trade in spirits. Every farmer on payment of a few shillings could establish a still and sell spirits retail; and in 1829, the date of maximum, the country contained 173,124 stills. The results of the enormous consumption which ensued were disastrous to the health and prosperity of the country. After a prolonged agitation led by temperance reformers, and finally supported by King Oscar I., a series of strong laws was passed in 1855. Small stills were closed, and the number was thus reduced from 33,342 in 1853 to 3,481 in 1855. Rural local authorities were empowered to forbid retail sales: that is, were given local veto. Towns were allowed to fix the number of licences, to sell them by auction, or to sell them to a company. The country districts quickly adopted prohibition, but in the towns little was done till 1863, when the Municipal Reform Act came into force; and in Gothenburg a committee, appointed to consider the excess of drunkenness, reported in favor of handing over the licences to a philanthropic company. This was done. The company agreed to take no more than the then legal rate of interest on their paid-up capital (£5,500), but, strange to say, no capital has ever been used in the business. The sales are for cash, and although purchases are only on a week's, or, for foreign goods, a month's credit, all the capital used was a loan of £1,100, repaid in a fortnight. The profits are therefore practically all paid over to the public, 70 per cent. going to the municipality, 10 per cent. to the County Agricultural Society, and 20 per cent. to the Treasury, the exact percentages varying somewhat according to the conditions and locality. One thing must be remembered in discussing the Gothenburg system and its relative the Norwegian system. Both deal exclusively with spirits. But in both countries spirit is the national drink, and in 1894 the average Swede consumed four and a quarter gallons of spirits and six and a quarter gallons of beer, whilst the average Englishman drank twenty-seven gallons of beer and only nine-tenths of a gallon of spirit. The consumption of beer is, however, rapidly increasing, and to this is attributed the recent increase of drunkenness in Gothenburg, especially amongst women.t

Briefly the Swedish system is as follows. The municipality is the licensing authority and fixes the number of licences, which are granted for three years. The regulations, byelaws, and proceedings of the company are subject to municipal control; and the council controls also the selection of sites and appointment of officials. In Norway a similar system arose, owing to the fact that when, by a new law, licences were offered for sale at auction, companies in fifty-one out of fiftyfour towns offered the highest price and so secured the monopoly. The three excluded towns are small, and five others do not issue licences at all.

In Norway, the municipal council-besides as in Sweden controlling the byelaws and all the operations of the company-now, in most cases, also appoints representatives on the managing committee. The Norwegians make a great point of the fact that the profits are spent in subventions to voluntary charities. In both countries the system has proved, in the opinion of the people, a great success. In C. 7,415, of 1894, quoted in Nat. Temp. Ann.

The Gothenburg and Bergen Public House System, by J. Whyte, Sec. U.K.A.; 1894.

sing systems, almost approaching the type of the automatic sweetmeat machine. In France, you put 6d. in the slot, and a licence is forthcoming forty-eight hours later. By a law of 1887 licences are limited in Austria to one for five hundred persons." Elsewhere in the empire a local high licence system obtains, under which teetotal crusades result in communal bankruptcy. Holland has had for fifteen years past a maximum of spirit licences per population, and the local licensing authority has, within limits, the power of varying licence fees. But the law only cancels licences spontaneously relinquished, and thus it acts mainly by way of preventing an undue increase. The maximum fee is usually exacted. Trade in beer is free. In Russia, the State has recently assumed the monopoly of spirit retailing in the greater part of the empire. The object of the government is said to be benevolent, officials are told that promotion will follow small rather than large sales, and the quality of the liquor sold has improved. As no liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, an illicit traffic is growing up, spirit being served in tea-pots in establishments which we should call coffee-houses. Curiously enough, the most democratic of countries has a similar monopoly, this time in the wholesale trade only. Switzerland is unhappily cursed with a written constitution; and the new constitution of 1874, guaranteeing freedom of trade, prevented restrictions on the sale of liquor. The consumption of drink, and the degradation of the people rapidly increased; and with a view to checking both it was proposed and carried by two-thirds vote on the referendum that the Federal Government should assume the monopoly of the distilling trade. The new law came into operation in 1887, when all domestic stills and 1,400 distilleries were closed with the exception of about 68. These distilleries sell their whole product to the Government department at a fixed price for re-sale to the retailers. The result is a much better quality of spirit and a magnificent revenue to the State. In 1896, the last year for which the figures are available, the gross profit was £255,204 on a turnover of 528,580. The annual net profit (after providing for sinking fund of debt and for depreciation) has averaged 209,072. When the distilleries were closed compensation was paid to the amount of £140,000 for the minimum value of the plant, but not for the goodwill. As this works out at little over £100 apiece, it was clearly not an excessive amount; but the case is worth noting, as compensation is a very rare phenomenon. The consumption of spirits has fallen 30 per cent. since the introduction of the State monopoly; but this is said to be made up by an increase in wine, beer and cider.t

The Gothenburg System.

