ordinary man, whether they are the manifestations of zeal or of indiscretion.

Real and lasting reform must be constructive and not merely restrictive, and it must be to some extent gradual and voluntary, otherwise the effect will be merely to drive the drink into other and even less desirable channels. Any attempt at a short cut to temperance will result in being the longest way round.

The common mistake is to lay all the blame upon drink, whereas the true evil is to be found in the conditions under which it is distributed and in over-indulgence. To insist, in the present state of the public taste, upon the prohibition of beer-drinking is as futile as to deny the value of dietetic properties of pure malt and hop beer. In many working-class districts hosts of labouring men engaged in the hardest manual labour very largely live upon it.

Experience shows rather that guarantee of purity of alcoholics, limited indulgence, and healthy surroundings should be the first aims of the practical temperance reformer. Once concede this, and it is possible to instil some reality into licensing reform.

The whole tendency of the Acts of Parliament relating to this subject has hitherto been merely repressive in character. The want of certainty and uniformity in licensing practice, owing to the wide discretion given to Justices, has been and still is a very wide hindrance to reform of a comprehensive character. Thus a practice which is well settled in one division is frequently sternly discountenanced in one adjoining, although often apparently quite within the law. The variety of the conditions and amounts of monopoly value attached to new licenses furnish striking examples of this lack of uniformity.

The restrictive character of legislation and of the local rules of licensing Benches seems almost to assume that the sole endeavour of the average licensee is to overstep the bounds of decorum and good order, and this in spite of the fact that a man who wishes to acquire a license must produce certificates of good character, which, if strictly accurate, would place him above the angels. Nor is this, frequently, petty tyranny on the part of benevolent Benches and their clerks capable of acting as a real deterrent to a blackguard; at the most it restricts him to certain practices which are quite as undesirable as any of those which are illegal.

On the other hand, the multiplication and complexity of the laws and rules when administered by an unwise or over-zealous and tactless, constabulary, backed by a harsh and unsympathetic Bench, have been the downfall of many an honest man, and have prevented many another from entering the Trade. This is to be regretted, for, if experience teaches anything, it is that the personal equation is allimportant. Every encouragement should be given to the best men to enter the Trade, and in any scheme of reform, if the publican is to give of his best, full play and wide discretion must, and can, be given for the exercise of his abilities.

Almost the whole of the reason for the existing undesirable condition of most licensed houses can be traced to the tied-house system, which places the retailer entirely in the hands of the merchant. . . . Thus the old English hostelry, once famous for its all-round hospitality and good cheer, has been deposed, and has become, since the growth of the limited liability company, the mere catspaw and counter of the wholesaler; whilst its value is almost exclusively calculated nowadays in gallons of output of alcoholics.

Drink, in fact, instead of being a convenient adjunct to an eating-house, has now become the sole object of the existence of a licensed house; and legislation, which has been drafted largely upon the assumption that licensed houses are tied, has contributed to make it solely the object of every one connected with the Trade to increase the alcoholic output to the greatest possible amount, by selecting not the quantum of drink but the size of the house, as the basis of taxation. So that it is to the tenant's advantage to limit the accommodation to the smallest extent, in order to secure as small a license duty, compensation charges and assessments as possible.

Could any system be more insane than that which whittles down the ideal licensed house to one which is capable of distributing the greatest quantity of alcohol in the smallest possible space? Can any one wonder that, with the additional pressure of recent taxation, the Trade has not hurried to add amenities beyond the bars?

Although public opinion has long revolted against this state of things, combined circumstances have prevented any real improvement. Music, dancing, café chantants, stage plays, cinematographs, and all games, save billiards, are either illegal or sternly

discouraged, and in some licensing areas are absolutely forbidden. Thus, in the absence of counter-attractions, the only diversion left is to drink. . . . So far indeed has this policy of restriction been carried out that in many divisions temperance seems to be measured by the square yard, and permission to improve premises is refused merely on the ground that to grant it would be to increase the licensed area! In some divisions permission to improve licensed premises can only be obtained upon payment of a sum of money.

