would ultimately overflow. For protection against the anarchic bands of Bedouins, Dr. Haupt suggests that old soldiers shall form a proportion of the settlers and thus constitute a defensive militia. Dr. Haupt's scheme-which has the advantage of being formulated by a non-Jewish theorist avoids the initial political and religious difficulties of the Holy Land, besides offering a far richer agricultural and industrial field, and engineered by practical financiers might well move quicker than Herzl's.

To sum up, if a Jewish State, even a State in Palestine, is impracticable, it is less because of the external difficulties than because of the internal unwillingness of the Jews. Without an inner enthusiasm for immigration no number of millions of pounds could avail. This enthusiasm, now confined to a minority, may spread as the prospects improve. But even a Jewish State would not remove all the Judenschmerz. Only a quack could offer one simple remedy for so complex a disease. Of the three possibilities, National Regeneration, Spiritual Regeneration, and Disappearance, I am inclined to accept all, to offer a threefold solution of the long historic tragedy. Those who believe Israel's isolation a harmful superstition should absorb themselves in the environment. Those who believe Israel has yet a mission, that is better served by diffusion than by concentration in a petty State, should make of themselves centres of righteousness everywhere, and assert, not withhold, their ideals in civic and national life. For the orthodox and persecuted masses in semi-barbarous countries a State would be a boon. But these possibilities are all ideals, and none is easily translatable into actuality, a State least of all. It is even possible that when the moment came, realising the immeasurable value of his Jewish subjects, " Pharaoh would not let the people go.'

Hence the last word of all seems to approach the fourth possibility that there is no remedy. Even this would not be a word of unique despair: as much might be said of the countless other tragic problems that beset the thinker-for the Judenschmerz is only a fraction of the world's suffering. But the chances are that, even if Dr. Herzl's scheme break down, and Dr. Haupt's scheme never develop, the Jew in semi-barbarous countries will, with the gradual advance of civilisation, be relieved of his unjust burdens, and that when emancipated politically, he will either disappear or undergo a religious regeneration.

I. ZANGWILL.

PRACTICAL TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.

.

IT

T is now almost universally admitted that the gravest problem with which the people of this country are confronted is that tangled mass of pathological, sociological, political, and economic problems called the Temperance Question. There is little difficulty in obtaining verbal acquiescence in the oft-quoted dictum of Richard Cobden that "the temperance reformation lies at the basis of all social reforms," yet amongst the wealthy classes, prominent politicians, authors, and journalists, there is still an incredible amount of ignorance on this subject. It is said, with humorous exaggeration, that except perhaps the House of Lords, the place in all England which is the least enlightened on the temperance problem is the House of Commons; and I am afraid it is undeniable that what our legislators have done or have left undone has not been, in respect of liquor legislation, of great advantage to the nation. The temperance party have been accused, with some measure of truth I fear, of not having striven in the past to attain to the greatest possible unity of action; but an awakening everywhere seems to be imminent, and the opportunity for acquiring a mass of reliable information is now given in the records of the evidence of the recent Royal Commission, for the whole question has been brought prominently before the public as perhaps never before. We are, therefore, hoping for better things in the immediate future, and there is solid foundation for hope. The issue of the Reports of the Royal Commission on Licensing, the character of Lord Peel's report, the abandonment by the liquor party as represented on the Commission of opposition to Sunday closing in Wales, the acknowledgment by everybody that there is need for a great reduction in the number of public-houses warrant our belief that there is a turn in the tide of thought.

Again, the remarkable result of the plébiscite on the Local Option question, lately taken in Mr. John Morley's constituency, which recalls to mind a series of plébiscites on the same subject taken throughout the greater part of Scotland ten years ago, and but little noticed at the time, the vast amount of interest excited by Messrs. Rowntree & Sherwell's book (which a short time ago would have attracted but little notice), tend to show that there is a preparedness in the public mind for a great advance in the field of temperance legislation. At this moment, therefore, a vast responsibility rests upon the representatives of temperance reform to work unitedly in order to obtain some distinct and valuable advance. It is certain that an overwhelming majority of the temperance party in all its branches will generally support the recommendations of Lord Peel; but I think it essentially necessary that the party should go farther, and join upon some such measure as that outlined by Mr. T. P. Whittaker, M.P. In the very able memorandum which he has appended to the Reports of the Royal Commission, Mr. Whittaker's scheme is practically identical in all matters of principle with that suggested by Messrs. Rowntree & Sherwell, and the greater number of the provisions and principles of both have the implied sanction and support of Lord Peel's report.

Mr. Whittaker's recommendations in broad outline are:

"1. Consolidate and reduce the number of classes of retail licences. "2. Reduce the number of licences and abolish beerhouse and grocers' licences.

"3. Allow a term of grace before bringing ultimate provisions into operation. During that time carry out the reduction in the number of licences, and arrange compensation to be paid by those who remain to those who drop out.

"4. Últimate provisions, to come in force at the end of the years of

grace:

"(1) Much higher licence fees.

