is then passed through the Coffey Still by only one process, and boiled by steam instead offire. The patent spirit is ostensibly sold for blending purposes, and for cheapening finer spirit. Some of these cheap whiskies are as combustible as that Bourbon spirit of which a man once partook, and found so inflammable that—blowing his nose directly afterwards—he found his pocket-handkerchief in flames. Such whiskey, they say in the States, kills dead at ten paces, and no human being drinking it ever lives to pay his debts.

Still, intemperance, like a myriad-headed monster, rears its hideous head, and the usual thirty millions sterling in the shape of taxation rolls into the lap of the reluctant Chancellor of the Exchequer.Reluctant, for so they would have us understand their attitude towards their gains from a nation’s indulgence. A comparatively recent Chancellor, Sir Stafford Northcote, in his budget speech, 1874, remarked:—

If the reduction of the revenue derived from spirits be due to other causes; if it should be due to a material and considerable change in the habits of the people, and increasing habits of temperance and abstinence from the use of ardent spirits, I venture to say that the amount of wealth such a change would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade the amount of revenue that is now derived from the spirit duty.

Nearly a century ago, Sir Frederic Eden, in hisState of the Poor, observed:—

For government to offer encouragement to ale-houses, is to act the part of afelo de se. Nor ought the public ever to be lulled into an acquiescence by the flattering bait of immediate gain, which ere long they would be obliged topay back to paupers, in relief, with a heavy interest.

Half a century before, the historian Smollett (v. 15) had remarked:—

After all it must be owned that the good and salutary effects of the prohibition were visible in every part of the kingdom, and no evil consequence ensuedexcept a diminution of the revenuein this article [spirits], a consideration which ought at all times to be sacrificed to the health and morals of the people.

And nearly half a century before Smollett, John Disney (magistrate and divine) had written:—

I deny the assertion that the revenue of yecrown will really be impaired by prohibiting tipling & drunkss.... 3 parts in 4 of the pore families in this kingdom have been reduced to want chiefly by haunting Taverns or Ale-houses. Especylabouring men, who very often consume there on the Lord’s day what they have gotten all the week before, & let their families beg or steal for a subsistence the week follg.... Now I suppose you will grant me that as the No. of poor & ruined families encreases in a nation, the Prince that governs must find a proportionable decay in his Revenue. On the other side, all such laws duly executed as keep men by sobriety tempce& frugality in a thriving condition, do most effectually provide for the happiness of the people & for the riches of the Prince.[252]

But there are symptoms of a decline in this source of revenue. A leading London daily paper has lately thus adverted to this momentous menace:—

Official statistics go far to confirm the triumphant claim of total abstainers that the consumption of strong drink is falling off at a rate not distasteful to the philanthropist, but suggesting grave reflection to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The receipts from beer, wines, and spirits have been estimated in all recent budgets at nearly thirty millions sterling a year, if we add to the excise the customs duties derived from foreign spirits; and, as this amount is considerably more than a third of the entire revenue, any causes that impair its growth or make it decline are of serious importance to the nation. That the revenue from excise is not increasing, but is actually falling behind, despite the change from a malt tax to a beer duty, is indisputable. That temperance habits have made prodigious strides in the last few years is also beyond question. Do the two changes stand to each other in the relation of effect to cause? In other words, is less of beer, spirits, wine consumedbecause there is a want of inclination, or is it from want of ability? Partly from the latter influence, there is little doubt. Total abstinence is popular with many because it is an aid to health; with others because it is the handmaid of morality and thrift; self-denying persons practise it because it sets an excellent example; and multitudes like it as it is economical.... In so far, then, as the need for retrenchment is one cause of reduced consumption of strong drink, a change in habit and in fashion might be expected to come with increased material prosperity. The nation ‘drank itself out of the Alabama difficulty’ in the exuberant days which saw Mr. Lowe at the Exchequer; and it may yet again take to tippling so heartily as to enable Mr. Childers to dispense with a portion of the income-tax. At present, however, there is not the faintest symptom of this; all the indications point in the other direction. Temperance and total abstinence march from one conquest to another, blessed by bishops, clergy, and even princes of the Christian Churches, patronised by doctors, eulogised by hard-headed men of business, and gathering in everywhere crowds of enthusiastic converts. The movement is sweeping over the nation in an unchecked tide, acquiring force as it goes, and inaugurating not change merely, but social revolution.... Such changes, needless to repeat, bode no good to the English Chancellor Exchequer, who has to sit idly contemplating the gradual running dry of more than one tributary rill, which he is at his wits’ end to replenish from other sources, or to replace by a more reproductive substitute. Perhaps it is too soon to moralise over the passing event, but it will be impossible long to postpone action, and to rest content with mere discussion. If the change we now witness is going to be permanent, that is, if the crusade on behalf of abstinence from strong drink is to proceed with redoubled success next year, Mr. Childers will not only he unable to make any allowance for an elastic growth of the excise receipts, but he will have to prepare for a diminution.

