quarterly, and when the borough magistrates will do the same, a great step in advance will have been made. I have here also a form which I intend to furnish to the police, which will be filled up on the apprehension of any young person on any charge whatever and forwarded to the school. I rather mean that I hope to induce the police to do this. I have no doubt they will, for I have always found them willing to help me. When this is done, it will at once be known whether this person has anywhere within the district been in the hands of the police before, and valuable assistance may be rendered to the magistrate when he is brought up.

If these two things were accomplished, viz., the determination of a district within which each school should operate, and the system carefully worked within that district, a great advance would be made towards the more perfect operation of the Act.

In conclusion, I would add that, as the object is one in which the magistrate and the managers are engaged, viz., the reformation of the criminal child; and, moreover, as it is eminently a humane and Christian object both parties ought to bring to its accomplishment not only Christian zeal, but Christian forbearance.

THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT.

Shops for the Consumption of Intoxicating Liquors, versus Shops for the Sale of such Liquors. By the REV. HENRY CALDERWOOD.

OF

F the many social evils with which the community has to contend, in its efforts to rise to a healthier moral condition, drunkenness is one of the most manifest. In the present state of society in our country, it is one of the most prevalent evils, and presents one of the most perplexing questions with which social reformers have to grapple.

This paper is designed to embrace an inquiry into the social and moral effects coming from the existence of houses for the consumption of intoxicating drinks, in contrast to houses for the mere sale of liquors, which are to be carried out of the premises before being consumed. It is necessary further to add at the outset, that it deals exclusively with the state of affairs in Scotland, leaving to those who are better acquainted with the arrangements of English and Irish society, to apply what is here said, in so far as it admits of application.

One thing deserving notice in reference to all the places where fermented and distilled liquors are sold, is the peculiar relation in which they stand to the Government of our country. This exists in a double aspect,-first, in the revenue drawn from them; and, secondly, in the control which is exercised over them. The latter of these peculiarities most naturally arrests attention. To draw revenue from a particular branch of trade is common enough, and there is no need to dwell upon the fact in its present application. Happily, we have

reached a time when no statesman will plead for the continuance of a form of traffic simply for the sake of the revenue which it yields, if it can be clearly shown that the traffic is injurious in its social and moral effects upon the commuuity generally.

But, if it be a common enough thing to draw revenue from a particular form of trade, the control exercised over the liquor traffic is altogether peculiar. To control a trade in such a manner as to decide within what hours business may be done,-what age purchasers must have reached, and to exclude traffic by barter,-is indeed a singular thing. Other trades there are requiring licences for their prosecution, but none in which the granting of licence is attended by such restrictions as these. From this fact alone, it may be inferred that the trade is one regarded with some apprehension, as being in its nature such as may be dangerous to the social well-being of the community.

66

This is apparent in reference to both branches of the business; but, it is brought out with special force in the certificate on which alone a person is warranted to keep what in Scotland is called a "public-house," that is, a house or shop in which liquors may be consumed by the purchasers. He is licensed and empowered to sell on the following terms and conditions," besides others, that he "do not knowingly permit any breach of the peace, or riotous disorderly conduct, within the said house or premises; and do not permit or suffer men or women of notoriously bad fame, or girls, or boys, to assemble and meet therein; and do not sell, or supply, exciseable liquor to girls or boys apparently under fourteen years of age, or to persons who are in a state of intoxication; and do not receive or take in, as the price, or for the supply, of exciseable liquors, any wearing apparel, goods, or chattels ; and do not permit or suffer any unlawful games therein; and do not keep open house, or permit or suffer any drinking in any part of the premises belonging thereto, or sell or give out therefrom any liquors, before eight of the clock in the morning or after eleven of the clock at night, of any day."

Here, then, is a trade marked in its face as dangerous, and specially hemmed in and guarded, in order that society may be protected from the injury which might be wrought by it. There is reason, therefore, that we should inquire whether society is really shielded from the evils which this trade is apt to produce.

