Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

ment. This Board set to work at once with a definite policy, which was to stop continuous drinking and modify drinking at frequent intervals, especially during working hours, as these indulgences were believed to be the root of most of the physical and mental troubles and disabilities among workers, and the Board hoped to discourage all drinking except at meals. The work carried out by the Board in such areas as Carlisle and Enfield reads like a romance, but it would have been probably impossible if Parliament had gone to the country asking for the powers they have exercised. In Carlisle the Board have closed many of the public houses and some of the breweries, and have themselves taken over the enterprises carried on formerly by these as well as the wine merchants. They have placed disinterested managers in charge of their houses, and managers were not to profit by the sale of drink, but only by the sale of food; the hours of opening were restricted to those of meal time, the sale of spirits was to be discouraged and none was to be issued to those under 18 years of age; and a very important feature, all drinks were permitted to be diluted. They have arranged for entertainment and recreation to be provided for persons frequenting their premises. They also have power to provide postal and banking facilities for their customers. Moreover, they have arranged for their own inspectors to visit and examine all premises and clubs within their controlled areas in order to insist that the regulations were carried out, and lastly they have established Sunday closing. It is not fully appreciated by the public to what extent the regulations of the Board have succeeded, but it is only short of marvellous to realize that these control 38,000,000 of the population of this country, and it may be surprising also to know that the Board have not acted in a single instance without an application to do so being presented by the local naval, military, transport or munition authority. May we ask with what results the Board have acted? Throughout London and in 40 towns with over 100,000 inhabitants, 159,000 convictions for drunkenness in both sexes occurred before the war, whereas in 1916 these had diminished to 77,000, or less than one-half. In London alone last year nearly 20,000 arrests were made by the police for drunkenness, with " incapability” and disorderliness as qualifications, and this number is less than half the number during the first year of the war. In all the areas where the Board have exercised their

powers, the streets have become more decorous, the station platforms more orderly, the people more tranquil and crowds less excitable; workers have been healthier and their minds less irritable; there has been more contentment among the mass of the people—they are more reasonable and have got through more work. In addition, there has been a reduction by one-half in the number of cases of delirium tremens, especially in places like Woolwich where men collected in large numbers and many of them drifted through drink into the Poor Law Infirmaries. The results in all areas have been perfectly astonishing, although these are only a few of the attainments of the Board, and these results have been testified to by chief constables, medical officers of health, district workers, nurses, and even by members of the licensing trade itself. The police court statistics have supported the statement made that drunkenness among men and women has diminished by one-half. Yet what do we find among some of the critics, viz., those who are described as extreme temperance advocates; persons whose wholehearted efforts are said to be in the public interest, yet who in regard to the control of the liquor traffic are “neck or nothing”? They offer to

” the policy of the Board an uncompromising opposition, and in place of the scheme of purchase and control so successfully carried out by the Board they advocate a scheme of total prohibition. They offer a flat contradiction to the Board's statistics, and to support their opposition they urge that in spite of the restrictions generally imposed by the Board the fact that there has been a continuous increase since the war of expenditure on intoxicants—which was 12 per cent higher in 1916 than in 1915, and 24 per cent higher than in 1914—and that the amount of money spent upon alcoholic liquor in 1916 was higher than in any previously recorded year and the highest yet recorded; still this can be accounted for by the high price paid for drink, which means that although the nation spent more it drunk less and the revenue received less money. These opponents also assert that if there has been a diminution of drunkenness, which is not admitted by them, there has been more private drinking, which is denied by all those most competent to judge. What are we to think of mental states that can direct such a virulent and vehement crusade against the work of the Board of Liquor Control? The following is the criticism made in the leading article of the Times of December 26, 1917: “The diminution of intemperance among women will not be welcomed by those intemperate advocates of temperance who regard the total prohibition of the liquor traffic as an absolute good in itself. Some people seem actually to prefer an increase to a diminution of drunkenness, because it is a lever for promoting their cause, and they will criticize and deny the evidence quoted in the report to the Board, viz., the fact that there has been a diminution of drunkenness as shown by the average weekly number of convictionswhich has fallen from 700 in 1914 to 239 in 1917. These specious critics assert that police statistics are notoriously unreliable and that the fall in these has been more than overbalanced by an increased home drunkenness, that public excesses have been replaced by secret drinking,” which, of course, is not the case. The local Carlisle Journal's reply to this criticism reads as follows: "The improvement (in Carlisle) is as noticeable in the orderliness of the streets as in the official figures of decrease in convictions for drunkenness and to the citizens this return to good order must be highly gratifying, and not only are the numbers decreasing in comparison with previous years, but the improvement still continues and is very pronounced.” Nor has this hostility been limited to the work of the Board; one member of the Board himself has been the recipient of the most unmerited abuse and contempt on the part of this extreme wing of the temperance party. Nor was it long before their example was taken up by other discontents. The Labor Council in Carlisle saw in Sunday-closing an interference with the workmen's comfort and freedom, and they naturally demanded a reconsideration of this matter by the Central Board with a request to return to the former hours of opening. The whole matter was referred to the Local Advisory Board, which apparently took the side of the Labor Council, but the Central Board very wisely decided there was not sufficient reason to go back upon their decision, suggesting that whatever determination was arrived at would always find some conflict of opinion either for or against. The matter is possibly not yet closed, because the Labor Council have decided to make further representations, and it is earnestly hoped that the trouble started by the extreme wing of the temperance party will not be the means of stirring up labor troubles in Carlisle. In addition to the complaints of the Labor Council, there has arisen an acute opposition from the Midlands and again on behalf of the Prohibitionists, but apparently orginating in an insignificant quarter.

