[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
the debate on the Fourth Clause of the Licensing Bill—so conspicuous a feature of which was the discussion of amendments favourable to " disinterested management "—the Prime Minister and Mr. Cameron Corbett made some criticisms on the claims put forward by the advocates of this plan of temperance reform, on which I should esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to offer some remarks through the medium of your columns,—remarks drawn mainly from my personal observation of the working of Trust houses in com- parison to that of the ordinary public-house.
Mr. Corbett, basing his argument on an experiment made some seven years or more ago, which, I believe, was not persevered
with for more than six months, assured the House that any hope of weaning the working man from strong drink by means of reformed public-house management was mere moonshine. In reaching so far back for his illustration, and in quoting as support to his contention an opinion given at that time by Mr. Charles Booth, he entirely ignored the mass of evidence in a contrary
sense collected by the Central Public-House Trust Association, as well as the fact that Mr. Booth in his last volume throws the weight of his authority in favour of reformed management. He might have remembered that, though the experiment was carried out with the most loyal good faith, it was nevertheless tried in " tied" houses, and its working entrusted to publicans whose habits of thought and business management had been accustomed to move along the groove of ordinary "trade" methods. Can such an experiment, worked for so short a time and under such unfavourable conditions, be taken as a fair one ? The experience of the Trusts shows very clearly the difficulty of getting a manager who has already been in the " trade " to rise above the rut of old habits, and to realise and put in practice the principles of reformed management. Mr. Corbett—to do him justice—has made some personal investigation, and has gone to the trouble of visiting a Trust house and of interviewing the manager. This man said, " If I offer my customers tea or coffee, they are fit to kill me." We may, I think, readily excuse the homicidal tone of this retort, for even an M.P. would find it difficult to confine his language within the Parliamentary limits if he found himself face to face with a determined retailer bent on prescribing his drink for him, and ready to argue the point in case of objection. This is not the type of manager to be found in most Trust houses.
I was visiting two Trust houses in Berkshire a few days back. Both of these some three years ago were public-houses of the usual type, with nothing but intoxicants on sale. They are now in each case provided with a tearoom for cyclists and for the better class of traveller, and in the taproom the customer of the working class can get his pint of tea, coffee, or cocoa for id. In the first house there happened to be only one man in the tap- room at the time of my visit, but he was having tea and bread- and-butter. As the house and the facilities it gives for non- intoxicant drink and food are becoming known, the number of callers for this kind of refreshment increases. At the other house I found the same success in the gradual introduction of non-intoxicants. The house stands on the high road between Reading and Newbury. Workmen employed in the neighbour- hood call in the early morning for tea or coffee, and come again at dinner-time, taking a penny mug of cocoa, in many cases, instead of beer. A good many draymen from the Reading breweries pass along the road morning and evening. Instead of pulling up at their own "tied" houses for refreshment, they habitually stop at the Trust house and take a drink of tea.
Again, the experience of the house managed by the People's Refreshment House Association in Southwark is interesting. This house, which is called ' The Waterman's Arms,' is frequented by the roughest class of riverside worker. It was nothing but a drinking-shop before it changed hands ; now one can seldom go into the bar without seeing men taking large mugs of tea at a penny in place of beer. In winter this trade from the urn, which always stands upon the counter, amounts to a substantial figure, considering how inveterate a hold custom has on the drink habits of the people. An important portion of the trade done at this house is in breakfasts when it opens at 6 a.m., and in midday dinners for working men.
These are just a few illustrations among many that I could give; but they will suffice to show that there is a great deal to be said from an opposite standpoint to that taken by Mr. Corbett. His condemnation is based on an experiment which only lasted a few months. It will, of course, take years to alter the habits of the classes who frequent the lower public-houses, and who for genera- tions have been accustomed to think in beer. The Trust move- ment has succeeded, however, with the thin end of the wedge, and we may hope by its means to see an opening made for the larger aims of "constructive reform."
Mr. Balfour's remarks, in a speech in all other respects markedly sympathetic to the Trust plan of reform, expressed his feeling that the accusation brought against the " trade " of pushing the sales of drink was a good deal exaggerated. That there may have been some exaggeration on this head in recent temperance literature is possible ; but those who care to investigate and see for themselves will find ample evidence to convince them that a publican who has a personal interest in the trade of his house is no better than any other retailer, and adopts every method within the law for making his house as alluring as possible. Is it within reason to expect him to do otherwise ? The mere fact that non- intoxicants and food in the ordinary public-house are not put on an equal footing of prominence with beer and spirits is surely a negative method of pushing the latter. The manager may not be so tactless as to force beer on his customers in the way that the Trust manager quoted by Mr. Corbett pushes his tea, but the general tone and arrangements of his house—its atmosphere, so to speak—are regulated to favour drinking, just as the atmosphere of a good Trust house favours temperance.
What are the screened-off " snugs," as they are called, which enable a man or woman to be served without being seen from the bar, but traps to catch those who are ashamed to be seen in a public-house ? What are the advertisements of liquors, the tempting rows of spirit bottles, the flaring lights, the gorgeous decorations, the private bars for ladies, and the giving of credit
for drink but devices—and the last two peculiarly iniquitous devices—for increasing trade ?
Judging from their public utterances, and from evidence which I have by me, I feel sure that those best qualified to pronounce— I mean the Judges and Metropolitan Magistrates—would support the contention that there is undoubtedly much pushing of beer with consequent drunkenness and crime. A distinguished lawyer, who probably has more experience of police-court licensing cases than any man in the kingdom, holds that whenever you see a drunken man in the street it means that the publican who last served him has broken the law, and that, by eliminating private profit in the retailing of drink, you would stop this. I now give an instance, which I have verified on the spot, which bears on the worst feature of the "pushing" system,— I mean the allowing of customers to run up a bill for drink during the week, to be paid on the Saturday. This used to be the custom at a house in Wiltshire (as it is now in many houses all over the country) until the house changed hands and came under Trust management. Credit, as well as much else of a most objectionable character, was then put an end to. Directly this was done the local grocer and the baker found a marked increase in their trade, the fact being that wages which on Saturday used in great part to go to the publican have, since the stoppage of credit, been handed to the wife, who spends them in food for the family.
[We publish Colonel Craufurd's letter with sincere pleasure, for, as our readers know, we believe that the Public-House Trust movement is fraught with great possibilities for good. It is to be feared, however, that the present Licensing Bill not only does not improve the prospects of the Trusts, but throws very serious obstacles in their way.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