In attempting to judge of the social effect of the liquor traffic, however, it is necessary to mark the distinction between the two branches of it, as these are formally separated from each other by the nature of certificates granted. One form of licence is that which warrants a man to keep a " public-house," for the sale of intoxicating drinks to be consumed on the premises; while another, and quite different, form of licence authorises the person who receives it only "to keep premises for the sale of intoxicating drinks," provided he "do not traffic in, or give, any spirits, wine, or other exciseable liquors to be drunk or consumed on the said premises." This latter branch of the trade is licensed for the purpose of providing the article; but the other, for affording facilities for its use. I mean to look at

both of these forms of trade, but mainly at the latter. In doing this, I say nothing whatever concerning the question, whether the intoxicating drinks of our country are such in their nature as to suit them for common use. Taking matters as they now stand, and granting that such liquors are to be supplied to the community, what are the consequences coming to society from the two different modes of supply?

"The public-house," as its name imports, is licensed as a place of social resort. It is an element in the social structure of our nation; and besides, it is not simply the result of the circumstances connected with our social life, but has been distinctly moulded, and set down in its place, by legal provision. So much is this the case, that it is one part of magisterial duty to mark off places for the prosecution of the traffic, and to control the actions of those who engage in its prosecution. This national institution, called a "public-house," is such in its nature, that it associates the social intercourse of friends, with the use of intoxicants as a help to social enjoyment. Not only so, but public-houses are provided in such numbers, and in such a form, as to hold out strong inducements to frequent them in the hours of relaxation. Here, then, arises the first question to be urged in the interest of social order, and sound morality:-Is it for the good of the community, that the government of the nation do in this way counsel the use of intoxicants with the meeting of friends in a convivial manner? I do not mean, in raising such a question, to exclude from the province of Government, attention to the social enjoyment of the people. Quite the reverse. But, in answer to the question, I would urge that the association of social enjoyment with the use of intoxicants in places of public resort, is one involving a most serious mistake, certain to work most melancholy results in the community within which it is maintained. What but frequent intemperance can be the result if men make a habit of turning into such public-houses as the appointed place for friendly meeting? And if they come to be used in this way, as it is clearly designed they should, these publichouses, scattered over boroughs and counties, constitute a national machinery for the introduction and continuance of intemperance. If, indeed, the object contemplated were the introduction of a race of drunkards among us, no more effectual measure could be devised. If the worst enemy of our nation were moved by the fiendish desire to debauch its people, he could not discover a plan more likely to serve his end. No man, at all observant of common facts, will venture to say that the existence of such public-houses over the land is the sole explanation of the intemperance in the country. Every man will admit that there may be much drunkenness in the land, even though there be no places of public resort for social drinking. Habits of intemperance may be formed in the home, as well as in the publichouse. But no one can consider the uses for which public-houses are licensed without tracing to them the explanation of much of the intemperance found in the community.

But here another consideration must be taken into account. These houses are certain to influence most prejudicially the humbler classes

G G

of society, who constitute the great mass of the nation. The worse the homes of the people, the more potent must be the attractions of such houses, as these to which reference is here made. Of course, if the policy of keeping up such houses be a wise one, we should rejoice in finding them largely frequented. But if it be a mistaken policy, as I think facts clearly prove, then, those who seek the welfare of the community will deplore the influence which such attractions exert. Now, it is an easy thing to afford abundant data to prove that the worse the houses of the people are, so much the more attractive do the public-houses become. Any man who walks through the streets of any great city, will find public-houses greatly more numerous in places where the poor have their abodes, than in districts where the citizens occupy comfortable dwellings. Take Edinburgh as an example. If you walk the line of the Lawnmarket, High Street, and Canongate,-that is, from the Castle to Holyrood Palace, -a distance of about a mile, in which the poorest people reside, there are fifty-three public-houses. If you walk the line of Princes Street, in the new town, which is nearly the same distance as that just named, there are only three public-houses in it. if you take George Street, where the distance is not only about the same, but the houses occupy both sides of the street, there are only two public-houses in it. Again, take Glasgow as an example. If you walk Gallowgate, inhabited chiefly by those in humble life, from the Cross to a point near the foot of Whiterale, about a mile in length, there are no fewer than eighty-four public-houses within that space; whereas, if you take Sanchichall Street, in the Western district of the city, which is of equal length, there are only seven public houses in it.