Had the coming event cast its shadow before? Isaac Disraeli long ago predicted areturnto sobriety. We shall probably (said he) outlive that custom of hard drinking, which was so long one of our national vices.

Everyone devoutly longs for such aterminus ad quem. Butwerethe former days really better than these? Could we devoutly desire areturnto any social era of the past? A pre-Elizabethan dietetic millennium is a retrospective mirage. It was a phantom of the historian Camden, which the elder Disraeli, and others in his wake, have endeavoured to stereotype. Granted, that nations, like individuals, are imitators; granted, that the English in their long wars in the Netherlands learnt to drown themselves in immoderate drinking, and by drinking others’ healths to impair their own; still it isnottrue that in those wars they ‘first’ learnt such excess, and it isnottrue that ‘of all the northern nations, they had been before this most commended for their sobriety.’ For at least one thousand years before the Netherland wars, Britain had been stigmatised for intemperance. Gildas had called attention in the sixth century to the fact that laity and clergy slumbered away their time in drunkenness.

S. Boniface (a native of Britain) in the eighth century had written to Cuthbert respecting the vice of drunkenness: ‘This is an evil peculiar to pagans andourrace. Neither the Franks, nor the Gauls, nor the Lombards, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks, commit it.’ We have already noticed that the conquest of the English by the Normans has been attributed especially to the then prevailing habit of intemperance: that in the following century John of Salisbury could write: ‘Habits of drinking have made the English famous among all foreign nations.’ How then could the Elizabethan town-wit, Tom Nash, write: ‘Superfluity in drink is a sin that ever since we have mixed ourselves with the Low Countries is counted honourable; but before we knew their lingering wars, was held in that highest degree of hatred that might be’?[253]

No. It is a long story; and three centuries do not compass it. But a better tone is beginning to prevail, which augurs well for a time when abuse being buried in the hansard dust of oblivion, man may not hesitate to use the gifts which a gracious Father has given His children to enjoy.

