| Licence. | Old Duty. | New Duty 1909-1910. |
+-------------------------------+--------------------+------------------------------+
|_Manufacturers' Licences_-- | | |
| Distiller (spirits) | £10, 10s. | £10 for first 50,000 |
| | | gallons, £10 for every |
| | | additional 25,000 gallons. |
| Rectifier (spirits) | £10, 10s. | £15, 15s. |
| Brewer | £1 | £1 for first 100 barrels, |
| | | 12s. for every additional |
| | | 50 barrels. |
| Sweets (British wines) | £1 | £5, 5s. |
| | | |
|_Wholesale Dealers' Licences_--| | |
| Spirits | £10, 10s. | £15, 15s. |
| Beer | £3, 6s. 1d. | £10, 10s. |
| Wine | £10, 10s. | No change. |
| Sweets | £5, 5s. | No change. |
| | | |
|_Retail Licences On_-- | | |
| Full or Publican's | £4, 10s. to £60 | Half the annual value of |
| (spirits, beer, wine and | according to | premises, with a fixed |
| cider) | annual value | minimum ranging from £5 in |
| | of premises. | places with less than |
| | | 2000 inhabitants to £35 in |
| | | towns having over 100,000 |
| | | inhabitants. |
| Beer-house | £3, 10s. | One-third of annual value |
| | | of premises, with a |
| | | minimum as above ranging |
| | | from £3, 10s. to £23, 10s. |
| Wine (confectioners') | £3, 10s. | From £4, 10s. to £12 |
| | | according to annual value. |
| Cider | £1, 5s. | From £2, 5s. to £6. |
| Sweets | £1, 5s. | From £2, 5s. to £6. |
| | | |
|_Retail Licences Off_-- | | |
| Spirits | £3, 3s. /| |
| Spirits (grocers', Scotland) | £4, 4s. to | | From £10 to £50 according to |
| | £13, 13s. 6d. < | annual value. |
| Spirits (grocers', Ireland) | £9, 18s. 5d. to | | |
| | £14, 6s. 7d. \| |
| Beer (England) | £1, 5s. | £1, 10s. to £10. |
| Beer (grocers', Scotland) |£2, 10s. and £4, 4s.| £1, 10s. to £10. |
| Wine (grocers') | £2, 10s. 0d. | £2, 10s. to £10. |
+-------------------------------+--------------------+------------------------------+
_Excise Licences and Taxation._--The excise licences may be divided into
four classes, (1) manufacturers', (2) wholesale dealers', (3) retail
dealers' for "on" consumption, (4) retail dealers' for "off"
consumption. Only the two last classes come under the jurisdiction of
the justices, as explained above. The total number of different excise
licences is between 30 and 40, but several of them are subvarieties and
unimportant or are peculiar to Scotland or Ireland. The duties charged
on them were greatly changed and increased by the Finance Act of
1909-1910, and it seems desirable to state the changes thus introduced.
The table on the previous page gives the principal kinds of licence with
the old and the new duties.
There are in addition "occasional" licences valid for one or more days,
which come under the jurisdiction of the justices; the duty is 2s. 6d. a
day for the full licence (raised to 10s.) and 1s. for beer or wine only
(raised to 5s.).
The total amount raised by the excise licences in the United Kingdom for
the financial year ending 31st March 1909 was £2,209,928. Of this amount
£1,712,160, or nearly four-fifths, was derived from the full or
publicans' licence, £126,053 from the wholesale spirit licence and
£88,167 from the beer-house licence; the rest are comparatively
unimportant. But the licences only represent a small part of the revenue
derived from liquor. The great bulk of it is collected by means of
duties on manufacture and importation. The total amount for the year
ending March 1909 was £37,428,189, or nearly 30% of the total taxation
revenue of the country. The excise duties on the manufacture of spirits
yielded £17,456,366 and those on beer £12,691,332; customs duties on
importation yielded £5,046,949. The excise duty on spirits was at the
rate of 11s. a gallon, raised at the end of April 1909 to 14s. 9d.; the
corresponding duty on beer is 7s. 9d. a barrel (36 gallons). The
relative taxation of the liquor trade in the United States, which has
become important as a political argument, is discussed below.
