good order in the streets, by abolishing the class of beer-houses, and by improving the character of licensed houses generally.' Further, the process of weeding out the most disorderly beer-houses has taken effect throughout the country.' A large number of witnesses from various places gave evidence of the beneficial effects of legislation. For their opinions see Chapter VII., on The Principles of Liquor Legislation' (p. 166).

The numerous Acts which have been passed since 1874 relate chiefly to minor points, but a few must be mentioned.

1876-77. Scotch Acts, extending to Scotland some of the provisions of the 1872-74 English Acts.

1878. Sunday-closing in Ireland, except in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford; had a good effect.

1881. Sunday-closing in Wales. In the smaller places it appears to have been quite successful, but in Cardiff it caused much trouble by forcing illicit trade, in the shape of clubs and shebeens. The women of the working classes complained bitterly of it: The men used to come home at ten o'clock, now they come at three or four in the morning.' This trouble has now been largely overcome, but there is still much opposition to the measure.

1882. An Act giving justices full discretion over " off' beer licenses.

1883. An Act prohibiting the payment of workmen in public-houses-a useful measure, far too long delayed.

1885. An Act defining beer for Inland Revenue purposes as any liquor which is made or sold as a description of beer, or as a substitute for beer, containing more than 2 per cent. of alcohol.' Beer may be made of almost anything under the Acts. But the analyses under the Local Government Board show that deleterious substitutes are not used, and that the only serious adulteration is by water with sugar, and possibly salt, but the latter is doubtful.

1886. An Act prohibiting the sale of liquor to persons under thirteen for consumption on the premises.

1887. A Scotch Act, giving local authorities power to close earlier (10 P.M.), except in towns of over 50,000 inhabitants.

1897. A further Scotch amending Act, relating to licenses to retail sweets.'

1901. Child Messenger Act, prohibiting sale to children under fourteen for off '-consumption, except in sealed vessels.

The reader who has waded through the foregoing list will admit, I think, that the Legislature has neither shirked the liquor question nor wholly failed in dealing with it, in spite of numerous blunders. Of the two agencies I have been discussing, the law seems to have more tangible results to its credit than the societies. But in truth it is only a superficial view which would regard these two things as representing the forces of temperance. Many far wider and deeper influences have been at work during the

period under discussion. Great changes have passed over the country-changes religious, political, social, economical, intellectual, and scientific; and not one but has in some degree touched the liquor question. The activity of the Churches, and particularly the regeneration of the Church of England, has done much to raise the standard of morality. The possession of political power has quickened the sense of responsibility in the people, and taught them more self-respect. Conversely, the social and industrial upheaval has forced employers of labour, landowners, and the upper classes generally to recognise, as they never did before, their duty to those around them and dependent on them. The physical conditions of life have been improved among the working classes by the entirely new science of hygiene and by the cheapening of food. Their mental condition has been equally affected by facilities for locomotion, by education, and the development of the press and other cheap literature. In this connection, the testimony of a working man, given so far back as 1854, is worth quoting. He had spoken emphatically of the diminution of drunkenness in his own class, and was asked to what he attributed it. 'There are a great many books published,' he said, 'periodicals and that like, which helps to open their understanding, and they get to know better. They have other pursuits, and they enjoy themselves more at home. Very many take in some little periodical or other.'

And there is something more than all these things, something which is partly formed by them,

but is yet distinct, which partly acts through them, and at the same time more directly. I mean what we call public opinion. It is an impalpable sort of thing, but very real, and by far the most powerful of all forces in a free country. The enactment, and still more the administration, of the law depend upon it. The societies depend upon it. As Dr. Dawson Burns says, 'Temperance reform has succeeded as far as the willingness of society to adopt it has permitted it to succeed. How much farther could it succeed? . . . Temperance history is a record of success so far as men have been ready to co-operate in that reform.' Now public opinion is the outcome of many influences, and that is true in this particular question no less than in others. There are the general influences mentioned above, and certain special ones, including the temperance societies themselves. Their indirect effects in helping to form public opinion have been most important. That has, in fact, been their real work far more than the enrolment of members and the administration of individual pledges. As the Bishop of Rochester said a few years ago at a diocesan meeting of the C.E.T.S., their task is to educate public opinion.' It is, and always has been. They have pushed the question to the front, and insisted on attention being given to it. They have stimulated the public conscience. And possibly the extremists, by their very violence, have done this most effectively up to a certain point. The world is made up of all sorts, and in the day of stagnation a handful of fanatics may do good service by

stimulating that progress which is the only alternative to decay. If they had their way altogether they would probably do a great deal of harm. But as there is not the remotest chance of that, let us cheerfully credit them with a fair measure of good.

Much as the temperance organisations have done, however, to keep us all alive to the evils of intemperance, there has been another influence, I think, working more quietly but more surely, and with more practical effect. Drinking is largely a matter of social usage; the majority of people drink much or little according to the custom of the society in which they live. And in matters of social usage every class is apt to be strongly influenced by the class above, into which it is for ever aspiring to climb. Democratic as we may affect to be, the lower orders persistently imitate the higher so far as they know how; indeed, the more democratic they are, the more they imitate, to show their equality. Now, it is the fact that up to the early part of last century social custom not only permitted but encouraged drunkenness among the upper classes, who regularly and publicly set the example to the lower; and that a complete revolution has since taken place in this respect.1 It began before the temperance movement,' and went on steadily, independent of

1 My mother, who is 83, tells me that in country houses when she was a young girl the gentlemen always came to the drawing-room intoxicated after dinner. No one thought anything of it. Of course the practice of ladies withdrawing after dinner (hence the term 'drawing'-room) was originally necessitated by the masculine orgies. I think smoking has a good deal to do with modern dinner-table moderation.