CONSERVATIVES AND TEMPERANCE REFORM.
TO THE EDITOR OH THE " SPECTATOR.".1 Srn,—Temperance reform should not be a question of party politics. It is not naturally so. But in present circumstances it is difficult for politicians to look at the question except through party spectacles. And they are by no means helpful to clear vision. Conservatives especially (apart from the politician's instinct to criticise unfavourably measures proposed
by opponents) are tempted to oppose urgently needed reforms on the ground that attacks on the dividends of brewery com- panies are only the prelude to attacks on the rights of property in general. The champions of the liquor trade are continually asserting this because it is the most plausible argument they have. Let me say at once that I am as firmly convinced as any man can be that the rights of property are at the root of all civilisation and true progress. I have no sympathy with Communism, or with that type of Socialism which shouts its hoarse demand for levelling down, as though that would be as good as levelling up. The truth is, the liquor trade occupies an altogether unique position. What is true of it is true of no other trade. A man who would help me to kill a cobra or a rattlesnake might without inconsistency refuse to help a butcher to kill a snake. There is a very great difference between the drink problem as it affects the upper and middle classes and as it affects the working classes. I am afraid the average well-to-do Conservative knows little, and thinks less, about it. His view of it is a very superficial one, and it amounts to this : that a certain number of the population in all classes are silly enough not to know how to limit their potations so as to stop short of the point where they may lose the power of self-control, and therefore disgrace themselves, or even become guilty of criminal violence. They admit that such cases are only too common; but they imagine that an occasional exhortation to moderation from the pulpit or the Press is the only common-sense way of dealing with the matter. Those who know no more than this have not begun to learn the A B C of the drink problem as it affects our national life.
Let us take one elementary fact as a starting-point. In an otherwise not very wise book Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell produce abundant evidence that working people spend on an average at least 6s. a week per family on drink. And this average includes, of course, some millions of people who of choice spend nothing on alcohol, and an even larger number who for want of remunerative employment cannot spend much. It follows of course that those whose earning-power is more nearly normal, and who do not refuse to drink, spend much more than 6s. per week. Let it be remembered that this portentous inroad on their earnings is expended upon a com- modity which is at least unnecessary, for some millions of teetotalers do without it, and are proved by incontrovertible statistics to live the longer and enjoy the better health by doing so. Nor is this mere direct expenditure (frightful as it is) all, or even the most serious part, of the loss which comes on working people through drink. A man who drinks often loses a day's work by it ; sometimes he is discharged, and joins the ranks of the unemployed, and only too often of the unemployable. Sometimes he has to pay a fine, and sometimes be has to go to prison. And then be, and generally his family too, become a charge to the ratepayers. A most experienced Judge declared that three-quarters of all the mime in England was due to drink.
Now the object of all temperance legislation is to diminish this wasteful and pernicious expenditure. If any measure causes the people to consume less liquor than they do now, it will do good. And practically the degree in which it diminishes the consumption of liquor exactly represents its value as a means of checking the impoverishment and demoralisation of the people. But it is plain that, if the people spend less on liquor, the dividends of the brewery and distillery companies must be diminished. Whoever else may forget this obvious truth, the liquor traders never do. It is absolutely impossible to find any way whereby the impoverishment and demoralisa- tion which are caused by drink can be diminished without in a corresponding proportion cutting down the profits of the liquor trade. The situation recalls the story of that British Captain who, curt of speech, addressed his men : " My lads, there are the enemy 1 If you don't kill them, they will kill you." If the nation cannot, or will not, interfere with the prosperity of the liquor trade, the liquor trade will continue to ruin and demoralise the nation. It is the fault of nobody but the liquor traders themselves that they have chosen to invest their capital in a trade the prosperity of which is incompatible with the welfare of the people. That for hundreds .of years the law has not prevented them from doing so does not materially alter the practical issue. If the condition of the people is to be improved, the law must be changed. And herein consists the fundamental difference between the liquor trade and all other trades. Prosperity in any other trade is indirectly a benefit to the whole community. Prosperity in the liquor trade is a national calamity.
In 1904 Mr. Balfour placed many of his followers in a very painful position. The Bill which he introduced professed to be "a measure of temperance reform." But it was enthusiasti. cally supported by the brewers, and vehemently opposed by all the temperance organisations and the Churches. The Bishops protested unanimously against the absence of a time- limit. But Mr. Balfour pressed the point. Conservative M.P.'s might well hesitate. A Bill supported by brewers and opposed by Temperance Societies and Churches certainly had strange credentials to support its alleged character as "a measure of temperance reform." But to vote against it would have been to wreck their party. They yielded, and the Bill was forced through. Whatever else it might be, it was certainly a bid for the political support of the liquor party.
The result showed that it was a blunder. Mr. Balfour had "sold himself for naught." Whatever may be the estimate of the influence of the temperance vote in contributing to the
success of the Liberals, it is clear that the liquor party were utterly powerless to prevent Mr. Balfour's debate, though
they put out their last ounce of strength to support him.
Conservative Members of Parliament who are favourable to temperance reform have no such cause for hesitation now.
They may support, without any injury to their party, the Government Bill, and any amendments tending to strengthen it, such as entire Sunday closing, earlier closing during the week, and measures for the better control of clubs. Every Conservative who does anything to break the alliance between his party and the liquor interest has done something to promote the honour and the influence of his party. The Bishops could do nothing which would more tend to increase their influence, and to secure the respect of those outside Anglicanism, than to support with all their force the most drastic measures of temperance reform. The people are watching to see if they will do anything to break the force of the old sneer about " beer and Bibles." But if the House of Lords repeats Mr. Balfour's blunder, it may share his punish- ment. The liquor trade has few friends except those who are interested in it. Even its victims are in many cases its enemies. Its political weakness was shown at the last Election, when it did its very best and failed. And even then it was stronger than it is ever likely to be again.
That section of the Press which sides with the liquor trade is fond of lecturing temperance reformers on the unwisdom of deserting the older method of moral suasion, and putting their whole faith in legislation. The suggestion is utterly untrue, and I suspect that it is often wilfully and deliberately untrue. The temperance propaganda by persuasion and instruction was never carried on so actively or so successfully as it is at the present day. The Churches, especially those which appeal particularly to the working classes, are the most effective temperance organisations. The Salvation Army is a huge total abstinence society. And the practical success of all these agencies is far greater than their opponents would have us to believe. But those who are most earnest in the use of educational methods are naturally most anxious for the diminution of those temptations which only too often interfere with the success of their efforts. And it is idle to deny that legislation might effect this to a large extent, provided our legislators are emancipated from the fear of the brewers and
[In spite of our correspondent's ably expressed arguments, we remain convinced that greater temperance in the use of intoxicants will come in the case of the poor classes, as it came in that of the rich, not through restraint of opportunity, but through a change in social habits and an improved tone in the matter of self-control. The rich have more opportunities and facilities for consuming alcohol—consider the growth and increased attractiveness of clubs, restaurants, and hotels— and yet their consumption of alcohol has been greatly reduced. We must look for reform, not to the limitation of licenses, but to a higher sense of self-respect and a better understand- ing of the laws of health among the poor.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
