Lord D'Abernon's Temperance Policy.—I

[No one has a better right to talk on the drink problem than Lord D'Abernon, who has put the nation so much in his debt by what he has achieved. As believers in a Public Utility Company as the ideal solution of the problem, we are naturally not satisfied with any scheme which retains private ownership. But we cordially admit that, so long as private ownership is retained,

Lord D'Abernon's restrictions seem to cover most of the ground. —En. Spectator.] ON April 20th, 1929, the Spectator published an article by me above the signature " Prudens Futuri." The article, which embodied the policy of Lord D'Abernon, head of the Central Control Board during the War, was entitled, " A Practical Proposal for Temperance Reform." With the consent of the Editor of the Spectator (who, I must say at once, does not share my views but welcomes discussion) I shall now carry the subject further. I am able to do this with the help of Lord D'Abernon himself, who in a long conversation with me elaborated his policy.

I must recapitulate a little. In my article on April 20th, 1929, I pointed out that Lord D'Abernon is by far the greatest Temperance reformer that we have ever had. The figures of drunkenness, under his administration, dropped as though by magic ; there had never before been such a headlong downward rush. And, strangely enough, this happened while the Trade was enjoying unexampled prosperity. I speculated why such an aston- ishing discovery of the right means of dealing with the drink problem had been neglected by the Temperance societies. It seemed to me obvious that the Temperance movement was marking time. None of the schemes for Temperance legislation were making progress, and some of them were drifting backwards. The Bishop of Liverpool's Bill, providing for three different choices in Local Option areas, was the most favoured scheme among Temperance reformers, but instead of advancing it was losing support in Parliament. That did not surprise me, as its supporters were divided in their convictions. Some were Prohibitionists, and the rest believed in " Reorganization " by which public ownership would take the place of private ownership. That is to say, one party in the alliance wanted to abolish drink, while the other wanted to establish it by giving it the organized sanction of the State. Such allies did not seem likely to travel on the same road very far.

And in any case progress by Local Option is always very slow. The experience of Scotland shows that over a number of years hardly anything is accomplished. If Local Option were applied to England no one could feel confident that its effects would be appreciable in two or three generations. I am not now going into the desir- ability of Local Option as an instrument, though I myself am strongly opposed to it ; I am simply saying that from the point of view of those who accept it as legitimate it is not good business. While Temperance reform is-thus halting, the dark spots upon the drink trade remain. The lowest type of public house—the mere boozing shop— is a disgrace. The reputable brewers know this, and would do all they can to get rid of it if they were helped to do so. They have long since reached the conclusion that intemperance " does not pay " ; but they are kept busy fighting for their existence by those who assume that the brewer is necessarily a public enemy and must be broken. The waste on rival propaganda is enormous.

Of course Prohibitionists would always continue their propaganda, but I am concerned only with those whose differences are confined to the prevention of excessive .drinking. Every year they waste as much money as would satisfactorily raise the level of hundreds of bad public houses.

Lord D'Abernon's demonstration of the possibility of simultaneous sobriety in the nation and prosperity in the Trade knocked the bottom out of Temperance reform as traditionally conducted. I was brought up to believe that the more prosperous the Trade the greater amount of drunkenness must there necessarily be. One would have expected that sensible men, whatever their former convictions, would have taken notice of Lord D'Abernon's amazing discovery and have based some serious thinking upon it. This has not happened. Surely the discovery ought to be emphasized before the Royal Commission now sitting. I doubt whether Lord D'Abernon himself would think it necessary to give evidence because it became evident to me in my conver- sation with him that he frankly regards the whole drink problem as settled—" except " as he said " for those who are blind." The right principles for dealing with it are contained in the history of the Central Control Board. He therefore believes that there is nothing more to say. All that remains is to apply the teaching.

I notice that it is the fashion to laugh at the Royal Commission on the ground that it represents so many immutable points of view that no agreed policy can possibly be expected. Such ridicule takes very little account of the history of Royal Commissions. The present Commission is composed of particularly able men, and I should not be surprised if they made the ridicule ridicidous by showing that ability, even when it is enlisted on behalf of apparently prejudged issues, has a way of rising superior to circumstances.

At this stage it will be 'most convenient for me, and I think also for the reader, to cast my conversation with Lord D'Abernon in the form of a duologue :— PEUDENS Fb7TURI :—Let me ask you first of all, quite, baldly, what your method would be if you wanted to introduce Temperance reform to-morrow.

LORD D'ABERNON believe that in higher prices and shorter hours we have the whole solution. In corn• parison with these nothing else matters. It was with these weapons that we defeated drunkenness in the Wari The rest of the problem is how to get rid of the inferior type of public house. - P. F. :—Would you allow any importance to " disinterested " or public ownership in order to put an end to the incentive of private owners to press their sales ?