_Effects of Legislation._--The only effects which can be stated with
precision and ascribed with certainty to legislation are the increase or
diminution of the number of licences or licensed premises; secondary
effects, such as increase or diminution of consumption and of
drunkenness, are affected by so many causes that only by a very careful,
well-informed and dispassionate examination of the facts can positive
conclusions be drawn with regard to the influence of legislation (see
TEMPERANCE). There is no more prolific ground for fallacious statements
and arguments, whether unconscious or deliberate. The course of
legislation traced above, however, does permit the broad conclusion that
great laxity and the multiplication of facilities tend to increase
drinking and disorder in a country like the United Kingdom, and that
extreme severity produces the same or worse effects by driving the trade
into illicit channels, which escape control, and thus really increasing
facilities while apparently diminishing them. The most successful course
has always been a mean between these extremes in the form of restraint
judiciously applied and adjusted to circumstances. The most salient
feature of the situation as influenced by the law in recent years is the
progressive reduction in the number of licensed houses since 1869.
Previously they had been increasing in England.
The number of public-houses, including beer-houses for "on" consumption,
in 1831 was 82,466; in 1869 it had risen to 118,602; in 1909 it had
fallen again to 94,794. But if the proportion of public-houses to
population be taken there has been a continuous fall since 1831, as the
following table shows:--
_England and Wales._
+--------+----------------+---------------+
| | No. of | Proportion |
| Year. | "on" Licences. | per 10,000 of |
| | | Population. |
+--------+----------------+---------------+
| 1831 | 82,466 | 59 |
| 1871 | 112,886 | 49 |
| 1901 | 101,940 | 31 |
| 1909 | 94,794 | 26 |
+--------+----------------+---------------+
The change may be put in another way. In 1831 there was one public-house
to 168 persons; in 1909 the proportion was 1 to 375. The proportional
reduction goes back to the 18th century. In 1732 there was in London one
public-house to every 50 persons (see above).
In Scotland the number of public-houses has been diminishing since 1829,
when there were 17,713; in 1909 there were only 7065, while the
population had more than doubled. The number in proportion to population
has therefore fallen far more rapidly than in England, thus--1831, 1 to
134 persons; 1909, 1 to 690 persons. In Ireland the story is different.
There has been a fall in the number of public-houses since 1829, when
there were 20,548; but it has not been large or continuous and the
population has been steadily diminishing during the time, so that the
proportion to population has actually increased, thus--1831, 1 to 395
persons; 1909, 1 to 249 persons. As a whole, however, the United Kingdom
shows a large and progressive diminution of public-houses to population;
nor is this counterbalanced by an increase of "off" licences. If we take
the whole number of licences we get the following movement in recent
years:--
_No. of Retail Licences ("on" and "off") per 10,000 of Population._
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| | 1893. | 1903. | 1909. |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| England and Wales | 46 | 42 | 37 |
| Scotland | 37 | 33 | 30 |
| Ireland | 41 | 46 | 45 |
| United Kingdom | 45 | 42 | 37 |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+
The diminution in the number of public-houses in England was markedly
accelerated by the act of 1904, which introduced the principle of
compensation. The average annual rate of reduction in the ten years
1894-1904 before the act was 359; in the four years 1905-1908; after the
act it rose to 1388. The average annual number of licences suppressed
with compensation was 1137, and the average annual amount of
compensation paid was £1,096,946, contributed by the trade as explained
above.
The reduction of public-houses has been accompanied in recent years by a
constant increase in the number of clubs. By the act of 1902, which
imposed registration, they were brought under some control and the
number of legal clubs was accurately ascertained. Previously the number
was only estimated from certain _data_ with approximate accuracy. The
following table gives the official figures:--
_Clubs: England and Wales._
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| | 1887.| 1896.| 1904.| 1905.| 1906.| 1907.| 1908.| 1909.|
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number | 1982 | 3655 | 6371 | 6589 | 6721 | 6907 | 7133 | 7353 |
| Proportion | | | | | | | | |
| per 10,000 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.89 | 1.93 | 1.95 | 1.98 | 2.02 | 2.08 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Clubs represent alternative channels to the licensed trade and they are
under much less stringent control; they have no prohibited hours and the
police have not the same right of entry. In so far, therefore, as clubs
replace public-houses the reduction of the latter does not mean
diminished facilities for drinking, but the contrary. In the years
1903-1908 the average number of clubs proceeded against for offences was
74 and the average number struck off the register was 52. The increase
of clubs and the large proportion struck off the register suggest the
need of caution in dealing with the licensed trade; over-stringent
measures defeat their own end.