The Scandinavian system demands fuller treatment, because it is quite the most instructive example of drastic and successful licensinglaw reform. In the early decades of this century, Sweden had free

*C. 5253, 1887, p. 2. The explanation of the law is obscure, but the effect appears to be as given above.

† F. O. Report, 1925. C. 8277, 143, June, 1897.

trade in spirits. Every farmer on payment of a few shillings could establish a still and sell spirits retail; and in 1829, the date of maximum, the country contained 173,124 stills. The results of the enormous consumption which ensued were disastrous to the health and prosperity of the country. After a prolonged agitation led by temperance reformers, and finally supported by King Oscar I., a series of strong laws was passed in 1855. Small stills were closed, and the number was thus reduced from 33,342 in 1853 to 3,481 in 1855. Rural local authorities were empowered to forbid retail sales: that is, were given local veto. Towns were allowed to fix the number of licences, to sell them by auction, or to sell them to a company. The country districts quickly adopted prohibition, but in the towns little was done till 1863, when the Municipal Reform Act came into force; and in Gothenburg a committee, appointed to consider the excess of drunkenness, reported in favor of handing over the licences to a philanthropic company. This was done. The company agreed to take no more than the then legal rate of interest on their paid-up capital (£5,500), but, strange to say, no capital has ever been used in the business. The sales are for cash, and although purchases are only on a week's, or, for foreign goods, a month's credit, all the capital used was a loan of £1,100, repaid in a fortnight. The profits are therefore practically all paid over to the public, 70 per cent. going to the municipality, 10 per cent. to the County Agricultural Society, and 20 per cent. to the Treasury, the exact percentages varying somewhat according to the conditions and locality. One thing must be remembered in discussing the Gothenburg system and its relative the Norwegian system. Both deal exclusively with spirits. But in both countries spirit is the national drink, and in 1894 the average Swede consumed four and a quarter gallons of spirits and six and a quarter gallons of beer, whilst the average Englishman drank twenty-seven gallons of beer and only nine-tenths of a gallon of spirit." The consumption of beer is, however, rapidly increasing, and to this is attributed the recent increase of drunkenness in Gothenburg, especially amongst women.t

Briefly the Swedish system is as follows. The municipality is the licensing authority and fixes the number of licences, which are granted for three years. The regulations, byelaws, and proceedings of the company are subject to municipal control; and the council controls also the selection of sites and appointment of officials. In Norway a similar system arose, owing to the fact that when, by a new law, licences were offered for sale at auction, companies in fifty-one out of fiftyfour towns offered the highest price and so secured the monopoly. The three excluded towns are small, and five others do not issue licences at all.

In Norway, the municipal council-besides as in Sweden controlling the byelaws and all the operations of the company-now, in most cases, also appoints representatives on the managing committee. The Norwegians make a great point of the fact that the profits are spent in subventions to voluntary charities. In both countries the system has proved, in the opinion of the people, a great success. In *C. 7,415, of 1894, quoted in Nat. Temp. Ann.

The Gothenburg and Bergen Public House System, by J. Whyte, Sec. U.K.A.; 1894.

Sweden, 77 out of 90 towns have formed companies, whilst the remainder still sell the licences by auction.*

In Sweden, the companies provide comfortable taverns and also eating houses. In Norway, on the other hand, the premises are bare; no seats are provided in the bar, nor are there any inducements to customers to remain.

That the company systems have been successful is proved (1) by their rapid spread over both countries. (2) By the reduced consumption of spirits per head: Sweden, from 11 litres in 1871-5 to 7 in 1893-7, and Norway, from 5.6 litres in 1871-5 to 35 in 1891-5. Still lower figures in 1896-7 are due to the increase of prohibition. (3) By the profits realized: Sweden, year 1896-7, £463,814; Norway, 1895, 98,180.t

The success of the system in diminishing crime and excessive drinking is controverted by prohibitionists and by temperance reformers who deprecate using the profits of the traffic for public purposes. But even supposing their case were proved-which it is not -it would only show that the company system has not all the advantages claimed for it.

