|
CHAPTER I
THE GOTHENBURG SYSTEM: EARLY DAYS
MANY different accounts of the Gothenburg system have been
published from time to time but, in my humble opinion, they
have at least one fault in common—they do not begin
at the beginning. They tell of the deplorable results that
followed the brandy epidemic in Sweden— results quite
as grave as those of the corresponding ' gin epidemic '
in England in the early part of the eighteenth century—but
extremely few writers trouble to inquire as to the circumstances
that really led up to the conditions which, in due course,
gave the raison d'etre for the system in question. An initial
investigation into these particular circumstances has impressed
me all the more because of the further analogy I find in
the two epidemics ; for, just as the gin epidemic in England
was largely due to ill-advised legislation, so was the brandy
epidemic in Sweden primarily due to the misguided action
of one of Sweden's rulers, and to the laws that followed
thereon. Not only is the story important and of special
significance from this point of view, but the reader will
find, I think, that it is also interesting in itself, and
deserving of some degree of attention.
At the outset of their history the Swedes were beer-drinkers,
like their forefathers, and, though they drank freely, there
is no evidence that the beer they consumed did them any
great harm as a people. In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth centuries the drinking of branvin (a spirit distilled
from corn or potatoes, and containing from 40 to 50 per
cent, of alcohol) came into vogue, and grew to such an extent
that Gustavus Adolphus (King of Sweden from 1611 to 1632)
and Charles XII. (who reigned 1697 to 1718, and was himself
a water-drinker) both issued orders for the suppression
of distilleries. But any good they did by orders in this
direction was completely nullified by the policy of Gustavus
III., who became King in 1771, and from whose reign the
brandy epidemic in Sweden really dates.
A man of high aspirations and many good qualities, Gustavus
III. came to the throne at a time when Sweden was practically
ruled by an oligarchy of nobles, and the first task that
lay before him was to break down their power and get the
control of national affairs into his own hands. This accomplished,
he found himself free to develop various ideas he had for
the advancement of the country by (among other things) encouraging
agriculture, improving the conditions of the peasantry,
fostering commerce and mining, digging canals, and establishing
hospitals, orphanages, workhouses, and other institutions.
He
also, less happily, had the idea of making the Court of
Sweden a rival of the Court of Versailles in splendour and
magnificence ; but the heavy expenditure into which he was
led by this aspiration, following, as it did, the generous
outlay on his various beneficent schemes, seriously affected
the national finances, and the Swedish Parliament of those
days thereupon declined to vote him the increased supplies
of which he was in need. He thus had to consider how best
he could raise funds in other directions.
In his dilemma he turned for an object-lesson to Russia.
Down to the sixteenth century the principal drinks of the
Russian people were fermented beverages, such as mead, pivo,
braga, arid quass; but distilled liquors were introduced
about that time by the Genoese (then in possession of the
Crimea), and they were eagerly welcomed by a populace naturally
disposed by temperament, climate, and other conditions to
the use of the strongest drinks they could obtain. Vodka
(corn brandy) seemed to satisfy this craving for stimulants
more completely than the aforesaid fermented beverages,
and before long it was recognised as the national drink,
Russia thus becoming known as ' the land of vodka.'
To successive Russian rulers the opportunity thus afforded
them of making money out of the vices of their people was
too good to be lost, and they proceeded to exploit the new
passion for vodka for all they could get out of it in the
interests of their treasury. There was absolutely no pretence
in Russia, in those days, of regulating the traffic with
a view to checking insobriety. All that was aimed at was
to make the manufacture and sale of spirits ' as prolific
a source of revenue as the unlimited autocratic power of
a ruler could possibly make it'; while coupled with the
greed and power of the ruler were the greed and power both
of a swarm of officials (from vice-governors of provinces
downwards), who all wanted a few pickings for themselves
out of the money raised before it reached the Imperial treasury,
and also, later on, of numerous contractors, who farmed
out the traffic from the fiscal authorities, and made huge
profits from the business to as late a period as 1862, when
the farming system was abolished, Government monopoly following
in 1895.
