and it will be seen that they represent the highest knowledge on the subject, alike theoretical and practical. They constitute a jury of experts of unquestionable authority; and their verdict is delivered in a Report which was published last spring. It must be accepted by reasonable people as the decision of thoroughly competent judges, based upon a review of all the available evidence.

Lord D'Abernon contributes an interesting preface, in which he lays emphasis on the entire impartiality of the Committee's work and on its purely scientific character. It was felt, he says, by the Central Control Board, that no impartial statement of the case was likely to be made unless it was drawn up by some public body. We therefore felt it incumbent upon us to enter upon the task, however invidious it might be.' This book is the outcome; and it is surprising that it has not received more public attention. Its object is to separate what is knowledge from what is surmise, conjecture, or popular belief, and by this preliminary clarifying of the question to prepare the way for a further research.'

'It may be claimed for the book that it is impartial, not only in the sense that the authors did not knowingly or of set purpose take sides with any existing body of opinion, but also in the 'further sense, that the writers have frankly admitted doubt, when the evidence appeared insufficient to establish a definite conclusion, and have further indicated with absolute sincerity the many points, some of them of great importance, regarding which no precise and scientific knowledge is available. . . Complete sincerity is the only sure guide to the confidence of readers, and the present condition of knowledge does not justify any more positive note' (p. viii).

Control Board (Liquor Traffic); Prof. A. R. Cushny, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Pharmacology at University College, London; H. H. Dale, M.D., F.R.S., Head of the Department of Bio-chemistry and Pharmacology under the Medical Research Committee, National Health Insurance; M. Greenwood, M.R.C.S., Statistician to the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, and Reader in Medical Statistics in the University of London; W. McDougall, M.B., F.R.S., Reader in Mental Philosophy in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; F. W. Mott, M.D., F.R.S., Pathologist to the London County Asylums, and Consulting Physician to Charing Cross Hospital; Prof. C. S. Sherrington, M.D., F.R.S., Waynflete Professor of Physiology in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; W. C. Sullivan, M.D., Medical Superintendent of the Rampton State Asylum for Criminal Lunatics.

It ought to be recognised that the report of such a Committee, conceived in this spirit, and written in complete accordance with it, affords the most valuable contribution which has yet been made to the practical treatment of this momentous subject. We need no longer be distracted by the clamorous assertions of partisans, but may rest securely on the conclusions to which this really judicial Committee 'have been led provisionally.'

The first of these conclusions is perhaps the most important of all. It is that,

apart from the results of its continued excessive use, the main effects of Alcohol that have any real significance are due to its action on the nervous system. . . . The result of scientific research concerning the action of alcohol on the respiration, the circulation, the digestion, the muscular system, is to show that, so far as direct action is concerned, Alcohol, when administered in moderate doses, in dilute form, and at sufficient intervals, has no effect of any serious and practical account' (p. 125).

Now the first consequence of this scientific decision is to set aside, as irrelevant, the endless discussions which have been maintained, and are sometimes still continued, respecting the benefit or injuriousness of alcoholic drinks as an ordinary article of diet. The much-debated and ambiguous question, indeed, whether alcohol has any food value or not, is decided in its favour. It can,' says this authority, within limits, replace an equivalent amount of carbohydrate or fat in a diet, and has a similar effect on economising proteins' (p. 28). In other words, it may be used by the body as a fuel, and can to some extent replace other fuels. But, except in special circumstances such as illness, there is no advantage in this use of it. For purely fuel purposes just as much nutrition may be obtained from starch or fat as from a given dose of alcohol. Its characteristic action, its benefit or its mischief, lies in an entirely different direction-that of the nervous system.

But, before considering the precise nature of its action in this sphere, it is important to observe that its value is dependent on considerations of a vastly more subtle nature than those of ordinary nutrition.

The

nervous system is the highest part of the human organism. It is concerned with its highest functions, while it is indispensable to its lowest; and the nature of its operations is so intricate, that it is only within the last two generations that we have attained in any degree a scientific and detailed knowledge of them. But, though we are, even now, far from any such adequate knowledge, it is manifest that the habits of human beings are to an enormous degree dependent on alcohol or other drugs. There is not a civilised people in the world that is not addicted to the habitual use of some agency or other which operates mainly on the nervous system. Tobacco is perhaps the most conspicuous illustration of this fact. Its use is spread over the whole world, and has become indispensable to some nations, and to some classes of people, under certain conditions of life. It is the one indispensable luxury of the soldier and the sailor, of the labourer in the fields, and of the poor man in his old age and retirement. But it affords no nutrition whatever; and its undue use is recognised as being injurious to digestion. The one source of its fascination lies in its influence on the nervous system. Millions of people cherish it for its soothing influence in fatigue, pain and anxiety; and many attribute to it a gentle stimulation of thought when brooding over problems and perplexities. Some of these sensations may be fanciful, like some of those attributed to alcohol. But there can be no doubt that, though it contributes no nutrition to the system, it has become to a large part of the human race an indispensable luxury.

