Liquor and the Liberal State: Order Before Prohibition, 2022

In Liquor and the Liberal State: Drink and Order Before Prohibition, Dan Malleck uses the regulation of alcohol to show the operation of the liberal state in Ontario and, more broadly, Canada. Through a painstaking and meticulous examination of the laws regulating the consumption and distribution of alcohol from Confederation to the First World War, Malleck demonstrates how different versions of liberalism influenced the role of government. Malleck argues that the regulation of alcohol and an individual’s right to become intoxicated exposed an inherent conflict of liberal principles and the role of government. To Malleck, classic nineteenth-century liberalism was founded on an individual’s right to freedom, equality, and property and the role of government was to remove barriers to achieve that freedom (3). The central theme of Malleck’s work is whether, in a liberal state, government should support the freedom of individuals to protect and enjoy their individual and property rights, i.e. the right to carry on commerce and the right to consume whatever beverage an individual wants, or should government act to protect society and the common good against the social and economic hardship, i.e. the poverty and the disruption of families caused by excessive alcohol consumption.

Malleck divides his analysis into two chronological sections. The first section examines the regulation of liquor licencing in Ontario from Confederation to the implementation of a revised liquor licencing system in 1876. The second section of the book covers the evolution of liquor legislation in effect in Ontario from the 1870s to the prohibition legislation enacted in Ontario in 1916. The strength of the book is that “it is not a positive narrative of improvement and “evolution”, but rather it traces the different paths down which the liquor question led policymakers and shows the routes they took” (16). Through thorough analysis of the legislation and its effects on communities, Malleck shows how the alcohol questions were virtually an unsolvable problem for governments. It was an issue for which no policy decision would enjoy uniform community or political support. All levels of government were influenced by “Wets”, “Drys”, moderates, and propertied interests, on bi-partisan basis. Both the Liberals and Tories in Ontario were divided internally on the issue. In the end, as Malleck notes, it took the social disruption of the First World War to cause the Ontario government to abandon the balancing of “Wet and Dry” interests that existed over the previous forty years and adopt the completely illiberal policy of prohibition. Malleck’s work in assessing the balancing of competing definitions of liberalism shows that the eventual success of the temperance movement was not a certainty.

Malleck traces the evolution of the regulation of liquor through a thorough analysis of the relevant provincial (later Ontario) and federal legislation during the pre-Confederation period to World War One. The government of Canada West and later Ontario, owing to the social problems caused by excessive alcohol consumption, enacted legislation to curb public drunkenness. He starts with an analysis of the “Dunkin Act” (Ontario) of 1864 and the Tavern Shop and Licence Act (1868) which together set licence fees, created enforcement measures, and confirmed the authority of municipalities to issue licences. The key element of this legislation was the continuation of the “Local Option”, which was how a municipality would vote itself dry. The Dunkin Act and the Tavern and Licence Act were succeeded by the “Crooks Act”, or the Liquor Licence Act. 1876. This statute centralized the licencing of liquor sales in the provincial government. It created an unpaid licencing board and paid inspectors for each licence district. It limited the number of licences by population. It also contained the Local Option. Over the same period, 1870s - 1880s, the federal government also attempted to regulate the liquor trade through the Canada Temperance Act (the “Scott Act”) and the Dominion Liquor Act (the “McCarthy Act”). These statutes operated in parallel with the provincial legislation and were the source of federal-provincial conflict. This dispute was ultimately resolved in favour of the provinces when the McCarthy Act was declared ultra vires in 1885. The federal legislation also contemplated a local licencing board, a system of inspectors, and included the Local Option. The Ontario government passed the Liquor Licence Act of 1915, which replaced the Crooks Act. The key features of this legislation were the creation of a provincially approved licencing board, paid inspectors, and a process for granting licences. That is, the provincial government created a bureaucracy for liquor regulation. This legislation was replaced by the Temperance Act of 1916, which enacted prohibition across the province (325-326).

Through his detailed analysis Malleck identifies several conflicting groups and principles that gave rise to different versions of liberalism. These included: Wets vs. Drys, moderates vs. reformers, local control vs. centralized regulation, classic individual liberalism vs. a broader form of collectivist liberalism and federal vs. provincial for constitutional jurisdiction. Malleck examines the conflicting influence of the temperance movement (the “Drys”) and business interests (the “Wets”) on policy formulation. Successive governments, both provincial and federal, were vexed by the need to protect families and society from the social cost of drunkenness and, concurrently, support the commercial and property interests of liquor distributors and manufacturers. Under pressure from both sides, the federal and provincial governments felt compelled to regulate liquor consumption and distribution. Similarly, the Ontario government, in response to pressure from prohibitionists, commercial interests, and moderates, believed it was necessary to centralize regulation with the province (together with the related patronage opportunities) yet accommodate local interests by preserving the local option to remain dry. In the end, Malleck shows how individual liberalism, i.e. the right to choose, had to fit within a collectivist form of liberalism where the government acted to protect the common good of all individuals to pursue “true freedom” (3).

Malleck’s work contributes to an understanding of the various versions of liberalism that emerged during the pre-World War One period. It also shows how alcohol regulation as a priority of the state to deal with a severe social issue in the late nineteenth century. It is also useful to understand the evolution of federal and provincial constitutional rights. As Malleck points out in his conclusion, many of the issues about the role of government in the lives of individuals continue to be relevant today in the context of COVID and the regulation of individual choices.