How greatly the interests of the Russian peasantry suffered
under a system which thus deliberately sought to stimulate
and encourage their drinking propensity, and what a curse
excessive vodka-drinking has become in Russia, under direct
Government patronage, are matters I need not stay to discuss.
The point I am here concerned in is that when Gustavus III.
of Sweden looked round to see by what means he could best
supplement his own inadequate revenue, he was struck by
the great fiscal success of the Russian system, and resolved
that he would himself see what he could do to raise money
by means of distilled beverages.
If he had any qualms of conscience as to the prudence of
this step, they must have been soothed by the then popular
idea that, in encouraging the distillation of spirits from
native-grown produce, substantial advantages would be conferred
on agriculture. In any case, the fact remains that he started
business as a distiller by setting up Crown distilleries
in 1774, and seeking to establish the production of spirits
in Sweden as a Crown monopoly. So bent was he on achieving
this aspiration that he turned into a distillery the venerable
block of buildings constituting the Castle of Kahnar. Constructed
originally in 1200, the castle had been rebuilt, enlarged,
or restored at various periods, finally taking the form
of a quadrangular edifice, with towers, ramparts, and moats;
it had withstood eleven sieges, it had been the frequent
residence of Kings and Princes, and it was now doomed to
be converted into—a distillery! A windmill was even
erected upon the highest tower, and, later on, the largest
room in the castle, known as the ' Unions-Sal,' became the
granary, the throne which had hitherto stood there being
cleared out (so as to increase the space available for the
grain), and sold for what it would fetch. In the further
interests of the Crown monopoly, the Swedish pastors (most
of whom were already their own distillers, and from whom
many of the peasantry had learned the art) were called together,
and told they must not only instruct the people that henceforth
they were to get all their spirits from the Crown, but they
were also to impress upon them that, as a national duty,
they were to drink as much of such spirits as they could
!
The action thus taken by the King led to widespread discontent.
Popular uprisings occurred ; there was a tacit revolt against
the idea of a Crown monopoly, and illicit distilling and
smuggling spread throughout the land. The opposition became
so vigorous that the Crown monopoly had to be abandoned
thirteen years after it had been set up, and the Government
sought to appease popular clamour—and, at the same
time, to further still more ' the interests of agriculture'
—by giving to every farmer the right to distil from
his own produce for home consumption, while tavern-keepers
in the country, and brewers and all freeholders in the towns,
were empowered to distil for the market.
From this time the drinking of spirits in a most potent
form became more than ever a national habit in Sweden, permeating
all classes of society, but having consequences especially
marked and especially deplorable for the peasantry in the
country and the labouring people in the towns. The right
of practically every man to do his own distilling became
a fixed article in the national faith. At the beginning
of the nineteenth century all persons possessed of cultivated
land could distil; from them the same privilege was extended
to tenants, provided the owner of the land gave them leave,
the right to sell (in quantities of not less than 2 pints)
going with the right to distil; while in the towns not only
every householder, but even the householder's lodgers (if
he gave them permission), could distil on payment of a trifling
tax to the State.
The result of this condition of things was that in the rural
districts every peasant's cottage became, not only a distillery,
but a place for the sale and consumption of home-made spirits
of the worst possible type. A royal ordinance enacting stringent
regulations against drunkenness was issued in 1813, but
the evil was likely to remain as pronounced as ever so long
as domestic stills were regarded as the natural right of
every householder.
Some attempt at interference with them was made in 1824,
but with so little success that five years later the number
of stills on which license fees were paid (in a country
then having a population of only 2,850,000) was no fewer
than 173,124. At that time the annual consumption per head
of the population of spirits containing close on 50 per
cent, of alcohol was about 7J gallons. The farm hands were
not infrequently paid their wages in liquor, and drinking
bouts were regarded in the light of patriotic gatherings,
where every man present thought it his duty to drink as
much spirits as he could in the special interests of agriculturists
who otherwise would find it difficult to use up surplus
produce for which there was no market. ' The whole country,'
in the words of a traveller in Sweden at this period, '
was deluged in spirits.'