This illustration shows the injustice and folly of the crusade which is still maintained against the use of alcohol. Granted that it does not assist digestion or strengthen the muscles or improve the circulation or promote respiration, and that the ordinary requirements of physical life could all be supplied without it, the fact remains that it gives a certain satisfaction to the nervous system, and that the satisfaction of the nervous system is at least as indispensable to happiness and vigour as that of any other part of the organism. A strong movement for Prohibition prevails in the United States and Canada. But what would Americans do without their cigars and pipes? They solace their nervous system by

tobacco, and it is for precisely the same reason that other people solace it by alcohol.

The same consideration which promotes and justifies the one custom, promotes and justifies the other. The danger of abuse may be greater in the case of alcohol; that is a good reason for controlling and limiting it, but no reason at all for refusing its use to those who feel their need of it. Among the interesting points about which, in Lord D'Abernon's preface, we are told that no adequate data or scientific knowledge exist, one is whether 'alcohol is less injurious in moist climates than in dry climates.' A Bishop of the United States, whom I met in Switzerland, told me that in America he could take no alcohol, but that in his annual holiday in Europe he could not dispense with it. For all that is now known, as Lord D'Abernon confesses, the aversion from alcohol in the United States may be due, not to superior moral virtue, but to the dryness of the climate; and alcohol may be craved for in Ireland and Great Britain for precisely the same reason that the American craves for tobacco smoke. It is the agent best suited to influence his nervous system. If it be once recognised that the great mass of mankind are subject to a craving for this sort of influence on the nervous element of their organism, the greater part of the popular arguments for and against the use of alcoholic liquors may be set aside as irrelevant. Large numbers of people can dispense with alcohol; large numbers of people can also dispense with tobacco. But one or the other, or something like them, almost all people will insist on having; and the only practical problem is to consider in what manner and degree, and under what conditions, they can best use it.

Now for this purpose the scientific decisions arrived at in this volume are of the highest value.

A further conclusion of capital importance,' says the Report, 'which emerges with equal clearness, is that the action of alcohol on the nervous system is essentially sedative, and— with the possible exception of its direct influence on the respiratory centre-it is not truly stimulant' (p. 125).

This conclusion needs some illustration, but will be found to afford a decisive guide to the proper and beneficial employment of alcohol. The authors say (p. 125) that

'the popular belief in the stimulating properties of alcohol as regards nervous and other functions seems to be of purely subjective origin and illusory.' It would perhaps be more exact to say that the popular view as to the nature of the stimulation is illusory. When a dose of alcohol, in spirits, wine or beer, is followed by an apparent excitement of some functions of the mind or body, the popular conclusion is that those functions have been directly stimulated by the administration. But what has really happened is that the controlling influence exerted by the higher centres of the nervous system has been in some degree suspended, and that the subordinate functions have thus been allowed freer action. If wine loosens a man's tongue, it is not because the tongue is stimulated, but because the check which was exerted over it by the higher internal faculties is partially removed. The symptoms of gradually increasing intoxication, vividly described in the Report, are those of the gradual relaxation of controlling functions, beginning with the highest of all-that of selfcriticism and self-judgment-through the stage of weakened control of the emotions, down to that in which even the functions of the senses themselves are impaired, and the drinker sinks into a heavy sleep. But, at each downward stage, some function of the brain or body which has been partly released from control becomes abnormally active, and exhibits an illusory stimulation.

The most curious and surprising illustration of this process is, perhaps, the apparent stimulation of the heart and the pulse by the administration of spirits. The evidence of careful experiments appears to prove that alcohol has no direct effect in quickening the circulation. A similar increase in the pulse-rate is observed, at least for a time, when alcohol of sufficient concentration is simply taken into the mouth without being swallowed; and a part of the effect when it is swallowed is thus probably due simply to the irritating influence of alcohol on the mucous membranes. But the effect seems mainly due to its narcotic action. Though the heart-beat is automatic, it is under the constant controlling influence of the nervous system; and under normal conditions 'the heart is held in check by the impulses from an "inhibitory" centre, so that the rate is less than that at