The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-03-31 00:00:00

THE DRINK BILL OF THE UNITED

KINGDOM FOR 1882.

Under the above heading Mr. William Hoyle, of
Bury, has sent a letter to The Times, the purport of
which will be gathered from the following extract
from a leader in which The Times comments upon Mr.
Hoyle's communication :
The friends of the temperance movement will read
with moderate satisfaction the letter we print from
our old correspondent, Mr. William Hoyle, on
the drink bill of 1882. The bill, it will be seen
is a little less than it was for 1881; it is a great
deal less than it was for 1876, when it reached its
maximum amount. During the intervening years
it has fluctuated. In 1877 there was a reduction
of more than five millions sterling in the sum spent by
the nation on intoxicating drinks. In 1878 there was
a slight rise. In 1879 and 1830 the decrease was very
marked. The £147,288,759, which is the amount
shown for 1876, sank in 1879 to £128,143,863, and in
1880 to £122,279,275. In 1881 it rose again to
£127,074,460. By the last returns there is a falling-off
to £126,251,359, which is the amount at which it stands
for 1882. Looking at the figures in another way, we
find that in 1876 the expenditure on drink per head of
population was £4 Os.; in 1882 it was £3 us. 7d.
Th;s seems on the face of it a very marked change
for the better, fully as great as we could reasonably
look f,:r within so short a period of time. But Mr.
Hoyle is not satisfied with it. He and others who
are engaged in temperance work have been hoping
for more decided results. They have been making
vast efforts, but Mr. Hoyle appears to be in doubt
whether they have done much good. There has
been, he thinks, some progress in temperance prin-
ciples since 1876, but it is to the depression in trade
that he assigns the chief influence. If men have
been spending less money in drink, it has been very
much because they have had less money to spend
in anything. Their drink bill would have been larger
if their circumstances had been more flourishing.
How has it come to pass, Mr. Hoyle asks, that
the cause of temperance pure and simple has made
such little way? It has been from no want of
vigorous and organised advocacy. The temperance
societies, of which he gives a goodly list, have done all
they could, but they have only stemmed the tide.
they have not succeeded in turning it back. To Mr.
Hoyle's mind, the national drink bill, however re;
duced in its amount, is still appalling. The fault, he
thinks, has been in the Legislature. The
legalized centres of intemperance, the 180,000
licensed places in which drink is to be ob-
tained, have a more powerful influence than, the
most energetic voluntary- efforts can overcome. It
is in vain to preach temperance as long as the national
will declares itself on the other side. The most neces-
sary thing to be done now is to lessen the temptations
to intemperance, or, In other words, to deal effectually
with the licensed traffic in drink. Men will go on
drinking as long as they can get drink. Shut the
publichouses and cut off the supply, and the unnatural
demand will cease.

Mr. Hoyle is a little unjust to himself and to his
fellow-labourers. They seem, on his own showing, to
have done more than he gives them credit for. During
the past year or two there has been so appreciable a
revival of trade, and wages at the present moment are
so high, that a falling-off in the national drink bill
must behlue to other causes than those to which Mr.
Hoyle refers. The country is more populous than it
was in 1876: man for man, it is probably more rich.
If it spends less in drink than it did then it is to the
spread of voluntary abstinence that the Change must
be ascribed. But Mr. Hoyle insists that the improve-
ment has been less than it ought to have been, that
the drink bill is still excessive, and that it must be
brought down by a further reform in our national
habits. We cannot contradict him here. We would
only hint a doubt whether the need of heroic
remedies is quite as urgent as he believes it to be,
and whether a legislative prohibition of the liquor
traffic would not be so far in advance both of
public opinion and of public practice as to be a
measure of very doubtful benefit. He must be
satisfied for the present that things are in a right train.
Every year adds its thousands and tens of thousands
of voluntary converts to temperance. As far as the
supply of liquor is in excess of the legitimate demand, as
far as the publichouses are more numerous than they
ought to be and time offer what we may term unsought
temptations to drink, the cure rests with the licensing
authorities. It is understood that by the coming County
Government Bill the matter will be brought so far
within popular control that each district will have as
many publichouses as its inhabitants choose and no
more. That such a reform as this should be called
for, and that good results should be expected from it,
must be taken as proof of the somewhat low estimate
which the avowed champions of temperance have
formed about their fellow-men. They preach their
cause ; they recommend it by example and by argument;
they are very fairly successful in carrying their hearers
with them. But when all is done, the temptation
of an open public-house is so strong as to be irre-
sistible. Or possibly the poor fellows have no wish to
go in, but some one asks them to have a drink, and
they have not moral courage enough to answer
with a decided "No." This is a low view to take
of average human nature, but we are not sure
that it i. incorrect. It is the view, at any rate,
which a good many people seem to take about
themselves. They are so diffident of their own
powers that they ask to be protected against a
temptation which a little more strength of will
or a little more moral courage would enable them to
defy. If the present licensing system is so far changed
as to allow them to protect themselves, their case will
have been substantially met. We have no love for a
restrictive policy as such. It is a dangerous remedy
which may prove even worse than the disease. But
very many people, perhaps the majority, are set upon
trying it, though not to the full extent which Mr.
Hoyle demands in the name of national morality. • .

ASSISTANCE TO EMIGRANTS.
A somewhat novel scheme for assisting emigrants
has been originated and worked successfully by
the London Samaritan Society, 98, Iligh•street,
Homerton, London, E., Mr. John James Jones, late
of the School Board for London, having, in the course
of last year, taken to Canada and secured employment
for about 1,500 emigrants.
The scheme of the Samaritan Society is not so much
to assist in paying the fares—although this is done
under special circumstances—as to secure to the pas-
sengers personal comfort and safety to property en
route, and also (if possible) employment on landing.
The funds are, therefore, applied chiefly to defray the
costs of meeting the emigrants at the various railway
stations between London and Liverpool, seeing them
safely on board the steamers, and accompanying them
to their destination.
Mr. Jones is assisted by Miss Say, who gratuitously
gives her services for the comfort of the females. Thus
the travellers are saved the extortion and annoyance
peculiar to such occasions and are at no cost beyond
ordinary emigrant fares.
Mr. Jones has been in communication with a large
number of employers in Canada during the winter,
and his first personally•conducted party of the present
season—May 3—is consequently expected to be the
largest yet taken out.