[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOR.1
Sin,—Allow a country vicar• to thank you heartily for your leader on the above subject. The first (Scottish) part was full of quiet humour; the second (English) part was full of excellent suggestions, which I trust may before very long be incor- porated in an Act of Parliament. There is a point in the leaders of the Spectator which I keenly relish. You are always ready with an instance in the concrete. The abstract is a very fine thing so far as it goes ; but for one who can grasp the abstract a thousand are able to grasp the concrete. I will give an instance of the latter which is also a proof of the truth of your argument in favour of more stringent sentences where a drunken man is guilty of violence, &c. The Principal of the College where I was educated forty-four years ago was a J.P. and Chairman of the Petty Sessions. When a man was brought before him charged with being drunk and disorderly and committing an assault, the defendant would say :— "Please, your Reverence [my Principal was Dean of St. David's], I was drunk at the time."—" Oh, very well," the Dean would reply, " then we must give you double punish- ment. You will be punished for getting drunk, and you will be also punished for doing what you did when you were drunk." This proved a strong deterrent, and confirms your
Previous page