The consequences were indeed deplorable, and symptoms of
rapid physical, moral, and mental decadence spread with
steadily increasing gravity on every hand. But these results
were essentially due, hot to the action of a recognised
'trade' under effective magisterial and police control,
but to the existence of national habits directly traceable
to a baneful practice of household distilling originally
established with the sanction and encouragement of the Legislature
itself.
An active campaign carried on by the Swedish Temperance
Society, which came into existence in 1837, had considerable
influence in arousing public opinion; though it should be
mentioned that the members of this society pledged themselves
in regard only to ' spirituous liquors,' in which they included
neither wine nor beer. In 1852 and 1853 over 800 petitions
were presented to the King praying for an alteration in
the licensing laws. These had already undergone some important
changes in 1835, when land under a certain value was deprived
of the right of distilling, which, also, was to be carried
on for only six months in the year, while various other
modifications were made; but the general conditions still
remained such that in 1854 a Special Committee of the Diet
reported:
' The comfort of the Swedish people, even their existence
as an enlightened, industrious, loyal people, is at stake,
unless means can be found to check the evil. Seldom, if
ever, has a conviction so generally, so unequivocally, been
pronounced with regard to the necessity of vigorous measures
against the physical, economical, and moral ruin with which
the immoderate use of spirits threatens the nation. A cry
has burst forth from the hearts of the people appealing
to all who have influence—a prayer for deliverance
from a scourge which previous legislation has planted and
nourished.''
^ These concluding words I have put in italics because they
confirm so absolutely the argument I have ventured to advance.
Following on the report of the Special Committee in 1854
came the new Liquor Law of 1855, which, among other things,
greatly curtailed the right of domestic distilling (though
this was not finally suppressed until 1860), fixed the minimum
quantity to be sold at such an amount as to abolish the
smaller stills, further limited the time in which distilling
could be done, gave country districts the power of curtailing
the number of licenses, and, in the towns, made the granting
of licenses the prerogative of the municipal authorities,
who were to dispose of them by auction, and were further
empowered to confer the whole of the licenses for retail
and public-house traffic on a single company, under certain
specified conditions, if they should regard such a course
as desirable.
This idea of a ' company' had already been carried out at
Falun in 1850 and Jonkoping in 1852, but it was to remain
unknown to the world at large until its adoption, in October,
1865, by the seaport and manufacturing town of Gothenburg,
with whose name it has since been directly identified. In
effect the fundamental principle of the system is that the
licenses for the bar and retail sale of spirits in a particular
town or district should be transferred by the local authorities
to a company formed of various philanthropic persons, who
will be content with a return of 5 per cent, on their share
capital, will see that the traffic is effectively controlled,
especially from the standpoint of eliminating private interest
in the sales, and will pay over the net profits for use
for various public purposes.
From the story here told of the early days in Sweden I would
turn to narrate briefly the events that preceded the introduction
of the Gothenburg system into Norway.
Prior to her union with Sweden in 1814, Norway was under
the dominion of Denmark, and the Danish Government prohibited
her from having any distilleries of her own (though a few
did actually exist in Norway), and further sought to prevent
her from importing any spirituous liquors at all otherwise
than from Denmark. These conditions were regarded as a great
injustice by the Norwegian people, who resented such curtailment
of their own liberties as one enforced in the interests
of distilleries in Denmark and Holstein; and when Norway
ceased to represent a part of the Dano-Norwegian absolute
monarchy, and became an independent kingdom, with a free
constitution (though united with Sweden as regards her royal
house and foreign policy), it was a source of especial satisfaction
to the Norwegians to know that they would now be able to
follow the example of the Swedes in adopting the system
of domestic distilleries. Such power was given them under
the law of 1816 (which professed to have in view mainly
the interests of agriculture), every owner or occupier of
land being authorized to distil brgendevin (the Norwegian
name for the Swedish branvin) from his own agricultural
produce; while in towns any citizen might distil in stills
containing at least 43 gallons, on payment of a very modest
contribution to the State treasury.
' Everyone in those days,' as a Norwegian writer says, '
considered that brandy was a delicious gift from God, the
best medicine in all illnesses, and indispensable for workers
; while the expectations of the advantages to be derived
from the new political freedom were such that the idea of
not conceding to every peasant and every citizen the right
of distilling his own liquor was not to be entertained.'
