[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—I am sure that few people will agree with the advice of the Bishop of Liverpool, contained in your issue of April 27th, that there should be further drink legislation on the lines of the Bishop of Oxford's Bill. The average man-in-the-street is a consumer of alcoholic beverages, and sees no reason why they should be forbidden him anywhere in this country. The so-called options under the Oxford Bill—namely, no licences, no change and State control are not really fair, as in no case can communities obtain more licences under the Bill. It seems to me to be a heads I win, tails I can't lose kind of pro. posal. Further, the result might be chaos. Three adjacent areas might all choose differently, and the result can be readily imagined. I am sure the more prosperous area would be that which had chosen " no change." The Bishop of Liverpool welcomes trade help, but in many cases the Local Authorities are not so sensible. The Public House Improvements Bill was opposed by the organized temperance movement. The position is now somewhat of a stalemate, and the great majority of people are awaiting the improvements to licensed houses—not their extinction.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Durban House, Seafield Road, Hove, Sussex. R. G. FIFE.
Previous page
