_LICENSE-LAW--LEGISLATIVE REFORM._
While largely engaged in the effort to secure the better administration
of the existing licensing and other related laws, Mr. Balfour was deeply
convinced that an entire change in the licensing system was essential.
Administrative reform, and legislative reform, were his two watchwords;
the former at once, the latter as soon as it could be obtained. He
believed that temperance reform was absolutely essential to the good of
the people, and that without it, no other reform would greatly avail for
our country. Hence he spared no pains in examining the legislative
experiments which had been tried. He visited Sweden, to inquire into the
Gothenburg system. He visited Portland and other places in the State of
Maine, to examine the working of the Maine Law. On these and similar
subjects he made valuable contributions, by voice in the Social Science
Congress and Temperance Conferences, and by pen in pamphlets, articles
in the _Contemporary_ and other Reviews, a letter of the Duke of
Westminster, &c.
His ripest opinion was in favour of popular control, in combination with
Imperial control, and is thus presented in his own words:--“As an
indispensable preliminary to all license reform, I believe a change in
the license authority must be made, transferring it from the Magistrates
to Boards expressly chosen for the purpose by the ratepayers.... But
Licensing Boards would be only one part of the foundation of a right
license-law. Another indispensable provision would be the control by
Government, of the action of Local Licensing Boards, in the interests of
morality and public order. It might happen that in some districts the
state of public opinion was so degraded that the Boards, if unfettered,
would vote even for increased facilities for drinking. To meet this
risk, a confirming authority ought to be established, which might
consist of, say, three or more License Commissioners, to be appointed by
the Home Secretary. These would require to be persons of experience and
responsibility, capable of organising, and able to take a part in
reducing our drinking system within such limits as to be safe for the
State and beneficial to the individual.”[I]
To show that a district might with perfect safety and with great
advantage be closed against public-houses, he was fond of employing the
following argument, which, in the same article, he states thus:--
“Take a case existing on a large scale in the town of Liverpool at this
moment. The firm of Mr. John Roberts, M.P. for the Flintshire Boroughs,
has had large dealings in land, in Liverpool. Mr. Roberts’ firm has
acted on the principle of prohibiting the erection of public-houses on
the estates, large and small, which they purchase; and Mr. Roberts
believes that, indirectly at least, they have been gainers in each
instance. The lands which have passed through the hands of Mr. Roberts’
firm are in extent something over 200 acres. The number of houses built
or in course of erection thereon is about 6000, and the population
directly affected may be set down as from 35,000 to 40,000. Mr. Roberts
states that he never yet heard of a complaint being made of the want of
a public-house, either from the house-owners or the tenants, although
some of the people living within the area to which the prohibition
applies would have to walk three-quarters of a mile to obtain a glass
of beer. This testimony is the more striking, arising as it does among
the people of a town so over-supplied with public-houses as Liverpool.
“Here, then, is a crucial case, one upon a sufficient scale, showing how
drink-shops can be, and actually are, absolutely prohibited, without any
of the evil results ensuing which the Lords’ Committee anticipate. The
prohibition of public-houses on Messrs. Roberts’ estates is absolute,
and yet this prohibition is neither ‘inoperative nor mischievous,’ as
the Committee deliberately state that it would be.”
Mr. Balfour was greatly interested in the Report of the Select Committee
of the House of Lords on Intemperance, and recognised in it the proof of
an important advance in the education of the nation on this subject. He
drew many of his weapons from the Blue-Books which contained this
report, and made them the subject of very close and repeated
examination. When his portrait was painted by Long, he stipulated that
this report should lie beside him. He first received the report when an
invalid at Arcachon; and the abundant notes and comments, with which he
filled the margins, bear testimony to the intense interest with which he
viewed the report.
He was greatly attracted to the Church of England Temperance Society by
the breadth of its platform and the comprehensiveness of its provisions.
He saw that the drink problem in England was far too complex and
difficult, to be solved by any one remedy or set of remedies. It had to
be attacked all round, by moral suasion, by educational provisions, and
by legislative measures of a comprehensive kind.
