To check the evils of drunkenness, we rely not on prohibitory legislation, which has been tried elsewhere and found wanting, but on the gradual spread of education and enlightenment; the effects of public {437} opinion, the improvement of the well-being of the humbler classes more particularly with reference to their habitations both in town and country. Perhaps also, but here we speak with greater diffidence on account of the practical difficulties in which such a proposal is involved a remedy is to be found in the confinement of those persons who have shown by their conduct that their inability to refrain from vile excesses arises from actual mental disease.
Lord Bramwell, in a pamphlet called Drink, has written to very much the same effect. He also calls in question the right of society to interfere with individual liberty to the extent proposed by the teetotallers. Is it reasonable, he asks, that because some people drink to excess, alcoholic liquors are to be denied to millions to whom it is a daily pleasure and enjoyment with no attendant harm? If a man is drunk in public, punish him; but it does seem hard that the sober man should be punished—for withholding a pleasure and inflicting a pain are equally punishment. “Then see the mischief of such laws,” he continues. “The public conscience does not go with them. It is certain they will be broken. Every one knows that stealing is wrong; disgrace follows conviction. But every one knows that drinking a glass of beer is not wrong; no discredit attaches to it. It is done, and when done against the law you have the usual mischiefs of law-breaking, smuggling, informations, oaths, perjury, shuffling, and lies. Besides, as a matter of fact, it fails. Nothing can show this more strongly than the failure in Wales of the Sunday Closing Act.” Lord Bramwell in the end comes to the conclusion that drunkenness cannot be prevented by legislation. “Whether it is desirable to limit the number of drink shops,” he writes, “is a matter as to which I have great doubt and difficulty. But grant that there is the right to forbid it, wholly or partially, in place or time, I say it is a right which should not be exercised. To do so is to interfere with the innocent enjoyment of millions in order to lessen the mischief arising from the folly or evil propensities, not of themselves, but of others. And, further, that such legislation is attended with the mischiefs which always follow from the creation of offences in law which are not so in conscience. Punish the mischievous drunkard, indeed, perhaps, even punish him for being drunk in public, and so a likely source of mischief. Punish, on the same principle, the man who sells drink to the drunken. But go no further. Trust to the good sense and improvement of mankind, and let charity be shown to those who would trust to them rather than to law.”
Other arguments in opposition to those who would introduce what {438} is known as local option may be briefly summed up as follows:—Such a system would establish the principle that a majority of ratepayers in one district may put a stop to any trade or calling to which they may happen to object, although the same trade remains perfectly legitimate in other places; it would concentrate the evil, shifting the area of the sale of drink, and thus intensifying the mischiefs complained of; it would introduce invidious class distinctions, since its effects would principally be felt by the poor and the labouring classes, and in place of a trade which is now subject to inspection and regulation, it would substitute a secret and irresponsible one.
In this discussion, the balance of experience, of reason, and of authority is vastly in favour of the temperate man rather than the abstainer, and it may be said without fear of contradiction from any reasonable or unbiassed person that, for the great majority of the people of this country, the most wholesome, the most nutritious, and the most pleasing alcoholic liquor, is the “wine of the country,” good, sound ale and beer.
To the reader who has been patient enough to follow us thus far, we give our best thanks, hoping that he may have found something to amuse, something, perhaps, to instruct in these pages—our best thanks, we say, and, as a parting word, a few verses by old John Gay, entitled
A BALLAD ON ALE.
Whilst some in epic strains delight, Whilst others pastorals invite, As taste or whim prevail; Assist me all ye tuneful Nine, Support me in the great design, To sing of nappy Ale.
Some folks of cider make a rout, And cider’s well enough no doubt When better liquors fail; But wine that’s richer, better still, Ev’n wine itself (deny ’t who will) Must yield to nappy Ale.
Rum, brandy, gin with choicest smack, From Holland brought, Batavia rack, All these will nought avail {439} To cheer a truly British heart, And lively spirits to impart, Like humming nappy Ale.
Oh ! whether thee I closely hug In honest can, or nut-brown jug, Or in the tankard hail, In barrel or in bottle pent, I give the generous spirit vent, Still may I feast on Ale.