Persistent attempts have for many years been made to effect radical
changes in the British system of licensing by the introduction of some
of the methods adopted in other countries, and particularly those in the
United States. But it is difficult to engraft new and alien methods,
involving violent change, upon an ancient system consolidated by
successive statutory enactments and confirmed by time and usage. The
course of the law and administration since 1869 has made it particularly
difficult. The stringent conditions imposed on licence-holders have
given those who fulfil them a claim to consideration, and the reduction
of licences, by limiting the market, has enhanced their value. An
expectation of renewal, in the absence of misconduct, has grown up by
usage and been confirmed by the law, which recognizes the distinction
between granting a new licence and renewing an old one, by the treasury
which levies death duties on the assumption that a licence is an
enduring property, by local authorities which assess upon the same
assumption, and by the High Courts of Justice, whose decisions have
repeatedly turned on this point. The consequence of all this is that
very large sums have been invested in licensed property, which has
become part of the settled order of society; and to destroy it by some
sudden innovation would cause a great shock. The position is entirely
different in other countries where no such control has ever been
exercised. It is possible to impose a new system where previously there
was none, but not to replace suddenly an old and settled one for
something entirely different. Only the most convincing proof of the need
and the advantages of the change would justify it; and such proof has
not been forthcoming. The British system has the great merit of
combining adaptability to different circumstances and to changing
customs with continuity and steadiness of administration. The advantages
of abandoning it for some other are more than doubtful, the difficulties
are real and serious. Over a very long period it has been repeatedly
readjusted in conformity with the movement of public opinion and of
national habits; while under it the executive have gradually got the
traffic well in hand, and a great and progressive improvement in order
and conduct has taken place. The process is gradual but sure, and the
record will compare favourably with that of any other comparable
country. Further readjustment will follow and is desirable. The great
defect of the law is its extreme complexity; it needs recasting and
simplification. There are too many kinds of licence, and the
classification does not correspond with the actual conditions of the
traffic. Some licences are obsolete and superfluous; others make no
distinction between branches of the trade which fulfil entirely
different functions and require different treatment. The full or
publican's licence, which is incomparably the most important, places on
the same legal footing hotels, restaurants, village inns and mere
drinking bars, and the lack of distinction is a great stumbling-block.
In the attempt made in 1908 to introduce new legislation it was found
necessary to incorporate distinctions between different classes of
establishment, although that was not contemplated in the original bill.
It will always be found necessary whenever the subject is seriously
approached, because the law has to deal with things as they actually
are. It does not fall within the scope of this article to discuss the
numerous controversial questions which arise in connexion with various
legislative proposals for dealing with the liquor traffic; but an
account of the methods which it has been proposed to adopt from other
countries will be found below.
THE UNITED STATES
The liquor legislation of the United States presents a great contrast to
that of the United Kingdom, but it is not less interesting in an
entirely different way. In place of a single homogeneous system
gradually evolved in the course of centuries it embraces a whole series
of different ones based on the most diverse principles and subject to
sudden changes and frequent experiments. It is not sufficiently
understood in Europe that the legislatures of the several states are
sovereign in regard to internal affairs and make what laws they please
subject to the proviso that they cannot over-ride the Federal law. There
is therefore no uniformity in regard to such matters as liquor
legislation, and it is a mistake to speak of any particular system as
representing the whole country. The United States government only
interferes with the traffic to tax it for revenue, and to regulate the
sale of liquor to Indians, to soldiers, etc. The liquor traffic is
subject--whether in the form of manufacture, wholesale or retail
trade--to a uniform tax of 25 dollars (£5) per annum imposed on every
one engaged in it. Congress, under the constitution, controls interstate
commerce, and the Supreme Court has decided that without its consent no
state can prevent a railway or other carrying agency from bringing
liquor to any point within its borders from outside. Thus no state can
keep out liquor or prevent its consumption, but any state legislature
may make what internal regulations it pleases and may prohibit the
manufacture and sale altogether within its own borders. It may go
further. In 1887 a judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of the
United States that it is within the discretionary power of a state to
protect public health, safety and morals even by the destruction of
property without compensation, and that the constitution of the United
States is not thereby violated. Use has been made of this power in
Kansas, and it appears therefore that persons who engage in the liquor
trade do so at their own risk. There is in fact no stability at all
except in a few states which have incorporated some principle in their
constitutions, and even that does not ensure continuity of practice, as
means are easily found for evading the law or substituting some other
system which amounts to the same thing. As a whole the control of the
liquor traffic oscillates violently between attempted suppression and
great freedom combined with heavy taxation of licensed houses.