The drinking of spirits also entered more and more into
the social life of the people, so that when the old restrictions
on distilling were abolished, and an era of practically
free trade in spirituous liquors was established, manufacture
and consumption underwent rapid expansion. Seventeen years
after the passing of the law in question the number of stills
for which payment was made to the State was 9,727—namely,
9,576 in the country districts and 151 in the towns ; while
the consumption of spirits per annum had risen from £
gallon per head of the population to 4 gallons per head.
The total amount manufactured in Norway at this time was
4,486,000 gallons a year; but there was no sale for the
liquor either abroad (owing to the enforcement of non-importation
laws by other countries) or at home (because of the poor,
if not almost poisonous, quality of the homemade stuff),
and the braendevin was generally consumed in the houses
where it was distilled. When one peasant had a supply of
liquor, he would summon his friends aivd neighbours to a
drinking bout, and each of those friends and neighbours
would do the same in succession. They indulged in the beverage
on grounds that were alike personal and patriotic. They
regarded brandy as an excellent tonic and a promoter of
warmth in a cold country, and they thought also that the
more they drank the greater would be the quantity of grain
and potatoes used, and the more prosperous would agriculture
become.
Nor were these ideas limited to the peasantry and the labourers.
They were shared by people of all classes in Norway, and
spirits came into universal use—alike at meals, social
gatherings, friendly meetings, and on all other possible
occasions. By 1836 the total consumption had doubled, and
the results that followed therefrom were regarded in the
light of a national disaster. In this same year an 'Association
against Brandy-drinking ' was founded at Stavanger by a
theological student and temperance pioneer named Andresen,
who became so active a propagandist that he broke down under
his strenuous labours, and died at the early age of forty-three.
Certain limitations on free distillery had been imposed
between 1820 and 1840; but the vigour of the campaign against
brandy-drinking was such that in 1842 the Storthing passed
a resolution declaring that at the end of ten years no further
distilling at all should be tolerated in Norway. This proposal,
however, was vetoed by the King, and the Storthing afterwards
fully recognised the impracticability of the idea. In 1845
and 1848 came laws which virtually abolished rural home-distilling,
reduced the number of small distilleries in the towns, regulated
both the wholesale and the retail trade in spirits, and
imposed a steadily increasing manufacturers' tax on distilled
liquors.
The effect of the various influences thus brought into operation
was that the number of distilleries in Norway, which (as
mentioned above) stood at 9,727 in 1833, fell to 1,387 in
1840, and to 712 in 1848, further steady reductions following,
until eventually the total number was only about two dozen
; though these are mostly important establishments,doing
an amount of business which in former days would have been
distributed over a large number of the smaller or domestic
distilleries.
With the law of May 3, 1871, came the introduction of the
Gothenburg System into Norway.*
Of the further developments in this connection I shall speak
later on; but what I have already said on the subject of
these early days will show, I think, that those undeniably
great evils from excessive indulgence in ardent spirits
which the Gothenburg system was designed to check were '
national' evils owing their origin, not to any highly organized
' trade,' actuated by a desire to enrich itself at the cost
of the people (as the teetotal party generally would represent),
but to the desire, on the one hand, of representatives of
the State to secure increased revenue, and to the unwisdom,
on the other hand, of so much of the past legislation. These
considerations are all the more deserving of being borne
in mind, inasmuch as the tendency on the part of advocates
of the Gothenburg or of the ' disinterested management'
system to-day is to rail against private trade in liquor,
and to argue that all will be well if only the said trade
is left in the hands of those rulers of the State in whose
wisdom and absolute disinterestedness, they maintain, confidence
can alone be placed.
* Owing
to various modifications, especially in regard to the allocation
of profits, the system as carried out in Norway is in some
quarters called the ' Norwegian,' as distinct from the '
Gothenburg' System ; but the one has really been a modification
of the other, just as the 'disinterested management scheme,'
proposed to be set up in England, is only a still further
adaptation of the same fundamental principle of ' control
by philanthropic companies,' on the lines, however, of paying
over all the surplus profits to the National Exchequer in
the first instance.
|
1745 
Back 