Sir James Paget, in the article already referred to, asserts that the habitual moderate use of alcoholic drinks is generally beneficial, and that, in the question raised between temperance and abstinence, the verdict should be in favour of temperance.
Dr. A. J. Bernays, in an essay on The Moderate Use of Alcohols, alluding to water as a proposed substitute, remarks on the wretched character of the water which is supplied in towns, and the difficulty of getting it pure. “Water which has gone through some form of preparation, especially through some form of cooking, as in beer, is generally better suited for meals than water itself.”
Dr. Carpenter has also drawn attention to the wholesomeness of bitter beer at meals. “There is a class of cases,” he writes, “in which we believe that malt liquors constitute a better medicine than could be administered under any other form; those, namely, in which the stomach labours under a permanent deficiency of digestive powers.” Bitter beer, he asserts, assists digestion in cases in which no medicine would be of use.
This question of the water reminds us of the following tale: A cobbler was listening to the persuasive eloquence of a teetotaller, and getting somewhat dry over the prosy argument. “Well,” said the knight of St. Crispin, “all you say amounts to this—that water is the best thing any man can drink. Now I am not proud, and am easily satisfied, and don’t want the best—stout, or ale, or even bitter-beer is quite good enough for the likes of me.”
It is very often pointed out that the agricultural labourer and the working classes generally would be better off if they spent the money devoted to beer in food. This is, however, open to question, keeping in mind the fact that alcohol enables the human frame to exist with a smaller amount of food than would be otherwise necessary. Dr. C. D. Redcliffe, in giving his views on alcohol, in the form of a conversation between himself and a patient, speaks very positively on this point. “The glass of malt liquor,” he writes, “or cyder or perry or common wine, if the man have the luck to live in a wine-growing country, will {434} cost less than the amount of ordinary food which must otherwise be eaten in order to preserve health. I have no doubt of the saving in pocket which will result from the adoption of the practice recommended . . . . and I am equally certain that the result will be as beneficial to health as it will be satisfactory financially.” Liebig also testifies to the same effect, stating that in families where beer was withheld, and money given in compensation, it was soon found that the monthly consumption of bread was so strikingly increased that the beer was twice paid for, once in money and a second time in bread.
Mr. Brudenell Carter, while he was practising his profession in a mining district, and daily brought into contact with the results of drunken habits, determined that he “should be a better advocate of abstinence if he practised it,” and he accordingly gave up his liquor. The results we give in his own words:—“After about two months of total abstinence, the conviction was reluctantly forced upon me that the experiment was a failure, and that I must give it up.” His symptoms pointed, he says, “in a perfectly plain way to an excess of waste over repair. I returned to my bitter beer, and in the course of a week was well again.”
A volume could be filled with similar experiences, but in summing up the result of modern medical opinion, we are contented to rest our case on what has been said on this point by the two great authorities we have before quoted, viz., Sir James Paget and Dr. Bernays; the former writes: “As for the opinions of the medical profession, they are, by a vast majority, in favour of moderation. It may be admitted that, of late years, the number of cases has increased in which habitual abstinence from alcoholic drinks has been deemed better than habitual moderation. But, excluding those of children and young persons, the number of these cases is still very small, and few of them have been observed through a long course of years, so as to test the probable influence of a life-long habitual abstinence. Whatever weight, then, may be assigned to the balance of opinions among medical men, it certainly must be given in favour of moderation, not of abstinence.” Dr. Bernays is still stronger. “The experience of mankind is better than individual experience, and so, for every medical man of distinction who is in favour of total abstinence, I would find twenty men who are against it.” Hardly anyone who has lived among teetotallers will deny that they are large eaters. Now the greater the amount of solid food that is required to keep a human being up to the normal level of health and strength, the greater amount of nervous energy will be consumed {435} in the process of digestion, and the less superfluity of energy will that person have in reserve to meet the other exigencies and activities of life. It therefore seems to follow with the certainty of a mathematical demonstration, that if, as those who are best qualified to judge assure us is the case, the moderate consumption of alcoholic liquors enables a person to keep himself in health and strength upon a less amount of solid food than would be necessary without the aid of alcohol, the life of that man, other things being equal, must be fuller of capacities for all kinds of work, both mental and bodily, than that of a man who takes no alcohol, and who is in consequence forced to use up a greater amount of nerve force in the consumption of a sufficiency of solids to support himself. It is an uncontrovertible fact that the best work has always been done by the moderate drinkers. The physical condition of rigid abstainers has frequently been commented upon; and without wishing to say anything unkind, or uncharitable, about men who are doubtless honest and conscientious, though, in our view, misguided, we cannot but suggest the question—Is the appearance of the average abstainer, who now, happily for the cause of truth, is known to all the world by the blue ribbon he wears, such as may be considered a good advertisement for the opinions he advocates? Does his appearance seem to indicate a physical or intellectual superiority to the average member of the genus homo? We think there can be but one opinion on this point, and it is that each and every of these questions must be answered with an emphatic negative.