In the great majority of the states some form of licensing exists; it is
the prevailing system and was adopted, no doubt from England, at an
early period. It is exercised in various ways. The licensing authority
may be the municipality or a specially constituted body or the police or
a judicial body. The last, which is the method in Pennsylvania, seems to
be exceptional. According to Mr Fanshawe there is a general tendency,
due to the prevailing corruption, to withdraw from municipal authorities
power over the licensing, and to place this function in the hands of
commissioners, who may be elected or nominated. In New York state the
licensing commissioners used to be nominated in cities by the mayors and
elected elsewhere; but by the Raines law of 1896 the whole
administration was placed under a state commissioner appointed by the
governor with the consent of the Senate. A similar plan is in force in
some important cities in other states. In Boston the licensing is in the
hands of a police board appointed by the governor; in Baltimore and St
Louis the authority is vested in commissioners similarly appointed; and
in Washington the licensing commissioners are appointed by the
president. In Pennsylvania, where the court of quarter sessions is the
authority, the vesting of licensing in a judicial body dates back to
1676 and bears the stamp of English influence. It is noteworthy that in
Philadelphia and Pittsburg (Allegheny county) the judicial court was for
a time given up in favour of commissioners, but the change was a great
failure and abandoned in 1888. The powers of the licensing authority
vary widely; in some cases the only grounds of refusal are conduct and
character, and licences are virtually granted to every applicant; in
others the discretion to refuse is absolute. In Massachusetts the number
of licences allowed bears a fixed ratio to the population, namely 1 to
1000, except in Boston, where it is 1 to 500, but as a rule where
licences are given they are given freely. They are valid for a year and
granted on conditions. The first and most general condition is the
payment of a fee or tax, which varies in amount in different states.
Under the "high licence" system (see below) it generally varies
according to the size of the locality and the class of licence where
different classes are recognized. In Massachusetts there are six
licences; three for consumption on the premises--namely (1) full licence
for all liquors, (2) beer, cider, and light wine, (3) beer and cider;
two for consumption off the premises--namely (1) spirits, (2) other
liquors; the sixth is for druggists. In New York state also there are
six classes of licence, though they are not quite the same; but in many
states there appears to be only one licence, and no distinction between
on and off sale, wholesale or retail. Another condition generally
imposed in addition to the tax is a heavy bond with sureties; it varies
in amount but is usually not less than 2000 dollars (£400) and may be as
high as 6000 dollars (£1200). A condition precedent to the granting of a
licence imposed in some states is the deposit of a petition or
application some time beforehand, which may have to be backed by a
certain number of local residents or tax-payers. In Pennsylvania the
required number is 12, and this is the common practice elsewhere; in
Missouri a majority of tax-payers is required, and the licence may even
then be refused, but if the petition is signed by two-thirds of the
tax-payers the licensing authority is bound to grant it. This seems to
be a sort of genuine local option. Provision is also generally made for
hearing objectors. Another condition sometimes required (Massachusetts
and Iowa) is the consent of owners of adjoining property. In some states
no licences are permitted within a stated distance of certain
institutions; e.g. public parks (Missouri) and schools (Massachusetts).
Regulations imposed on the licensed trade nearly always include
prohibition of sale to minors under 18 and to drunkards, on Sundays,
public holidays and election days, and prohibition of the employment of
barmaids. Sunday closing, which is universal, dates at least from 1816
(Indiana) and is probably much older. The hours of closing on week days
vary considerably but are usually 10 P.M. or 11 P.M. Other things are
often prohibited including indecent pictures, games and music.