I have been curious to know what proportion to these figures there is, in the number of bakers' shops in the respective localities. The following is the result. From the Castle to Holyrood, in Edinburgh, there are only seventeen bakers, as against fifty-three public-houses; whereas, in Princes Street, there are three bakers' shops, and three public-houses. In Gallowgate, Glasgow, there are only fourteen bakers, as against eighty-four public-houses; whereas in Sanchichall Street, the relation, is reversed, there being eleven bakers' shops, as against seven public-houses. In judging what these figures reveal, it is, of course, to be borne in mind, that, besides these bakers' shops, there are others in which bread is sold along with other commodities. Without having taken a computation of these, I think there may be reckoned, as a general rule, nearly as many retailers of bread, as of actual bakers. But, even then, what a state of matters is disclosed, putting it beyond dispute that public-houses are most attractive to those whose homes are most miserable.

But, as is well known, people already miserable, will make themselves more so, in order to gratify the love of strong drink. To prevent this reckless descent to social misery, by the disposal of things necessary for home comfort, keepers of public-houses are strictly pro

hibited from receiving or taking in, as the price or for the supply of exciseable liquors, any wearing apparel, goods or chattels. The Government will not have this trade prosecuted, if the people appear with an offer of their bodily clothing, or their household furniture, in exchange for exciseable liquors. Is the community, then, saved from the danger of public-houses thriving by the impoverishment of the homes of their frequenters? Assuredly not. The pawnbroker's office opens next to the public-house, and, to make matters suit, the pawnbroker is regularly licensed for this department. He has his profit from the poor, in order to provide money, instead of apparel, for the publican; and so the poor are doubly impoverished in their homes, by the very attempt to throw a shield around their little comforts.

One consideration more. If the vice of intemperance be anywhere indulged, it will drag the other vices after it, thereby leading to deeper corruption in the nation. These views will follow it into the same places where the intemperance is indulged. The admission of this, is formally written down in every public-house certificate, in which it is required that the holder "do not permit or suffer men or women of notoriously bad fame, or girls, or boys, to assemble and meet therein." Here is the confession that persons of notoriously bad character have a liking for such places; and here is the provision for the protection of society from such pestilent gatherings. Has this provision served the end contemplated? Assuredly not. The convictions in our courts for harbouring persons of vile character, are only the gleanings of multitudes of cases in which this requirement of the licence is either knowingly or unwittingly violated. this all. For other places where persons of bad fame are congregated soon gather around notorious drinking houses; and thus does the social gangrene extend from one point outwards upon what is around.

Nor is

It may afford some conception of the extent to which the influence of these public-houses is spread, if I mention that in Glasgow there are this year 1,603 public-houses; and, be it remembered, no accurate conception of their relation to the community can be gained by calculating the proportion which these bear to the population of the city, for, as I have shown, they are studded thickly together in the poorest districts. The rental of these houses in Glasgow, in 1858, the latest summation which I have obtained, was £66,205 sterling, when the number of such houses was 1,622.

We have reason to admit with satisfaction that the number of public-houses is being greatly diminished in many places, under the force of public opinion. At the same time, however, there is a counterbalancing consideration, making it doubtful if we can count any thing in the numerical diminution. I mean the fact that licences are now being granted to houses immensely larger than any which we had formerly seen. I can mention houses in Glasgow paying an annual rental in one case, of £285; in another, of £300; in another, £350; and in one case, even as high as £400.