The Trade, in view of these restrictions, is unable to carry out improvements, or unwilling to bear the burden of extra taxation, which would be the reward, and in the case of the provision of dining-rooms, etc., often the sole reward, for improving and enlarging the accommodation of its houses. The fact is that a very large proportion of the applications, made in the most specious manner are only cleverly disguised attempts to increase the drinking facilities, while in the case of many honest applications the altered premises come to be used for a purpose very different from that originally intended.

Considering their elaboration, there is curiously little to be learned from the latest Licensing Statistics upon which it is safe to deduce anything accurately and with certainty; but the following facts are, at any rate, incontrovertible. They show a considerable increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness, a very large increase in the numbers of registered clubs, and the fact that a high proportion of these have been struck off as not bona fide. They show, too, a constant increase in the number of convictions of women for drunkenness.

From this it is fair to deduce that drunkenness has rather increased than diminished during the last four years, and that, although the number of licensed houses has been reduced, a very large part of the trade has been driven into clubs, which are free from license duty, and are not restricted as to hours of opening or closing, or subject to the same inspection as licensed houses. (During the War the sale of alcoholics is in certain districts suspended during certain hours both in clubs and licensed houses.) It is also incontrovertible that the great majority of registered clubs rely as much as, or more than, the ordinary public-house upon the sale of drink for their revenue. Clubs and off-licenses are very

largely responsible for increased drinking among women. Brewers' vans (which in many cases are nothing but public houses on wheels), clubs, off-licenses, and brewery taps compete very severely with the fully licensed house, and undoubtedly create far greater opportunities for secret drinking.

These facts, and the evidence presented by the conditions prevalent in many parts of our crowded towns and country districts, surely present a case for reform of a far-reaching character. It is evident that no sudden revolution would prove a lasting success. What then is the practical remedy?

Obviously, in the first place, the license duty should be levied, not upon the house, but upon the drink. It should vary with the quantity of drink sold or purchased, and not at all with the size of the premises. This plan would be an encouragement to licensees to extend their non-alcoholic trade at the expense of the alcoholic.

The next remedy is to place clubs upon the same footing, at least as regards taxation, as licensed houses; for it is obviously futile to expend large sums in reducing the number of redundant public-houses, if the result of such reduction is to increase the number of drinking clubs. Every club is run with a view to profit, otherwise it would not be continued, as a general rule; and, as we have seen, clubs compete directly with hotels and public-houses, so that it is difficult to see why they should not contribute substantially to the revenue. A large proportion are proprietary, either directly or indirectly, and only differ in technicalities from public-houses. Many of them indeed are tied and highly profitable to their owners, who most frequently are the nominees of brewers and distillers.

These two reforms would, it is believed, not be objected to by the majority of those interested in the Trade. Indeed the latter would be warmly welcomed by licensees.

LAW, POLICE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Mr. Newton D. Baker, Mayor of the city of Cleveland, contributes an unusually thoughtful and suggestive article under the above title to The Atlantic Monthly for July, 1915. As the head of one of the most important municipalities, Mr. Baker has had an ample experience with the question of law enforcement in a cosmopolitan center, the intricate police questions arising in connection with it, and its relation to various social problems. In opposition to the view so commonly expressed, that we are a lawbreaking people, he contends that "we are probably the most lawabiding people in the world," and that "we have an inexplicit and inexplicable method of repealing some of the laws we outgrow by simply ceasing to observe them." He sagely notes that the laws which have become dead letters "are in all stages of being dead." Now some people are very slow in accepting the current notion of a law being dead, and cause trouble by insisting upon having the law called into being. Thereby hangs a great deal of the trouble with which police departments have to contend. Mr. Baker puts it in this fashion: ""You have taken an oath to enforce all the laws,' the chairman of the Law-Enforcement League will say; 'here is a law you are not enforcing. You are not chosen to elect which laws are to be enforced, nor have you any means whatever of determining whether this law is approved by the general conscience. The best way to repeal a bad law is to enforce it.' ... The sensational pulpit will rebuke the police department for its failure to enforce the law; a committee will wait upon the mayor and demand enforcement to the letter; but whether the committee be clerical or lay, and however broad the foundation laid upon the vice of disregard of law, the object finally appears to be to secure the enforcement of some particular law."

He thereupon instances some laws of this kind such as midnight or Sunday closing of saloons, the prohibition of certain theatrical exhibitions or prize fights, etc. All this must seem more or less reminiscent to those who follow with any degree of interest the