The “no treating” order is now in force in London, and, to judge from the London evening papers, the question of whether it can be evaded seems to be one of the topics of the hour. The terms of the order are pretty closely drawn, and if it is to be evaded it can only be in one way - through the provision which allows intoxicating liquor to be bought by one person for another if at the same time the purchaser is also entertaining his friend to a meal.

It is a very reasonable provision, and its intention is perfectly clear - that a man who is acting as host at a restaurant shall not be in the odd position of having to leave an important part of the lunch or dinner to be paid for by his guests.

But the problem “What is a meal?” which is being raised, and the earnest speculation which is being given to that problem, indicate very clearly that, however plain the intention of the provision may be, there is a hopeful feeling abroad that its effect may be twisted into a general relaxing of the order.

It seems very stupid and undignified, this obvious desire to see a tiny sandwich or a biscuit officially recognised as a “meal” merely in order to render half useless an order which inflicts no hardship on anyone and the introduction of which met with no protest at all of any importance. It is a desire which is not likely to be gratified; the same question, raised when the bona-fide traveller’s old right to drink during prohibited hours on Sunday was suspended, has remained answered in a way which affords small comfort to the persistent souls who raised it.

But one could wish that it had not been raised again. Whichever way one looks at it, there is an unpromising frivolity about a type of mind which accepts a principle without protest and then immediately bends its misdirected wits to considering how the application of the principle can be evaded.



The “No Treating” Order was introduced in October 1915 following a campaign against alcohol consumption spearheaded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George.