This great subject brought Mr. Balfour into acquaintance with Canon
Ellison, the chairman of the Church of England Temperance Society. He
kept up a close correspondence with Canon Ellison almost to the day of
his death, and a warm friendship sprang up between them. The letters
which remain are full of interest, as regards the recent history of the
temperance reform, but are too detailed and technical to be suitable for
these pages.
In one of these letters to Canon Ellison, Mr. Balfour gives brief and
clear expression to that which was his constant object in all the
agitation:--“My aim in taking part in the (Oxford) Legislative
Conference is to assist in ascertaining what is _morally right_, with
the view of insisting that our English law shall be in conformity with
the Divine law.”
Again he says:--“It is not possible to overestimate the importance of
securing for our laws a moral basis, seeing that the administration of
such laws will bring about results that are salutary; while, on the
other hand, laws that are not regulated by a moral principle can only
produce effects that are pernicious.” And in illustrating this principle
he points out how grievously it is violated:--“We may safely affirm,
that no country having regard to the welfare of the people, would begin
a system of licensing such as now exists in England. It has grown up on
imperfect information and in the course of many years, and it has been
the means of placing in the hands of the few, a monopoly of enormous
value, which unhappily is used most unscrupulously for selfish aims in
the accumulation of wealth, regardless of the frightful cost to the
community in pauperism, crime, and death.”
Mr. Balfour sought such reform in our laws from whatever party held the
reins of government. He was a steadfast Liberal, but many of the friends
he loved and trusted most were found in the opposite camp. He was no
party politician, and cared for no party ends or triumphs. The side of
politics which faced towards the social and moral amelioration of the
people was that which attracted him most. Just as in his ecclesiastical
views he was an unwavering Presbyterian, sometimes saying to the present
writer, “I will live and die a Presbyterian,” and yet his was a spirit
of the largest catholicity. He worked enthusiastically with men of
various Churches when their end was good, and gave them princely help,
though their Church banner was not his. He was as much above
sectarianism in religion as he was above party in politics. In this
question of temperance reform, as in other questions, he was united in
the closest bonds with earnest men who agreed with him neither in creed
nor in politics. It was not, therefore, surprising at his death to find,
in a Church of England family paper, a notice of Mr. Balfour which
claimed him as an attached Churchman. He was a Churchman in the highest
sense. He worked with all those who worked for his Master, and loved all
those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ.
This characteristic is brought out in a letter to the present writer
from the Bishop of Sodor and Man, formerly Archdeacon Bardsley of
Liverpool, a most earnest promoter of Temperance reform. He says:--“I
write a few lines, bearing chiefly upon our dear friend the late
Alexander Balfour’s connection with our Church of England Temperance
work. Looking back upon the past, and intimately associated as I have
been with that work from the first, I can confidently affirm that to no
one man have we been so signally indebted, as to Mr. Balfour, for the
development of our organisation, and the practical character of our
operations. It was in 1873 that I first made his acquaintance. At that
time the Rev. E. R. Wilberforce, Vicar of Seaforth, now the Bishop of
Newcastle, and myself, were the honorary secretaries of a struggling
local temperance society. We were alike deeply impressed with the
necessity of some striking effort, which might, so far as the Church of
England was concerned, arouse the slumbering conscience of the Liverpool
public. Our device was to promote a round-robin to the Archbishop of
York, signed by fifty of the Liverpool clergy, begging his grace to
visit Liverpool, and to address the clergy, as well as a public meeting,
upon the crying sin of intemperance, and the necessity of some special
effort to counteract it. Our plan was marvellously successful. Two
hundred of the clergy were addressed by the Archbishop, and were
subsequently entertained at a dinner-tea, by the late Mr. John Torr,
M.P. In the evening the Philharmonic Hall was packed by an enthusiastic
audience, over which the late Bishop of Chester presided. The overflow
crowded Hope Hall, and also the Institute Hall. The London as well as
the local papers gave the fullest reports. In this great success no one
rejoiced more heartily than Mr. Balfour, although he had had no part in
it. He was at my door before ten the following morning to offer his
congratulations, and to say that he recognised fully what an efficient
instrument the Established Church might become, in the furtherance of
distinctively temperance work, and that for such an effort we might
always rely upon his sympathy, his counsel, and his purse. From that day
to the last week of his life, we were constantly receiving proofs that
his promises were no vain words.