A recent Act (1894) in Norway permitted a vote to be taken in towns with Samlags (companies) on the question of prohibition. Votes were to be taken once in five years, and only in a certain number of towns in any one year. The vote in 1895 and 1896 resulted in sixteen towns voting for prohibition and six against it. In 1897 three voted for and eight against. In 1898 four voted for and eight against. According to police reports, the results of prohibition have been a great increase of drunkenness, a larger consumption of liquor, especially amongst the young, and a revival of illicit distilling.

The United States.

Turning to the United States we find a perfect storehouse of precedent, a monstrous workshop of experiments. There are some fifty separate states and territories, and, subject always to a Federal licence, enforced for revenue purposes, each state manages its own affairs in the matter of the liquor traffic, and mostly manages them incessantly and exceedingly, altering its system on an average about once in two years. Moreover, many cities and townships have laws of their own. For example, the State of Kentucky passed in 1890 sixty special Acts giving special powers to some particular district, or prohibiting the sale of drink within so many miles of some church or school. And this is only one instance of a quite common practice. The combinations, varieties, and modifications of the liquor laws in the States are therefore absolutely bewildering. The following summary is as complete as it can be made, but it may include errors, and laws may have been altered since the date of my information.

Prohibition is the law in five not very important States, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and North Dakota, and also in the territory of Alaska.§ Of its failure we shall speak elsewhere. [ *Rowntree and Sherwell (Temperance Problem and Social Reform, p. 578) say that 92 "towns had Companies in 1896. § Ibid, p. 123.

"

† Ibid, p. 583.

"

Ibid, p. 593.

See Fabian Tract No. 86, "Municipal Drink Traffic."

This much must be set to its credit: in Maine, where it has been in force continuously for forty years, the inhabitants are increasingly favorable to it, and, although drink selling has been by no means completely prohibited, the consumption of liquor has been materially reduced. On the other hand no less than eleven States have tried prohibition and have abandoned it.

Mulct Tax.-A singular modification, or rather nullification, of prohibition prevails in Iowa. The State has voted strongly prohibitionist, and all traffic in alcoholic drink, except for medical purposes, is totally forbidden, under severe fines. But the law was not obeyed, and a prominent prohibitionist, who tried to enforce it, was openly assassinated in a public street. That was about 1890. By 1893 and 1894 illegal drink-selling was freely carried on in the principal towns. In Davenport, for example, "a fee of $200 a year was required from saloon-keepers, and those who refused to pay were subjected to all manner of annoyances from the municipality.' The lot of the Iowan publican was therefore deplorable. First, he was abolished by an Act of the legislature, and then, when he persistently refused to shut up, he had to pay an illegal cess on pain of being subject to all manner of annoyances from his town council. This continued annoyance of citizens, guilty of no other crime than carrying on a trade prohibited by law, apparently moved the great heart of Iowa, and the legislature passed an Act in 1894 which must surely have been drafted by a student of "Alice in Wonderland." The Mulct Tax Act provides that "nothing in this Act contained shall in any way be construed to mean that the business of the sale of intoxicating liquor is in any way legalized, nor shall the assessment or payment of any tax for the sale of liquors as aforesaid protect the wrongdoer from any penalty now provided by the law," but if the majority of the voters of any town consent, and the aforesaid "wrongdoer" pay a tax of 120 a year, and comply with some other conditions, he shall not be liable to the punishments provided by the Prohibition Law. How this singular legislation works it is too soon yet to report.

Local Option prevails in a large number of States, including Massachusetts, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia and Texas. This provides under various forms that any town or township can vote once in every few years, or, as in Massachusetts, is compelled to vote every year whether or no it will permit licences to be issued. In the Southern States, prohibition is largely adopted, chiefly in country districts; but changes are frequent and a county will often vote "wet " one year and "dry" the next, and so on. Local option in another form exists in New York State and New Jersey, where special boards of Excise Commissioners are elected, to whom, of course, the electors can give what mandate they please; whilst in California and Ohio the municipal authorities control the traffic and in the former State several counties, and thirty to forty small towns and districts have in this manner voted prohibition.

High Licence, one of the most successful methods of controlling the trade, prevails in Pennsylvania and four other states and territories, and it also co-exists with Local Option in many other places.