It is quite well known that before the Central Board came into being, the policy of regulation and restriction under private ownership had already received a fair trial throughout the country, but it is also equally well known that it had reached its effective limits and something practical and immediate had to be done. No one denies that to the idealist temperance reformer—may we say not only to the mind of the total abstainer-prohibition as an ideal has undoubted public advantages over any system of state purchase, precisely as this has merits that are immeasurably superior to the scheme of the Improved Public House, as it is called, advocated by the self-denominated True Temperance Association ; but the work of the Central Liquor Traffic Control Board has by an overwhelming consensus of public opinion advanced the cause of temperance, yet there has been this incomprehensible attitude against its members and against its work, and more incomprehensible still, this attitude has been excited and fomented by those who should be its best friends. What is the psychological explanation of such opposition? I am of opinion that this intolerant exhibition of superiority deliberately shown by this extreme section is based upon egoism; it is a consequence of self-gratulation and selfesteem which borders upon an obsession and is regarded by some authorities as pathological. Most of us will acknowledge that all excellences require some comparison to demonstrate their advantages, but when specious reasons are advanced to support them and these are mingled with personal attacks, then such criticism passes beyond the limits of legitimate argument. A person who argues from selfish ends and from a feeling of personal superiority over others is very apt to dry up the wells of truth in order to justify his standpoint. Nor is such a person contented to stand alone, but, as we see in this instance, he courts the sympathy of others—whoever they may be—and so long as his own views are furthered, he will even sacrifice his own sense of honor in his effort to bring the opinion of society against this opponent and to throw discredit upon his views. No form of hostile criticism is so unendurable to a sensitive high-spirited nature as the disapprobation of his fellowmen and fellow workers, and it is a favorite device with the advocate of a weak cause that he should not only excite public opinion against his opponent, but also that he should heap upon him as much private contempt as possible, with the sole object of forcing him through this vituperation and scorn to modify his attitude, and this irrespective of the public good. We have used strong words in criticizing this conduct of the extremists and we know that this virulent and vehement opposition is not supported by public opinion. Let us be thankful that in the best interests of this country we have had a strong and energetic committee that has created a great change in the habits of the people as a war-time measure. It behoves us to think of what is to happen after the war is over. The period of demobilization is going to be a serious trial, especially to us who have to bring our brave men home from far distant seats of war, and all our men will be returning to find things very different from what they were. As Major Eccles said, “Scenes of drunkenness will be a dishonor to a nation that has been fighting for right and righteousness." It is the duty of this society to urge that the best conditions for employment shall be provided for our damaged men. There will be many difficulties after the war; there may be destitution; there certainly will be shortage of food and money. The question of the control of drink must be one of the first considerations, and are we giving it the amount of thought it needs? Our present mental attitude is too apathetic, and if we do not awaken now we shall be confronted with far greater menaces than we have hitherto faced; at any rate we can rely upon the standing example of what has been achieved by this Board even during the stress of war.

« PoprzedniaDalej »