“It is impossible for me to recall the steady help which he gave during
many years, without paying the tribute of my admiration for the
character of the man. The work was always undertaken by him on religious
grounds, and again and again do I bring to mind the simple words of
prayer with which he prefaced our discussions, when I asked his counsel
on some pressing point. His unstinted liberality was known to all, but
only those who knew him best could realise the unselfishness of his
disposition. He was always pressing others to the front, and claiming
for them the praise which was really due to his own personal efforts. In
temperance work, other men might have the credit which gathered round
the Ellison testimonial, and the visit for conference on the Temperance
question, of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., and a number of other
incidents in connection with our special efforts; but it was Mr. Balfour
who suggested the ideas, and it was his unbounded generosity which made
such efforts possible.
“And not only did our friend thus unselfishly give prominence to his
fellow-workers in the campaign. It was his kindly sympathy and tender
consideration which first marked the failing strength of some among
them, and supplied the needed rest and change by putting at their
disposal his ‘House of Rest’ at Mount Alyn, or by giving them the means
for a Swiss tour. In such respects I never knew his equal.”
Mr. Balfour regarded the United Kingdom Alliance as a splendid
aggressive organisation. He did not, indeed, entirely agree with all its
modes of action or expression, nor did he think it was pursuing the
wisest course, in seeking “to prosecute the total and immediate
legislative suppression of the traffic in all strong drinks.” His object
was to put the control of the liquor-traffic into the hands of the
ratepayers. His practical mind aimed at doing something for his own
generation, at taking one step at a time, at securing every advantage
which was attainable, though all this might be a very long way from the
total legislative suppression of the liquor-traffic.
Yet he saw that the Alliance sympathised with and helped all good
movements in the direction of temperance reform, and he became one of
its Vice-Presidents. He felt that there should be room in so admirable a
Society, for earnest temperance men of various shades of opinion. But,
as might have been expected, his own position was not always unassailed.
Referring to such a difficulty which arose some years ago, he writes to
Mr. Williamson as follows:--“I have a letter from A. G. this morning,
telling me that there was a ‘rumpus’ at the annual meeting of the United
Kingdom Alliance yesterday, over the retention of my name as a
Vice-President. I am extremely sorry to see the animus of extreme men.
But this is a small matter. They have introduced into one of the
resolutions, bearing on the duty of voters in elections of members of
Parliament, the clause, ‘and for such candidates only,’ which as it
seems to me, would prevent members of the U. K. A. from voting for such
men as our friend Mr. Samuel Smith! I fear I may not be able to remain a
member of the U. K. A., which I should deeply regret.”
He did, however, continue at his post in the Alliance, and all his
influence was employed in favour of the adoption of what he regarded, as
wise and unchallengeable methods of opposing the tremendous evil of
intemperance. He knew of no agency of like power and momentum, and
though sometimes in embarrassment, he could never tear himself from it.
Mr. Balfour’s attitude to those who did not go all lengths with himself,
on the subject of temperance, was one of forbearance and charity. He was
practically an abstainer, except when taking a little claret under
medical advice, but he did not bind himself by any pledge. If his guests
chose to take wine, it was provided for them at his own table; he did
not judge for them. His battle, as we have seen, was against the
public-house system, with its bar-drinking and all the temptations and
seductions by which it has ruined its tens of thousands. Yet as life
advanced, he grew more and more apprehensive of possible harm from the
use of alcoholic beverages of any quality, in any quantity, and in any
quarter. This may be illustrated by reference to one of his innumerable
kindly ways. At one time he was in the habit of sending supplies of
claret at Christmas, to some of his clerical friends, under the
impression that in their hard work of body and mind they would be the
better of some stimulant. In later years, he sent to the same friends,
boxes of good tea instead of wine.