"(2) Power to further reduce the number of licences, close on Sundays, and close altogether by direct popular vote, or

"(3) Adopt management by the Local Authority.

66

(4) Provide substitutes for and counter-attractions to the publichouse.

I am desirous of urging specially two points, both of which are, I venture to think, essential to any extensively useful scheme of liquor law reform. I do so because they are not points on which the various sections of the temperance party are united, but points on which, it seems to me, if good is to be accomplished, they must be harmonious. I would therefore briefly state some reasons for the adoption of (first) the direct popular veto, and (secondly) the management by the Local Authority of such portion of the trade as is not suppressed by local veto.

THE DIRECT POPULAR VETO.

I cannot pretend that I find much comfort in the recommendation or suggestion of the section of the Commission who signed Lord Peel's report, that "at the end of the given period, a wise measure of direct popular control might be applied, under proper safeguards, to Scotland and Wales." There should, I venture to think, have been a clear and strong recommendation of the full direct popular veto for Scotland and Wales. For at least twelve years it has been clear that a large majority of the responsible, law-abiding citizens of these countries are strongly in favour of such a measure. The plébiscites taken in Scotland in fifty towns and villages on the question, "Are you in favour of the people around you having the power to suppress the liquor traffic by their votes if they wish to do so?" was answered in the affirmative by 71,408 householders, while 5527 answered No. That is, thirteen to one voted in favour of relegating the question to the ratepayers. Again, in thirteen communities, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, in answer to the question, "Are you in favour of the people having the entire control of the liquor traffic by their votes?" 114,741 answered Yes, and 15,240 answered No.

That these were discriminating plébiscites is manifest from the fact that when the following question was put in eleven communities (including Edinburgh and Glasgow), "Are you in favour of the prohibition of all licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors?' 81,610 answered Yes, while 31,530 answered No, showing how large a proportion voted for giving the power to the people in comparison with those that voted for the entire prohibition of the liquor traffic.

It is difficult to see any logical reason why the principle granted in the recommendations for Scotland and Wales should be withheld from England, more especially as the power could only come into operation when two-thirds of those who vote cast their ballot against the issue of licences in their own locality. It is held, however, that the people of England do not desire this power.

If such be the case, it may be well to concentrate energy on sections of the United Kingdom where the people unquestionably desire it very strongly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Charles Cameron, M.P., Mr. Caine, Mr. Herbert Roberts, M.P., and Mr. Whittaker, M.P. (five members of the Commission who have given long study to the question), have recorded the following opinion:

"1. That the people in every part of the United Kingdom should have power, by a substantial majority vote, taken on the widest franchise in force, to prevent any premises being licensed to sell intoxicating liquors in their respective localities. The grounds on which, in our judgment, such a power of direct popular control and

self-protection should be conferred are set forth in Mr. Whittaker's memorandum.

2. That public opinion in England is prepared for and would sustain a measure for closing licensed premises entirely on Sundays.

But just at present it is an article of faith among all sorts of "superior persons" that prohibitory liquor laws have up to date been always and everywhere a failure, and that nobody but a faddist would propose that the power of prohibition should be given to localities in any part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, a large section of the temperance party confidently hold and teach that such laws have had great and blessed success wherever they have been fairly tried; but these people are said to be enthusiasts, and their evidence invalidated by prejudice and partisanship. It seems to me, however, that those dírectly connected with the enormous money interest involved in the liquor traffic, and to whom suppression would mean absolute ruin, are more likely to circulate exaggerated tales calculated to disparage prohibition than the temperance people who support it purely from philanthropic motives. So hot, however, has been the contention that many people do not know what to believe. Fortunately we are now possessed of evidence on the subject, which is quite untainted either by partisanship or self-interest, and which is conclusive as far as it goes, and it goes a long way. The official statistics of the consumption of alcoholic liquors at various periods in certain British colonies and foreign countries, including all those in which prohibition and local option have for a considerable length of time existed, have been republished in a return issued in this country in the present year by the Board of Trade. These statistics enable us to judge as to the broad effects of prohibitory and local option laws in reducing the consumption of alcohol over wide areas and in varying social conditions.

The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, in a speech which he made at Glasgow on the eve of the election in 1895, attributed to Lord Rosebery that he "did not anticipate, as the certain result of Sir William Harcourt's Local Control Bill, that if passed into law the number of licences would be diminished, still less that it would be possible to assume that the amount of alcohol consumed would be lessened." This is a recognition by Mr. Balfour of the fact that the lessening of the consumption of alcohol is a decisive test of the value of a liquor law, having temperance reform as its object.

Mr. Faithful Begg, in his speech in the House of Commons on May 3 of the present year, against the Scottish Veto Bill, advanced as the crowning proof that such legislation was useless in the United States, where prohibitory laws had been in operation for half a century, the assertion that there "the consumption of alcohol had not decreased." The statement is, of course, inaccurate, but my reason for adducing it