_State Prohibition._--In a few states no licences are allowed. State
prohibition was first introduced in 1846 under the influence of a strong
agitation in Maine, and within a few years the example was followed by
the other New England states; by Vermont in 1852, Connecticut in 1854,
New Hampshire in 1855 and later by Massachusetts and Rhode Island. They
have all now after a more or less prolonged trial given it up except
Maine. Other states which have tried and abandoned it are Illinois
(1851-1853), Indiana (1855-1858), Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, South
Dakota. The great Middle states have either never tried it, as in the
case of New York (where it was enacted in 1855 but declared
unconstitutional), Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or only gave it a
nominal trial, as with Illinois and Indiana. A curious position came
about in Ohio,[1] one of the great industrial states. It did not adopt
prohibition, which forbids the manufacture and sale of liquor; but in
1851 it abandoned licensing, which had been in force since 1792, and
incorporated a provision in the constitution declaring that no licence
should thereafter be granted in the state. The position then was that
retail sale without a licence was illegal and that no licence could be
granted. This singular state of things was changed in 1886 by the "Dow
law," which authorized a tax on the trade and rendered it legal without
expressly sanctioning or licensing it. There were therefore no licences
and no licensing machinery, but the traffic was taxed and conditions
imposed. In effect the Dow law amounted to repeal of prohibition and its
replacement by the freest possible form of licensing. In Iowa, which
early adopted a prohibitory law, still nominally in force, a law, known
as the "mulct law," was passed in 1894 for taxing the trade and
practically legalizing it under conditions. The story of the forty
years' struggle in this state between the prohibition agitation and the
natural appetites of mankind is exceedingly instructive; it is an
extraordinary revelation of political intrigue and tortuous proceedings,
and an impressive warning against the folly of trying to coerce the
personal habits of a large section of the population against their will.
It ended in a sort of compromise, in which the coercive principle is
preserved in one law and personal liberty vindicated by another
contradictory one. The result may be satisfactory, but it might be
attained in a less expensive manner. What suffers is the principle of
law itself, which is brought into disrepute.
State prohibition, abandoned by the populous New England and central
states, has in recent years found a home in more remote regions. In 1907
it was in force in five states--Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia and
Oklahoma; in January, 1909, it came into operation in Alabama,
Mississippi, and North Carolina; and in July 1909 in Tennessee.
_Local Prohibition._--The limited form of prohibition known as local
veto is much more extensively applied. It is an older plan than state
prohibition, having been adopted by the legislature of Indiana in 1832.
Georgia followed in the next year, and then other states took it up for
several years until the rise of state prohibition in the middle of the
century caused it to fall into neglect for a time. But the states which
adopted and then abandoned general prohibition fell back on the local
form, and a great many others have also adopted it. In 1907 it was in
force in over 30 states, including all the most populous and important,
with one or two exceptions. But the extent to which it is applied varies
very widely and is constantly changing, as different places take it up
and drop it again. Some alternate in an almost regular manner every two
or three years, or even every year; and periodical oscillations of a
general character occur in favour of the plan or against it as the
result of organized agitation followed by reaction. The wide
discrepancies between the practice of different states are shown by some
statistics collected in 1907, when the movement was running favourably
to the adoption of no licence. In Tennessee the whole state was under
prohibition with the exception of 5 municipalities; Arkansas, 56 out of
75 counties; Florida, 35 out of 46 counties; Mississippi, 56 out of 77
counties; North Carolina, 70 out of 97 counties; Vermont, 3 out of 6
cities and 208 out of 241 towns. These appear to be the most prohibitive
states, and they are all of a rural character. At the other end of the
scale were Pennsylvania with 1 county and a few towns ("town" in
America is generally equivalent to "village" in England); Michigan, 1
county and a few towns; California, parts of 8 or 10 counties. New York
had 308 out of 933 towns, Ohio, 480 out of 768 towns, Massachusetts, 19
out of 33 cities and 249 out of 321 towns. At the end of 1909 a strong
reaction against the prohibition policy set in, notably in
Massachusetts.