During the last two or three years of his life, Mr. Balfour was strongly
impressed with the smallness of the consumption of milk in our large
towns. He desired by means of “Revenue legislation” to discourage the
use of beer, in the hope that its place would be largely filled, by the
consumption of wholesome milk. Upon this subject he corresponded with
Mr. Adam Young of the Inland Revenue Department. To this correspondence
Mr. Young refers in the following terms:--“He was so animated by a
single desire to promote the religious and physical well-being of the
people, that it was always a deep pleasure to me to give him any
information that lay in my power, in a private capacity. When he called
at Somerset House, he was always most solicitous not to encroach on
public time. For a man so full of the business he came to press, this
considerateness was quite a strong feature in his character. In his
correspondence also he was always the courteous gentleman, yet
constantly fearing lest the earnestness of his convictions should impart
too much force to his language. This gave a great charm to his
correspondence, which, while it revealed the man and spoke his heart,
was warm with kindly feeling and marked by gracious manner.”
Considerate always of the time and feelings of others, he was ever ready
to acknowledge his error, if impetuosity had even seemed to carry him
too far.
The characteristics referred to by Mr. Young are illustrated, in a note
addressed to him by Mr. Balfour, bearing date, Liverpool, 6th February
1886:--
“I greatly fear I may have been hurried, in my last letter, to say
things you may consider beyond my province. If so, may I beg you to
forgive it, as I continually commit such mistakes. My humble hope is,
that we may be permitted to assist in laying down principles for
legislation affecting the sale of strong drink, and for our fiscal
system, that may be beneficial to our country ever afterwards; and these
righteous principles are not usually discovered and applied without
discussion.... If children were instructed throughout the whole country,
in a few elementary facts regarding diet, such as those supplied by Dr.
Bell regarding milk _versus_ beer, we should, I cannot doubt, be laying
the foundations for temperance, in our nation. We must just go on, doing
our best to fulfil the Scriptural injunction to ‘work out our own
salvation,’ from intemperance and every evil thing.”
Mr. Balfour regarded as a great source of mischief, the disparity
between the tax on alcohol in whisky and the tax on alcohol in beer. In
a letter addressed to the Duke of Westminster he says--“The price of a
glassful of Irish whisky in the public-houses here (Liverpool) is
threepence; but the price of the same quantity of alcohol in the beer
commonly sold in the public-houses here, is not threepence, but only
twopence. If our wretchedly degraded men and women want to become
intoxicated, this is readily attainable, both because public-houses so
abound, and because strong beer is sold at such a low charge. I do not
think that, either on fiscal or moral grounds, the inequality of the
duty on beer, as compared with the duty on spirits, can be justified.
The excessive consumption of spirits is, on moral grounds, discouraged
by the imposition, by the Legislature, of a high duty, as high as
Parliament dares to propose, without giving encouragement to illicit
distillation. I venture to say that there exists an absolute necessity
to deal with the duty on beer on the same principle, and so to arrange
the incidence of taxation, that the brewing of strong beer shall be
sharply checked, and that the beer brewed for and sold to working-people
shall be of a light and unintoxicating character. I may be pardoned if I
say that this department of the temperance question has received far too
little consideration, at the hands both of Parliament and of those who
seek to promote temperance.”
In a letter dated February 1886, to Mr. Adam Young, deploring the same
evil, he says--“Knowing as we all do that a grievous anomaly exists,
surely Mr. Gladstone will take up the subject this year, and place it
on a righteous basis.... Brewers ought not to be allowed to brew from
deleterious materials, and thus poison people in their ‘tied-up houses.’
There are many wrongs to remedy, but let us get begun, and one by one,
in due time, they will be disposed of.”
It was his earnest wish to see strong beer replaced by lighter beer.
When visiting Munich, he took the opportunity of making himself
thoroughly acquainted with the processes by which the light Bavarian
beer, universally used there, is brewed. He had samples sent home to be
analysed, for comparison with English ales. A great advantage would be
gained, by the substitution of Bavarian beer, for the strong beer which
is so generally consumed in our public-houses.
