The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-06-22 00:00:00

Mr. Blennerhasset, Mr. Beresford-Hope, Mr. AsFheton, Mr.
Newderzate, and several other hon. members took part, and
eventually the House divided, when the numbers were—For
the second reading, 140; against, 219; majority against, 79.
—The Bill was accordingly rejected.
The remaining orders were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned.

THE TREATMENT OF HABITUAL
DRUNKARDS.
(From Monday's Times.)
The question of the proper treatment of habitual
drunkards has been before Parliament for some years.
In 1872 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire
into the subject, and various Bills based on the report
of this committee have subsequently been introduced
in successive Ssssious in the House of Commons.
Nevertheless, the subject still remains in the limbo of
projected legislation. No one denies its importance,
but practical and prudent men are forced to pause be-
fore its difficulties. Drunkenness, whether habitual
or casual, is without doubt one of the greatest social
evils with which northern nations have to deal. It is
acknowledged to be the prolific parent of crime, and it
is at least the proximate cause of by far the greatqr
portion-of the widespread misery which furnishes such
an appalling contrast to the general tenour of our
opulent civilization. This corroding evil, the fatal
consequences of which no one who , reflects can
ignore, may be combated in a variety of ways. We
may io regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors of all
kinds, as sthile satisfying the legitimate needs of the
temperate majority, to remove from the weak and
wayward the manifold temptations to a vice which
they have not the' strength to resist. We may hope
gradually to elevate the popular feeling on the subject
of intemperance so that fora man to be known to have
indulged in liquor to excess should be in all classes a
social stigma and a moral disgrace. This is already
the case within certain limits and among certain
classes in this country, an there is no reason why it
should not be so universally. Nevertheless, when all
is done that can be done, in these and other indirect
ways, to further the cause of temperance, it is to be
feared that there will still remain a residuum of per-
sons who can only be described as habitual drunkards—
that is, of persons to whom the habitual consumption
of alcohol in excess has become a habit which no effort
of their own, and no influence, short of sheer compul-
sion, which can be brought to bear upon them, will
induce them to relinquish. They are the helpless
victims of a vice which they have lost the power to
withstand. They become a burden to themselves, a
terror to their friends, a scandal to their neighbours,
and a scourge to their posterity. In the lower classes
they recruit the ranks of crime; in the higher they
ruin families and wreck the happiness of all who are
connected win them. They cannot be cured by social
generation nor by moral restraint, for they are deaf to
the reprobation of their fellows, and conscience has
long lost its hold on them. Physical restraint alone
is of any avail in such inveterate cases. The worst of
drunkards can be cured, at least for a time, if he is
placed beyond the reach of stimulants; and when his
will is strengthened and his moral sense restored there
is at least a hope that he may permanently abandon
his evil courses. The question thus arises whether
the Legislature should not sanction the application
to habitual drunkards of the only remedy by. which
they can be even temporarily or approximately
cured.
It is quite clear that if we were to look merely to
the proved effects of physical restraint on habitual
drunkards there would be no serious objection to the
Bill now before Parliament in which the subject is
dealt with. If physical restraint will not absolutely
cure drunkarks, it will, at any rate, give them a
fresh chance of effecting their own restoration. What
medical treatment, aided by restraint, can do is to
restore the patient to a normal condition of health
and will, and so to quench the unappeasable craving
for alcoholic, stimulant which is the drunkard's
bane. But the difficulty is to induce the patient
to submit himself to the necessary restraint, and
the promoters of the present Bill are convinced
that this cannot effectually be done, unless, as
they say, they are empowered to turn the key
on the patient. Accoroingly, it is proposed to
permit certain persons by licence to open " re-
treats" for habitual drunkards. To such a re-
treat an habitual drunkard, defined in very elastic
terms as "a person who, by reason of habitual intem-
perate drinking of intoxicating liquor is dangerous to
himself or to others, o 'incapable of managing himself
and his affairs," may be admitted on his own appli-
cation for a period not exceeding twelve months, and
when so admitted he is not to be entitled to leave the
retreat, unless discharged by order of a justice on
reasonable and proper grounds. until the expiration of
the period for which he consented to surrender his
liberty. It is further proposed that an habitual
drunkard may be summoned by a justice, on the
' application of a parent, husband, wife, relative, or
guardian, before the Petty Sessions, and, if proved
