(A.) - Temperance and Abstinence. - (" Med. Times and Gazette," November 23rd, 1878.)

There is no question more interminable than that of Alcohol, its use and abuse. Again and again it has cropped out on the surface of things, and there are not wanting signs of the possibility of yet another renewal of the discussion as to the proper use of alcohol in health and disease. No one, it is said, would argue for intemperance; but the word is not absolute - its meaning is merely relative, and what would be moderation in one man, or under one set of conditions, would be intemperance in another under it may be the same conditions, certainly under different conditions. Nor should it be forgotten that abstinence is as truly intemperance as is the improper use of alcohol; for, though the word be not often used in this sense, temperance strictly means moderation. We are led to make these remarks by the appearance in the Contemporary Review of what might be called a trilogy, or series of three essays, on the alcohol question. One, from the pen of Sir James Paget, treats of the contrast of temperance with abstinence; the second, by Dr. Lauder Brunton, is on the action of alcohol; and the third, by Dr. Bernays, argues that the moderate use of alcohol is true temperance.

It will, perhaps, be well for us on the present occasion to direct our attention to the first only of these essays, knowing that it is the ripe expression of abundant experience couched in that felicitous language its distinguished author knows so well how to use. He begins by assuming that there is no need now to write such arguments against intemperance as would be required if it were defended by any reasonable sober person. But here, as already indicated, again we are met by the intangibility of the thing discussed. The temperance of one man would be intemperance in another. For some men a glass of wine would amount to intemperance, if by that we are to imply that he has taken more than is good for him; whilst, on the other hand, there is many a veteran diner-out who habitually needs to correct his self-indulgence, but who would be shocked should anyone apply to him the title of 'intemperate.' About abstinence there can, apparently, be no such doubt. But it seems to us that a man (and there are many such) who deliberately abstains from taking that which is calculated to do him good, to increase his strength and vigour, and to give him that sense of well-being which a small quantity of alcohol often bestows - a sense, moreover, which is reflected on all around him - the man who deliberately rejects such goods as the gods provide him - may be abstinent, but he is not temperate. It is quite true that we can easily understand the mental position asserted in a certain proportion of these cases; but in some it amounts to sheer obstinacy, neither more nor less - an obstinacy often developed in more than one direction. Thus we can easily understand abstinence from alcohol in any shape or form as an article of a religious creed being adhered to as rigorously as, under other conditions, certain kinds of meat are rejected. Such a position is perfectly intelligible. So, too, we recognise the ground of action in that other group who, on the broader ground of Pauline doctrine, say, 'I will not drink wine lest my brother should offend.' But when we come to deal with the large, energetic, and bigoted body who pretend to found their opposition to the use of alcohol on so-called physiological grounds, we are, as Sir James shows, and most reasonable men think, in a position to cope with them.

The plan of argument adopted in the essay now before us reminds us greatly of that of Bishop Butler in his 'Analogy of Religion,' but it seems to us that the strength of the arguments used is not so imperfectly balanced as in the case of that famous prototype. Those as well acquainted as they ought to be with Bishop Butler's great work, will remember how comparatively feeble are his direct arguments in favour of a future state; how sweeping those against an opposite belief. But in Sir James Paget's essay the arguments for moderation are at least equally strong with those against the intemperance of abstinence.

The writer begins his argument with the fundamental proposition that we have no absolute means of deciding between the relative merits of moderation and abstinence. 'We have no statistics, and are not within the reach of any.' The so-called statistics forthcoming for the determination of such a question are absolutely without value, and so we are reduced to a lower class of argument, which, though less mathematically founded, may by overwhelming mass afford a conclusion which to all intents and purposes is unassailable. Pirst the writer says, 'As for the opinions of the medical profession, they are, by a vast majority, in favour of moderation.' No one has had better opportunities of knowing this than Sir James Paget, and his opinion may be considered conclusive. True, there are exceptions to the general rule, but, if we put out of the way those who do not like alcohol, those with whom it does not agree, and that very objectionable set who take an opportunity of parading their virtues at every dinner-table, it must be accepted that the great majority of our profession are that class hateful to some fanatics, 'moderate drinkers.' Next, says Sir James Paget, we have against the moderate use of alcohol 'some deductions from physiological observations.' But he adds, some of these are really such, that if in place of alcohol we were to read common salt, they would equally apply. Undoubtedly this is the case; and common salt is as surely a poison as is alcohol, only it is not quite so often fatal. Nor need we tell our readers that tea, when used improperly, is followed by ill effects, not so serious perhaps, but quite as frequent as those of alcohol itself. Moreover, as Sir James Paget says, 'till we have experience large and clear we must not regard the facts of physiology concerning alcohol as more than reasonable suggestions, facts, or opinions, to be received with all respect, but to be practically tested before they can be regarded as practically useful, or as decisive of the question here discussed.' Again, the writer says 'the beliefs of reasonable people are doubtless by a large majority favourable to moderation rather than abstinence, and this should not be regarded as of no weight in the discussion.' From all these points the writer argues that 'we fail to get any clear evidence that there is mischief in moderation.'