To supersede, so far as possible, beer by milk, was a still stronger
desire, which occupied much of his thoughts in the closing weeks of his
life. In a letter addressed to Mr. Adam Young, on the 12th of February
1886, he quotes the following words of Sir Henry Thompson:--“There is a
notable example of a single animal product, perhaps the best which can
be applied as a complete food--one prepared by nature, furnished in
great abundance, and which we are all well acquainted with--viz.,
milk.... Let us recall the fact that, excepting only the article of
wheaten bread, milk is perhaps the most universally employed food in
this country; and I am not quite sure that the exception made above is
correctly stated to be so.” He then goes on to say:--“Can we believe,
with Sir Henry’s words before us, that the supply and use of milk have
received adequate attention, from the upper and governing classes? May I
be allowed earnestly to appeal to you to assist towards a remedy? To the
agricultural and landed interest this is, I believe, a vital question.
Being a farmer, on a small scale, as well as a merchant, I may be
excused for speaking in such positive terms.” And after dwelling on the
boundless sources of the supply of wheat in climates more adapted for
its growth than our own, and also upon the severe competition
encountered from America, New Zealand, &c., in the production of cattle
and sheep, he continues:--“From what source is relief to the farmer and
landowner to come? I answer, from the displacement of beer, by the
greatly extended use of milk, amongst all classes of our population. And
I venture to say that the statistics which you have recently furnished
show that, were this to occur, an enormous saving would be effected in
the diet of poor people, while to farmers and landowners the increased
use of milk and vegetables would give the relief which, in their present
distress, they require.
“At page 5 of his book on British dairy-farming, Mr. Long quotes from
the address of Professor Sheldon, who estimates the consumption of milk
as an article of diet, including what is employed in cooking, as about
fifteen gallons per annum per man, woman, and child in these islands.
The consumption of milk in our Orphanages in this city is about six
pints per child per week; and it is remarkable that in the Seamen’s
Orphanage, with which I am connected, children on their admission are
found not to like milk. When they discover that they have to take milk
or nothing, they soon acquire a taste for it, and after a month they
like it. The simple food supplied to these children, along with other
arrangements for their welfare, causes them to be remarkably healthy, as
you can judge from the fact that last Sunday, and the previous Sunday,
of 206 boys in the Orphanage, 205 attended chapel.
“The consumption of beer in England you have shown to be four and a half
pints per person per week. With the necessary instruction as to diet in
our schools, and more general information on the subject among the
people, and with better legislation and better fiscal arrangements, we
may hope ere long to see great changes in the consumption of beer. And
my hope is, that a great increase in the use of milk is impending.
“At page 4 of his book Mr. Long shows from Professor Sheldon’s figures,
that the value of milk, at the price paid to the farmer, of sevenpence
per gallon, is £47,000,000 a year; this includes what is used in the
production of butter and cheese. My hope is, that with the assistance of
the Commissioners of Excise, we may soon see this milk product doubled
in quantity. I believe it may be increased threefold, with the highest
advantage to all classes of the community. But to obtain this, Mr.
Gladstone must prepare his Budget on righteous foundation-principles,
and in conformity with his utterances on the milk question in
Birkenhead,[J] as I am sure he will do, whereby the use of beer may be
discouraged, and the use of milk not hindered or destroyed, in our large
cities, as it now is. In short, the recommendations of the Commissioners
of Excise must correspond with the teachings of the Minister of
Education, and if so, cardinal changes and most beneficent results will
come to the whole nation.”