LORD D. :—I think that by comparison with higher prices and shorter hours as applied to the Trade under private ownership all the Local Option schemes are use- less. When you have got a complete cure why resort to medicines which have very little efficacy ? I am frequently told that the habits of the people have been gradually improving, and that this improvement accounts for the recent remarkable increase of sobriety. I do not believe a word of it. The habits of the people have of course improved, but the figures of drunkenness were very bad, and were actually rising, up to the time of the War. During the early days of the War there was a still further increase of drunkenness. People earned more money and spent it Then came control. The figures at once began to fall, and they fell progressively as control became more and more scientific.

P. F. :—Could you give me the exact figures ?

LORD D. :—You will find them all in Shadwell's book.* Mere is the book. The monthly convictions for drunken- ness in England and Wales were 17,410 in July, 1914. Control of course came gradually. There was at first control of hours and the beer duty was raised, but the restrictions of the Control Board did not come into operation till about the middle of 1915. Just before the middle of 1916 the beer output was reduced. Early in 1917 there was a further reduction of beer output, and spirit clearances were halved. Early in 1918 duties were further raised. There had also, of course, been a dimi- nution in the strength of both beer and spirits. By the end of the War the monthly convictions for drunkenness had fallen from 17,410 to 2,000. Shortly after the Armistice the output of beer and spirits was increased and the hours of opening were extended. Then convic- tions instantly began to rise, and went up to near the 9,000 mark in 1920. In that year duties were raised again, whereupon the convictions again fell away to well under the 6,000 mark, only to rise again to well over the 7,000 mark when the Control Board was abolished. Prices are still so high, however, and the hours of opening are not only so much shorter than before the War but are so skilfully arranged, that the sobriety of the country is most satisfactory as compared with the conditions before the War. That is my case.

P. F. :—You think that the present hours and prices should be permanent ?

LORD D. :—Certainly. No one can justly complain of them. The brewers themselves cannot complain. The high prices suit them very well. You must remember that in charging the high prices the brewers are acting as tax-gatherers on commission, and get a due percentage of the higher taxation. They are " publicans."

P. F. :—Do you think, then, that the brewers can afford to improve their houses, and ought to be compelled to do so ?

Loan D. :—Personally I should be in favour, merely as tt matter of bUsiness, of giving brewers some privilege or reward for improvement. I do not say that the brewers have not got the money for improvements, but it is a sound business princiPle to encourage in every possible way developments which are very much in the public interest.

P. F. remember that Lord Plymouth and Lord *Drink in 1914-1922-A Lesson in Control. By Arthur Shadwell, LLD., Ironginaus). Lamington and Colonel Fremantle proposed that very thing in several Bills, but nothing has been heard of it since the profits of brewery companies increased.

LORD. D. :—The greatest difficulty of all now—the only real obstacle in the way of complete reform—is that the bad type of public house puts up an extremely unfair kind of competition with the better houses. Licence duty is determined by the annual value of the premises. Thus a house in which there is no trace of improvement, which is squalid, cramped and insanitary, pays a minute duty, though it may be doing a very large business. The improved house is taxed for its virtues. The whole thing is preposterous. The essence of it is : Gresham's Law is at work ; the base coinage tends to drive out the good coinage. The bad house is allowed to pay better than the good house.

P. F. :—It is argued that under public ownership there would be no such private competition as is now preventing the good public house from triumphing over the bad.

LORD D.—I think that public ownership, or State ownership—they mean almost the same thing, since the State is financially responsible for " public ownership "- would be the worst conceivable remedy. People talk about the pressure exercised by the brewers both on political parties and on the consumers of drink. I have no means of knowing what this pressure may be. I can only say that the political pressure which would be exercised upon the Government in the event of public ownership would be infinitely worse than anything we have now. Imagine a weak Government looking round for votes and knowing that the votes could be got by a relaxation of the drink restrictions. It does not bear thinking of. With a reduction of taxation all temperance would go. Surely the right way is obvious. Whoever owns the drink trade must put up with restrictions. It is only a question of who can be the most effectually restricted. The brewers cannot voluntarily shake off restrictions. The State can. Therefore, I think, the nation is safer with private ownership—safer in temper- ance, safer in finance. If you think that the private Trade is not sufficiently restricted—then put on more restric- tions. But don't choose the wrong—the most squeezable— people to be the owners of the Trade. There is only one limit to restrictions, and that is at the point where they become too severe and it becomes worth while to evade them. In this matter, as in every respect when dealing with the drink trade, it is extremely important that legislation should not be vexatious. We are within the limit now, and the results are wonderful. Remember that the reduction in the consumption of spirits is even more important than the reduction in beer. The typical inebriate is a drinker of spirits. The tremendous fall in the sale of spirits is most satisfactory. If only we can get a system by which a large part of the profits of the Trade go into improvements—and I am sure that this can be secured we shall have a perfect example of the poacher turned game-keeper. By making and using money under the proper conditions the brewers might be made to serve the public interest very efficiently.

PRUDENS FUTURI.

(To be continued.)