to be an habitual drunkard, he may be confined in a
retreat for a period not exceeding twelve months. in
this case, however, the person summoned is to be
entitled, if he thins s fit, to have the question whether
he is an habitual drunkard determined by a common
jury. In default of proof under either process the eas3
is to be dismissed with costs against the applicant,
it will be seen at once that this is a very stringent
mode of dealing even with such an evil as that of
habitual drunkenness; indeed, it would appear from
the report of a late meeting of a Society interested in
the subject that even so thoroughgoing a philan-
thropist as Lord Shaftesbury is a little startled by the
machinery proposed for coercion. There are some
remedies which, however effectual in themselves, are
worse than the evil they cure, and it might fairly be
argued that the remedy proposed in this case is one o
them. We do not by any means unierrate the evil to be
combated; but it was admitted by American witnesses
who were examined before the committee of 1872 that
in America, where a system similar to that now pro-
posed for this country has been in operation for some
time, the number of ascertained cures did not amount to
more than a third of the cases treated. Englishmen are
traditionally, and, very properly, exceedingly jealous of
any interference with the liberty of the subject, and
though they might not object to give a man the
power of incarcerating himself in order to get rid of
a vice that had taken hold of him, we doubt if they
are prepared to give to others, even to those nearest
and dearest to him, the power of putting him into
confinement for the same purpose. We know that
the lunacy laws have frequently been abused by
unscrupulous and interested persons, although their
operation is placed under all manner of restraints
and is very jealously watched by the public. Yet
it must be very much more easy to determine
whether a man is a lunatic and unfit to be at large
than to determine whether he is an habitual
drunkard and, therefore, to be deprived of his
liberty. All legislation is bound to guard against
the abuse of the powers it confers, and this is
especially true of legislation which interferes, for
whatever purpose, with personal liberty. Habitual
drunkards may be divided into two classes—those be-
longing to the respectable ranks of society, whose vice
is its own worst punishment in the misery it entails on
themselves and their families, and those belonging to
the vagabond and criminal classes, whose vice turns by
a natural affinity to crime. The former class is rela-
tively small, and we may fairly hope that it is de-
creasing. At any rate, it may be doubted whether it
is large enough to call for legislation of exceptional
stringency. The latter class isdeplorably large, no doubt,
but it is already indirectly dealt with to a considerable
extent by means of ordinary prison discipline. When
a criminal is sent to prison he is necessarily placed
under the needed restraint; even if he is not cured
during the term of his incarceration, it would be
difficult to convict him of habitual drunkenness im-
mediately on his release. It is clearly difficult, if not
impossible, to deal with these two distinct classes of
cases in the same manner, and the legislation which
it is proposed to apply to both is open to special objec-
tions in each case. As far as drunkards who are also
criminals are concerned, it would almost be better to
adopt the old Greek expedient of doubling the penalty
for offences committed by drunkards.
The Bishop of Petersborough once said in the
House of Lords that he would sooner see Englishmen
free than sober. We do not despair of seeing them
both; but we should be disposed to trust rather to in-
direct means than to acts of Parliament for bringing
about so desirable a consummation. If it were possible
so to place habitual drunkards under the restraint
which is the first and only condition of their restora-
tion as not to make it easy for unscrupulous persons
to incarcerate their obnoxious relatives, nor to make
it worth the while of such persons to encourage
weak and self-indulgent people in a course
of alcoholic excess in order to get them out of the way,
we should be willing to see the experiment tried in
this country as it has already been tried in America.
It is possible, indeed, that the power now sought of
placing habitual drunkards under restraint may be so
surrounded with safeguar4s as to make it impossible,.
or at any rate difficult, of abuse, and to make the
abuse easy of detection when it occurs. This, how-
ever, has clearly not at present been done. It is one
of the saddest sights imaginable to see a man of
promise, of education, and of position going hopelessly
to ruin, and dragging his family down with him,
simply because there are no legal means of putting him
under the restraint which alone can restore him. But
we have never yet sanctioned the principle in this
country that mere vice should entail the loss of per-
sonal liberty; and if, as Lord Shaftesbury says the
way to combat intemperance is to treat it as a vice,
and not as a disease, we can only punish it when it is
associated with crime, and we must accept the limita-
tions which such a mode of regarding it entails.