[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR, — Mr. Wilson accuses me
of being naive for condemning the State Management Scheme for making profit out of the sale of intoxicants. Those, however, who continnAlly hold out the Carlisle Scheme as the ideal, do so emphasise the contention that profits are not aimed at and therefore that
sobriety is encouraged. And yet the fact remains that good profits are made and sobriety is no better than elsewhere. If intoxicants are sold at Carlisle at the same price as under private sale, the proportion on the sale of drink is the same. The houses at Carlisle are there to meet . the demand for drink and it is supplied to those that want it ; what is the difference? Why this support and praise for the State entering into competition to supply drink as a commercial entity ?
When Mr. Wilson states that the (Carlisle) manager is told to be careful not to supply intoxicants to those who have already had more than is good for them, it is pertinent to note that the private licencee requires no such telling ; he is too careful of the good name of his house and his licence knowingly to do so.
As Mr. Wilson refers to subordinating all other considerations to the sale of intoxicants, has he been into any of the numerous " improved public-houses " that are in existence all over the country ; if not, perhaps he will try one or two—he can easily be supplied with a soft drink—and then he may be prepared
to qualify that assertion.—Yours faithfully,