FOOTNOTES:[206]England in the Eighteenth Century, i. 479.[207]See Pratt:Flowering Plants, vol. v. Also, Larwood:History of Signboards.[208]John Byrom’sJournal, published by the Chetham Society.[209]For the condition of the working classes, and the pauperism of the time, see Defoe’sGiving Alms no Charity.[210]In 1713, Dr. Browne, Bishop of Cork, delivered a discourse to the clergy of his diocese, against drinking in remembrance of the dead, which he published in pamphlet form. This was followed by a second pamphlet, wherein he refuted charges that his critics had made, to the effect that he was actuated by a spirit of hostility to the memory of William III., it being well known that the Bishop was an extreme Tory, and he had laid particular stress on the prevalent custom of drinking to the ‘Immortal Memory of William III.’ This again excited considerable adverse criticism; and in 1716 Dr. Browne launched forth a somewhat exhaustiveDiscourse of Drinking Healths. But though he handles his theme very ably, the tract is no more than a concise epitome of the arguments and authorities used by the Puritan writers of the previous century. It has been stated that the bishop did not make many converts by his brochures: that, on the contrary, the custom of drinking to William’s ‘immortal memory’ increased, and that to the original form of the toast was tacked on a scurrilous expression indicative of the extreme contempt in which the author of the diatribes was held.[211][211]The writer has made use of his own little work entitledThe History of Toasting.[212]Roger North’sLife of Lord-Keeper Guildford.[213]Parliamentary Report on Drunkenness, p. 173.[214]English Commons Journal, xxii.[215]Selected from the speeches cited in the valuable Prize Essay of Dr. Lees.[216]Selected from the speeches cited in the valuable Prize Essay of Dr. Lees.[217]James Smith:The Upas in Marybone Lane.[218]Mrs. Delany’sCorrespondence, vi. 158 (cited by Lecky).[219]Macaulay’s Essay onWalpole’s Letters to Sir Horace Mann.[220]Scott:Memoirs of Swift.[221]A Treatise upon the Modes, 1715.[222]See Thackeray:English Humourists.[223]Robert Druitt,Report on Cheap Wines.[224]Roberts,Social Hist. of Southern Counties.[225]By Joseph Haslewood.[226]FromThe Fortress, a drama, 1807.[227]Macaulay,Comic Dramatists of the Restoration.[228]It may be mentioned that in theseventeenth century drunkenness was prescribed by some physicians. ‘Quant au profit qui en peut venir (i.e. drunkenness), outre les diarrhées et renversemens d’estomac qui en procèdent, et qui font souvent de très-utiles purgations (ce qui est en partie cause que quelques médecins prescrivent ces débauches une fois le mois),’ &c. &c. (Dialogue par o. Tubero[i.e.Mothe Le Vayer], édit. Francfort, 1716, 12mo, tome ii. p. 158.)[229]Lees.Prize Essay.[230]Huish,Memoirs of George IV.[231]Ib.[232]Dr. Dawson Burns.[233]Dawson Burns.[234]This account is taken from Lees,Prize Essay.[235]Lees,Prize Essay.[236]Winskill.Temp. Reformation.[237]Samuelson.Hist. of Drink.[238]Ellison;The Church Temperance Movement.[239]The impulse to this action was given by the clerical memorial to the bishops on intemperance in 1876, in which Prebendary Grier had the principal hand. The memorial was signed by 13,584 of the clergy.[240]I am indebted for this summary to Mr. Winskill’sComprehensive History of the Temperance Reformation.[241]Emerson.Complete Works, i. 273.[242]G. A. Sala.Paris Herself Again.[243]H. T. Buckle.Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works, vol. i. pp. 159, 160.[244]The Great Metropolis, 1836.[245]John Dunlop.The Philosophy of Artificial and Compulsory Drinking Usage, 1839.[246]C. T. Thackrah,Effects of the Principal Arts, Trades, and Professions, p. 83.[247]Alton Locke, 1850.[248]Men of the Time, 1875.[249]A life of this remarkable man is preparing for the press, undertaken by a well-known scientist and author, who was his personal friend and admirer.[250]This subject is well handled by W. J. Conybeare in hisEssays Ecclesiastical and Social, pp. 429, &c.[251]The names of such as Dr. B. W. Richardson, Sir H. Thompson, Sir A. Clarke, Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Edmunds, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Heslop, Dr. Crespi, will at once recur.[252]Disney,View of Ancient Laws against Immorality and Prophaneness. Camb. 1729.[253]T. Nash,Pierce Pennilesse, 1595 (cited in I. Disraeli’sCuriosities of Lit.).

[206]England in the Eighteenth Century, i. 479.

[207]See Pratt:Flowering Plants, vol. v. Also, Larwood:History of Signboards.

[208]John Byrom’sJournal, published by the Chetham Society.

[209]For the condition of the working classes, and the pauperism of the time, see Defoe’sGiving Alms no Charity.