In a letter written to Canon Ellison, in February 1886, Mr. Balfour
says:--“I have been in correspondence with Mr. Young of the Inland
Revenue Office, who has been most helpful in furnishing information. He
sends the following most important figures, supplied by an eminent
chemist, giving the constituents of milk as compared with beer:--
+-----------+------------------+------------+-----------------+------+------+
| Ordinary. | Weight of Solid | Albuminous | Carbo-Hydrates. | Fat. | Ash. |
| | Matter per Pint. | Matters. | | | |
+-----------+------------------+------------+-----------------+------+------+
| | Ounces. | | | | |
| Milk | 2.5 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.14 |
| | | | | | |
| Beer | 1.0 | 0.20 | 0.74 | none | 0.06 |
+-----------+------------------+------------+-----------------+------+------+
“The residue in milk is more than double that in ordinary beer. Milk is
about four times richer than beer in albuminous or flesh-forming
substance. It is twice as rich as beer in mineral matter. It contains
fat, which is absent in beer. The general conclusion is, that the solid
matter in a pint of milk is upwards of five times as valuable, as an
article of human food, as that in the same quantity of beer.
“These facts and figures being reliable, it seems to me they would do to
be published as wall-papers to be hung up in schools. Indeed I suggested
this yesterday to our School Board, who, I am sure, would be willing to
have them hung on the walls of our Board Schools, if the wall-papers
were supplied. If children are instructed in a few elementary facts
respecting diet, I feel assured this would prove the great foundation of
temperance in our nation.”
The need for restraining the national thirst for beer is illustrated by
a letter from Mr. Balfour to Mr. Young at a somewhat earlier period. It
bears date, Mount Alyn, 18th April 1883:--“The drink bill of 1882, which
appeared in the _Times_ of the 26th March, contained figures at which
Dominie Sampson would have cried ‘PRODIGIOUS!’ and at which I am struck
with perfect dismay. The fourth item of consumption is beer, of which
the quantity is reckoned at nearly 1,000,000,000 of gallons! Now the
population of the kingdom is about 35,000,000. Deduct the number of
total abstainers, said to be about 4,000,000, the number of children and
youths up to fifteen, say about one-third, or 10,000,000. This gives a
consumption of one gallon a week for every person who drinks, and is
above fifteen years of age, in the United Kingdom.
“But were we to deduct from the number of beer-drinkers most of the
population of Scotland and Ireland, who drink very little beer, and the
numbers of English men and women who do not take beer, or who take very
little, we should arrive at the conclusion that the beer-drinking
population is not more than perhaps ten or twelve millions, who consume
the stupendous quantity of nearly 1,000,000,000 gallons of beer. What
the consequences are, to themselves and their families, of this annual
waste of money, waste of time, incapacity for work, sorrow at home, and
future degradation and ruin, I leave you to imagine.”
Mr. Adam Young writes to Mr. Balfour on this subject as follows:--“The
amount of solid nourishing matter in the best of beer is so small that I
never myself attached much importance to it. What there is seems rather
inclined to choke the biliary ducts and determine the formation of fat,
and not muscle or sinew; so that I think nothing of beer as a food. I
wish all drinkers of beer could be got to think of it as a sort of
sauce, not to be taken without some solid to be qualified by it, even
were that solid only a crust of bread.”
No one can seriously consider such facts without coming to the
conclusion that Mr. Balfour’s earnest effort, so far as possible, to
supplant beer by milk, was one pointing in the direction of a great
national benefit.
After reading these views, it will not be matter of surprise that Mr.
Balfour, though aware that his life hung upon a thread, threw much of
the energies of his latest days into an effort to give practical effect
to his opinions. The mere proclamation of what he regarded as valuable
truth never satisfied him, if it was possible to embody that truth in
fruitful endeavour. His desire was to found a company for the purpose of
meeting the want he deplored. In a printed letter, dated the 9th April
1886, which was in the press at the time of his death, he says:--“Good
fresh ‘separated’ milk at twopence per quart would certainly supply an
article of primary necessity, and we must believe that in time, it will
obtain a large sale. To accomplish this it is proposed to erect
milk-separating machinery in Liverpool, near a railway terminus, to
import the best country milk, to separate the cream on arrival, and thus
supply cream and fresh butter, as well as separated milk.”
This company was not intended to interfere with the already existing
Dairy Company, in which also he took a deep interest.
Soon after Mr. Balfour’s removal by death, supplies of milk began to
pour into the city from various fresh sources, so that it was found
unnecessary to persevere with the projected company for supplying milk
“separated” by a new process.