The  Commissioners  cannot  be
accused  of  shirking  this  difficult
question. They  brace  up  their
minds  to  it,  and  deliver  themselves
as  follows. There  is,  say  they,  in
language  of  almost  Scriptural  sim-
plicity, first  the  traveller  who  makes


THE  BONA-FIDE  TRAVELLER      183

a  journey  either  by  railway  or  other-
wise, on  business  or  for  some  other
necessary  cause. His  case,  in  the
opinion  of  the  Commissioners,  is  a
simple  one. He  is  entitled  to  drink
by  the  way. But  next,  proceed  the
Commissioners  in  language  of  less
merit,  '  there  is  the  individual  who
leaves  his  place  of  residence  in  the
morning,  or  it  may  be  later  in  the
day,  intending  to  be  absent  for  some
hours,  inclusive  perhaps,  but  not
necessarily,  of  his  mid-day  meal,  his
object  being  primarily  change  of  air
and  scene,  exercise,  relaxation  of
some  kind,  a  visit  to  friends,  or
some  reasonable  cause  other  than
merely  to  qualify  for  entrance  into
a  licensed  house.'  This  is  the
mixed-motive  case  already  hinted
at. Then,  thirdly,  there  is  the  bold
bad  man  'who  goes  from  his  home
to  a  point  not  less  than  three  miles
distant,  either  on  foot  or  by  wheeled


184     THE  BON  A -FIDE  TRAVELLER

vehicle  by  road  or  rail,  primarily  if
not  solely  to  procure  the  drink
which  the  Act  denies  him  within
three  miles  of  where  he  lodged  the
previous  night.'  This  gentleman  is
the  genuine  bond-fide  traveller  known
to  all  policemen  and  magistrates,
and  it  is  he  who  is  threatened  with
extinction. But  how  is  he  to  be
differentiated  from  the  individual
who  leaves  his  place  of  residence  in
the  morning  and  goes  to  a  place,  not
in  search  of  drink,  but  where,  for  all
that,  drink  is  ?  For  example,  it
appears  from  this  Report  that  near
Swansea  is  a  place  of  resort  called
the  Mumbles. 