[210]In 1713, Dr. Browne, Bishop of Cork, delivered a discourse to the clergy of his diocese, against drinking in remembrance of the dead, which he published in pamphlet form. This was followed by a second pamphlet, wherein he refuted charges that his critics had made, to the effect that he was actuated by a spirit of hostility to the memory of William III., it being well known that the Bishop was an extreme Tory, and he had laid particular stress on the prevalent custom of drinking to the ‘Immortal Memory of William III.’ This again excited considerable adverse criticism; and in 1716 Dr. Browne launched forth a somewhat exhaustiveDiscourse of Drinking Healths. But though he handles his theme very ably, the tract is no more than a concise epitome of the arguments and authorities used by the Puritan writers of the previous century. It has been stated that the bishop did not make many converts by his brochures: that, on the contrary, the custom of drinking to William’s ‘immortal memory’ increased, and that to the original form of the toast was tacked on a scurrilous expression indicative of the extreme contempt in which the author of the diatribes was held.[211]

[211]The writer has made use of his own little work entitledThe History of Toasting.

[212]Roger North’sLife of Lord-Keeper Guildford.

[213]Parliamentary Report on Drunkenness, p. 173.

[214]English Commons Journal, xxii.

[215]Selected from the speeches cited in the valuable Prize Essay of Dr. Lees.

[216]Selected from the speeches cited in the valuable Prize Essay of Dr. Lees.

[217]James Smith:The Upas in Marybone Lane.

[218]Mrs. Delany’sCorrespondence, vi. 158 (cited by Lecky).

[219]Macaulay’s Essay onWalpole’s Letters to Sir Horace Mann.

[220]Scott:Memoirs of Swift.

[221]A Treatise upon the Modes, 1715.

[222]See Thackeray:English Humourists.

[223]Robert Druitt,Report on Cheap Wines.

[224]Roberts,Social Hist. of Southern Counties.

[225]By Joseph Haslewood.

[226]FromThe Fortress, a drama, 1807.

[227]Macaulay,Comic Dramatists of the Restoration.

[228]It may be mentioned that in theseventeenth century drunkenness was prescribed by some physicians. ‘Quant au profit qui en peut venir (i.e. drunkenness), outre les diarrhées et renversemens d’estomac qui en procèdent, et qui font souvent de très-utiles purgations (ce qui est en partie cause que quelques médecins prescrivent ces débauches une fois le mois),’ &c. &c. (Dialogue par o. Tubero[i.e.Mothe Le Vayer], édit. Francfort, 1716, 12mo, tome ii. p. 158.)

[229]Lees.Prize Essay.

[230]Huish,Memoirs of George IV.

[231]Ib.

[232]Dr. Dawson Burns.

[233]Dawson Burns.

[234]This account is taken from Lees,Prize Essay.

[235]Lees,Prize Essay.

[236]Winskill.Temp. Reformation.

[237]Samuelson.Hist. of Drink.

[238]Ellison;The Church Temperance Movement.

[239]The impulse to this action was given by the clerical memorial to the bishops on intemperance in 1876, in which Prebendary Grier had the principal hand. The memorial was signed by 13,584 of the clergy.

[240]I am indebted for this summary to Mr. Winskill’sComprehensive History of the Temperance Reformation.

[241]Emerson.Complete Works, i. 273.

[242]G. A. Sala.Paris Herself Again.

[243]H. T. Buckle.Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works, vol. i. pp. 159, 160.

[244]The Great Metropolis, 1836.

[245]John Dunlop.The Philosophy of Artificial and Compulsory Drinking Usage, 1839.

[246]C. T. Thackrah,Effects of the Principal Arts, Trades, and Professions, p. 83.

[247]Alton Locke, 1850.

[248]Men of the Time, 1875.

[249]A life of this remarkable man is preparing for the press, undertaken by a well-known scientist and author, who was his personal friend and admirer.

[250]This subject is well handled by W. J. Conybeare in hisEssays Ecclesiastical and Social, pp. 429, &c.

[251]The names of such as Dr. B. W. Richardson, Sir H. Thompson, Sir A. Clarke, Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Edmunds, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Heslop, Dr. Crespi, will at once recur.

[252]Disney,View of Ancient Laws against Immorality and Prophaneness. Camb. 1729.

[253]T. Nash,Pierce Pennilesse, 1595 (cited in I. Disraeli’sCuriosities of Lit.).

Back to Index Next