On the action of the Temperance Societies, Dr. Moxon, in a very able article, Alcohol and Individuality, after relating how a poor cooper, having a fever caused by a wound, died rather than take the alcohol which was absolutely necessary to sustain him, says: “I believe that to a large extent teetotalism lays firmest hold on those who are least likely ever to become drunkards, and are most likely to want at times the medicinal use of alcohol—sensitive, good-natured people, of weak constitution, to whom the Sacred Ecclesiast directed his strange sounding but needful advice, ‘Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise: why shouldst thou destroy thyself?’”
In August, 1884, The Times devoted several columns to an exhaustive consideration of teetotal theories and the use of alcohol, and it may be said, without fear of contradiction, that neither before nor since has a more valuable treatise appeared on the subject. The writer divides total abstainers into three classes. Of the first class he says: “There are some persons who seem not to require alcohol because they easily {436} digest a large quantity of solid food, and especially of saccharine and starchy matters, . . . . but it is fairly questionable whether their work in life would not be better in quantity or in quality, or both, if they were to consume less solid food, and to make up for the deficiency by a little beer or wine. There are others who have a distinctly morbid tendency towards excess, . . . . which leaves them no safety except in total abstinence. The difficulty with these persons is to keep them from drink, however hurtful they may know it to be, for their condition is one of disease, and they have seldom sufficient resolution to abstain. When they do abstain they furnish striking examples of the success of teetotalism by being changed from a state closely bordering on insanity into responsible members of society; but the ordinary experience with regard to them is that they have a succession of relapses into intemperance, and that they ultimately die, directly or indirectly, from the effects of drink. . . . The third class of abstainers is formed by those who are actuated in the main by benevolent and conscientious motives, which, unfortunately, are seldom controlled by the possession of adequate knowledge. Many clergymen abstain ‘for the sake of example,’ without pausing to consider whether the example may not, in some cases, be a bad one, and whether they would not discharge their manifest duties more efficiently by help of the added force which alcohol would give. Many persons get on fairly well without alcohol because their powers are never subjected to any considerable strain, and these persons too often break down when any strain comes upon them, unless they will consent to modify their mode of living. This, as is too well known, they will not always do; and every medical man has seen instances of fanatical teetotalism leading to complete destruction of the health of those who were governed by it.”
With regard to teetotal societies, the writer considers that they do very little good and a great deal of harm. “They fail,” he says, “to touch the evils of drunkenness, except in a very limited fashion, and they take away alcohol from vast numbers who would be better for the moderate use of it. We think the time has come when philanthropists should cease to listen to mere declamation, and should try to look calmly and fearlessly at the results of observation and experience. Many a good man is injuring his health and diminishing his usefulness in order to adhere, ‘for the sake of example,’ to a fantastic deprivation.”