LICENSING LAWS IN ENGLAND.
The History of Liquor Licensing in England, Principally from 1700 to 1830. By Sidney and Beatrice Webb. (Longmans and Co. 2s. 6d. net.)—Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb by the publi- cation of this valuable little book—which is really an advanced chapter of their important work on local government which is to appear next year—have placed both historians and social workers in their debt. The whole of the book is interesting in the extreme, and is written with the ease and illuminating force that are always noticeable in the work of these writers. Particular interest, of course, attaches here, as in all historical writing, to the results claimed as original. It is certainly remarkable that the "hitherto unknown episode of 1786-87, with the dramatic suppression of licensed houses without compensation," Should have escaped the notice of historians, lawyers, temperance reformers, and statesmen. The results obtained are entirely, or almost entirely, due to a prolonged search in late-eighteenth- century provincial newspapers stored at the British Museum. We fully agree with Mr. and Mrs. Webb when they "express our strongest hopes that whatever else is sent away, these files of old provincial newspapers—without which the social history of England cannot possibly be written—will be kept at Bloomsbury, where they are accessible to the historical student, and where (as it is privately admitted) there is ample accommodation for them." The authors take the Act of Edward VI. (1552) as the origin of licensing, and the Act of Henry VII. (1495) as the origin of the right to revoke what we may call customary licenses. Both these Acts deal with ale-houses. We may, however, suspect that far earlier than this the sale of wines was empowered by statute. There was, indeed, statutory provision on the subject in 1258 (6 Edw. I.) and earlier. The mass of early legislation on the subject of imported wines seems to suggest a large consumption, and the increase of taverns in London in the middle of the sixteenth century did not represent a newly discovered taste for wine. The Justices under the Acts of 1495 and 1552 had complete control over the ale- houses, which they could create or suppress at pleasure. Up to the Civil War the Justices, either willingly or through the pressure of the Privy Council, kept the sale of drink within bounds ; but "from the end of the seventeenth century, at any rate, a period of extreme laxness set in," and the consumption of ale and beer became vast,—a barrel of beer per annum "for every
man, woman, and child of the population an average consumption per head which has never subsequently been equalled." The free sale of gin, which began in 1690, com- plicated the problem. The result was "a perfect pande- monium of drunkenness." Half London sold gin to the other half. In 1729, and again in 1736, Parliament by the imposition of tremendous Excise-duties tried to crush the evil, but without success. The law was openly transgressed. The small duty substituted by an Act of 1743 (creating the existing Excise system) was perhaps a little more successful, but the evil was only checked by the giving of large powers to the Justices. The cheek was, however, not efficient until in 1786 there arose "the sudden and almost universal adoption by county and borough benches of a policy of restriction and regulation." This movement appears, as we have said, never to have been noticed before. It successfully grappled with the problem until the year 1830, when Parliament in an access of madness adopted the principle of "free trade in beer." The immediate result was universal drunkenness. It was not until 1869 that the Justices recovered their authority. To-day we are still suffering from the epochs of "free gin" and "free beer." We heartily recommend this remarkable monograph, which will be found of great value by all who are considering the relation- ship of the State to the drink question at the present time.
Previous page
